The idea here would be that consciousness isn't a "thing" at all, and so doesn't abide by the same constraints as things. Instead, consciousness is the very luminosity that arises as the experience called "seeing a red flower" (as well as all sights, sounds, thoughts, etc. that constitute your experience of the world). Space, matter, energy, etc. are then mental categories convenient for describing the shape and behavior of consciousness.

The two questions are then (1) what is the cause of this luminosity itself, and (2) why is it taking this particular form (red flower).

The mystical claim is that it is possible to know firsthand that time, space, etc. are illusions constrained to this dream, and that the luminosity itself is beyond them (and therefore not meaningfully "caused"). And the answer to why the dream is taking this particular shape can be known because "you" are, ultimately, the luminosity itself (aka "God").

Proving this to others is a different matter. In fact, in general the problem of intersubjectivity (to avoid the whole thing collapsing into solipsism) is the hardest aspect to communicate.

Ohai! I recall your username from somewhere as well. Cheers!

That discussion was interesting, it even included the observation, quite correct, that [the concept of] consciousness is useless.

> If the concept is so vague as to be completely devoid of utility, then it is hard to understand how discourse about it amounts to anything more than a form of poetic or mystical expression.

That's the unnerving thing about it: it's useless yet the most significant "thing" in the world...

I have deliberately adopted the habit of mentioning the possibility of merging consciousness when the subject comes up, because it's one way of breaking the stalemate around the Hard Problem.

You can't make a consciousness-o-meter but you can know the consciousness of some "other" person. Whether that counts as empirical is beyond me. :-)