You say that consciousness is "the one thing that cannot be an illusion," but what is your basis for actually claiming this? The argument people usually use for this is Descartes' claim of cogito ergo sum, or "I think therefore I am." The basis for his claim is that experience cannot be an illusion, because even though I can doubt the contents of my experience, the act of doubting is itself an experience, so to say, "I am not experiencing," you are implicitly refuting yourself because you are experiencing your doubt. What I imagine is the Illusionist response to this, or at least what my response would be, is this: how is it that you know you are doubting? For phenomenal consciousness to not be an illusion, or be "indubitable" within Descartes' argument, two things must be true. I must be actively doubting my own experience, and I must be able to accurately introspect about what is happening in my experience. In Descartes' argument, he is assuming our ability to accurately introspect about what is happening in our experience. Illusionism claims there is really no grounds for this assumption, since we know introspection can be flawed, causing the argument to crumble. Hope that helps.

Возможность наблюдения внешнего и внутреннего и принятия решений на их основе и есть работа сознания

Построение со всех сторон, и внешнее, и внутреннее должным образом обустраивается осознанно сознательно, как в физическом, также и в метафизическом явлениях

Это бред, хотя бы потому, что ставит человеческое сознание в некий абстрактный абсолют оторванный от физиологии. А на самом деле это просто эволюционная коллекция всяческих моделей поведения примата для его выживания. Да, сложных моделей. Но, не сильно превосходящих сознание скажем вОрона или шимпанзе.