You're repeating the same argument: you claim that humans don't understand how consciousness works, and then conclude that a Creator exists (either God, or whoever made the simulation).

This is still not a valid argument! No useful consequences can be logically inferred from humanity's inability to figure out how something works. For example, for thousands of years we had no idea how the sun rose, but there was no logical conclusion that could be inferred from that, and eventually we did explain it.

I might add that there are plenty of theories for how consciousness arose, as detailed, for example, in Dennett's Consciousness Explained, and later, his From Bacteria to Bach and Back.

You simply don't accept such theories. And you have every right not to, but you really can't make this jump, "There is no theory of how consciousness works that I accept, therefore a creator exists."

The worst of the argument is this: you have a small mystery, consciousness, so in order to explain it, you postulate a far, far larger mystery: the existence of a Creator.

Occam's Razor is never conclusive, but it strongly suggests you should not create a big mystery to explain a small one.

I've read several of your articles now, and they all have the same problem: you start with your desired answer, and then you construct arguments to support it, based every time on either some mystical idea lacking experimental verifiability, or the lack of what you find a satisfying theory for creation or consciousness.

But science does not start with answers: it starts with questions.