Verified using empirical methods which rely ENTIRELY on perception and feeling - two aspects of CONSCIOUSNESS. Verification is DELUSION.
Quantum mechanics illustrates this well in double slit experiments where single electrons are fired and produce waves when not “verified” and particles when “verified”.
A beautiful cloud??? Don’t cry. Look in the SKY!!!
Not if consciousness is just the empty space in between the neurons.
Have no way to demonstrate it or prove it. You’ll just have to believe me.
Neither makes waves in the real world. Both can be represented by a complex valued “wave” function in a vector space (not real space).
Pretty sure I said objective not scientific. However any evidence would be a start.
So what, do you imagine personal opinions are ringfenced from critical scrutiny, especially when they involve claims that are roundly contradicted by objective or scientific evidence.
Then you’re not after debate clearly, so why post it in a debate forum predominantly for atheists, when you must have known they’ll question your “opinions”?
Personal experience on its own is worthless as it is unsubstantiated anecdote. Not sure what you mean by outweighs here, but either this is a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy, or it’s nonsense. If you were seriously ill with blinding headaches, are you seriously claiming you’d base your treatment purely on unevidenced subjective opinion, rather than objectively evidenced medical science? I am extremely dubious.
Don’t even know what you’re claiming. This is vague and nonsensical. How is scientific knowledge less authentic than personal experience exactly? We already know our senses are easily fooled, that’s why we created the methods of science, to eliminate subjective superstition for example.
You’ve lost me sorry…
Indeed, and how often is it wrong? Now how do the methods of science compare to that? Come on now, you must know this line of reasoning is absurdly wrong.
Indeed, and that should give one pause about claims based on subjective personal experience, and question how and what validates them beyond subjective bias.
It’s called reduction ad absurdum, and is of course fallacious.
Experiencing it and understanding it are not the same. Maybe you need more coffee…
Nope, that is absurdly wrong, you don’t seem to understand how the methods of science work at all if you believe that. Here’s a clue, do established scientific facts vary widely among scientists? Perceptions and feelings may well be a part of the process, even an essential one, imagination for example is essential to the process, but alone it is useless for critically or objectively verifying data. so the exact opposite of what you claimed in fact, the word entirely in your sentence is just plain wrong.
A Brain State. Measured by mechanical stimulation of sensory cells in the penis glans send messages to the oratory processing centre of the limbic system. (Anything else you bring to the table is honig to be fantasy — Your interpretation. Truth in observation is that which comports with reality and can be independently verified. "MILK’ does not come out of a penis no matter how many furry animals you attack with it.
Consciousness is the same thing as Milk coming out of a penis? Have you lost your frigging mind?
You couldn’t smell coffee if it was glued to your forehead.
You’ve got a reply for everything, don’t you?
If you had anything other than vitriol for me, you’d admit to yourself and everyone else that your awareness is (like mine as well) a unified, light, non-material type of experience. You’d be forced to consider the implications of a non-material being coming into existence on the basis of a material brain. This would at least open the question to discussion. But if you’re more interested in burning me on the spit, I’m more than happy to ignore your intellectual aggression. 
I’m certainly no expert on the scientific method, nor do I wish to be. But if I do know one thing it is that nothing is “established” and nothing is “fact” in science.
The common textbook might present it as such, but we all know from eighth grade secondary school that scientists make hypothesis which are either supported or not. An “established scientific fact” can become a thrown out hypothesis with one follow up study proving it to the contrary. That’s the purpose of such hypothesis being falsifiable.
An orgasm is milk coming out of a dingus. Consciousness is me driving a car.
The orgasm supports the ejaculation. We seek the orgasm. We don’t necessarily give a shit about the spuzum.
Well, hold on. I do recall my teenage years when I became an eligible father over night. I was happy for the change. Hmm 
ANYWAY! Consciousness, in the same way Orgasm supports ejaculation, supports motor functions - like eating, fucking, shitting, hunting, walking - and any other basic human activity you can name - including thinking and typing on a computer.
We’re two percent DNA away from being chimps. Ie. we’re not all that special on the chain of evolution. And by that I mean, for every neutron in your brain, and every patch, and every group, and every fold of brain you have - there was once a time when that developed to serve a characteristic motor function native to the human being as we know it today. Other areas ceased to have meaning - becoming artifacts, appendages, a nuisance.
But consciousness is the orgasm that is the equivalent of motor function. Your brain is a simple machine that allows you to motor.
Consciousness is the navigator. It can’t be defined by the brain or the functions it accomplishes any more than an orgasm is defined by the tip of the penis, the ballsack, and the milk that comes out during the happy ending.
OH FUCK! I would face palm myslef but there is no room for my nose to come out my ass. I have a rolling pin in the way.
The result of a measurement is a fact.
I fully agree, the results of science can change, and have changed. But what drives those changes?
Evidence.
And this is the major flaw in your thesis you DO NOT HAVE ANY evidence to support your claim.
Could you make that a room full kitties instead?
Only if they were pug loving kitties.
Please talk about something you know something about. This is like shooting new born kittens in a plastic kiddy pool.
I named the kids that I dropped off at the pool after Hitler. That’s what I think of OP’s entire argument.
You care so deeply that you named your personal excrement after the worst human being of the 20th century (debatably). That’s amazing. Can you tell me their names? Did you take photos? My personal in box is always open 