Existence directly preceeded any known conception of it. Did any known conception of it directly preceede any known occurance of it? No.
I think however, the question has to be in terms of knowing about it. Unfortunately, "existing" as you clearly stated, doesn't require the precedent of being conceptualized... but to discuss it, one has to conceive of it. Then, while you may attempt to speak of the object you conceive to exist, you can really only speak of its conception. No?
Yes, and anyone who doesn't understand that is just not advanced enough!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wilde says that even things that are true can be proved. Although even I am not sure what he meant by that.
Can you dissect "running" from an athlete's body? No, you can merely identify a pattern of activity within a person that we have labelled as "running". Same with consciousness. Not quite, afterall the heart exists but that doesn't mean blood is flowing. Proof is in observation... if a certain pattern of activity exists then that generally suffices. Can we say that one person's experience of consciousness is the same as another person's? No. But then I'm fairly sure no two people in the world run in precisely the same way (different gait, balance, stride-length, rhythm etc)
Could be differences in the operation of consciousness, but the main is not that but that we all have uniquely different experiences witnessed in consciousness.
If we consider consciousness a digital quality - i.e. you either have consciousness or you don't - then I'd not disagree.
We have it when we're awake and not under anesthesia; otherwise it's a goner. Here's my best definition of consciousness: "That annoying time between naps."