It might be wrong, but that’s a different question.
Our level of understanding of neuroscience basically stops at understanding what regions and receptors in the brain are tickled by what sensations, and we still have very few actual ideas as to things like how your brain computes 2 + 2, let alone how your brain computes things like right and wrong.
Our level of understanding of neuroscience is irrelevant, but also far more detailed than you just described. The brains chemistry for example is a huge area of study with a lot of useful information. We also know many functional details such as how vision works down to enough detail for people to have come up with new classes of optical illusions. etc etc
But again neuroscience is overkill, science made the blood flow consciousness connection hundreds of years ago.
It is very legitimate to say that the latter definition doesn't exist, but that is as much a belief as the idea that it does. I personally don't believe that it exists, but I think it's hubris or folly to say that science shows that it definitely doesn't.
You will for example lose memories under specific conditions. Exclude everything that is disrupted by such trauma and what’s left is the empty set.
I think you're taking an extreme view for the sake of argument, but there is still quite a bit unknown about how we actually process information. There is a clear biological component to all of it, but the biological processes fall well short of a complete explanation of things like creative processes and the sense of self (let alone logical thought), and you seem well-versed enough in the literature to know that.
That’s not how science operates, it accepts best fits for existing data even in the absence of absolute knowledge.
We didn’t need the DNA of every creature to have ever lived to construct the tree of life. It’s a model initially created from examining the structure of organisms both living and dead, which has been refined over time as we slightly alter things based on new evidence such as DNA.
As a consequence things aren’t static, astronomers etc constantly refine existing models to fit new data. Thus the conclusion about what happens after death is subject to change in response to new data, but what we have today is still the current explanation based on existing evidence.
What makes science useful isn’t exact answers it’s being generally close enough to correct as to be useful. Is Quantum mechanics a full explanation for every physical phenomenon? No, but it’s really difficult to notice the edge cases in your daily life.
By the way, I agree with you that it's not the state of science today, but I can imagine a world where we actually can do that if we get to the point where there is nothing unobservable about the mind.
That doesn't make it scientific to categorically deny the existence of things that we don't know about the existence of.
Personally, I have yet to see any evidence that supports your claim that the second type of consciousness actually exists in any way, other than as a concept in purely theoretical philosophical discussions. I am not making the claim that it doesn’t exist; just that right now I don’t believe _your_ claim that it does. I don’t need to provide any evidence to have this position, as I am not the one making the claim.
My default position on any claim, including this one, is one of non-belief, as it is nonsensical in my opinion to hold a belief in some claim until and unless that belief is supported by evidence.
So, I can rightfully say that I don’t believe the latter type of consciousness exists, and I don’t think this position is hubris or folly; rather, it’s the only rational position to take given the evidence presented (at this point, essentially none). I’d genuinely love to see some evidence compelling enough to be convinced otherwise, though.