It's fairly easy to "understand it" if we don't try to explain it away. Look, no matter what you hold as true, you reach a point where you have to pick your ont

It's fairly easy to "understand it" if we don't try to explain it away. Look, no matter what you hold as true, you reach a point where you have to pick your ontological primitive. An as such, you can't "explain it away". It will be your given of nature, in function of which you'll explain everything else. Failing to do so will put you in an infinite regress of finding lower-level explanation forever, which in turn would explain precisely nothing. Even hardcore materialists do this epistemic step: the quantum foam is the given of existence, made out of nothing else other than itself, and whose excitations give rise to the fundamental particles. So, given that we are already committed to such epistemic step, what would be the problem of choosing another ontological primitive and see how we fare? What is the logical argument by which consciousness ought not to be chosen as an ontological primitive?