>Idk how to reply like that.

While creating a reply comment, select the appropriate text in the comment you're replying to. Use the pop-up menu to choose "Quote". Or, just type a 'greater than sign' (>) and then type or paste the text you want to reply to.

>And nonetheless our consciousness is just a physical part of the brain.

I'll presume you meant 'emergent property' rather than "part", and ignore the attendant question of whether an intellectual abstraction qualifies as "physical". The issue then is whether consciousness is an integral aspect of the [human] brain or is an epiphenomena (an inconsequential side effect). Survival is not the foundation of philosophy, it is merely a prerequisite for philosophizing. The substance and topic of philosophy are all those aspect of existence beyond mere "survival".

>I’m trying to get to absolute root of why?

In POR this (both the question and the answer) is identified and described as the ineffability of being. The conundrum you face is familiar to every four year old and their parents: questions of "why" can only be answered by statements that might satisfy either party, but never actually resolve the issue (teleology) because that answer in turn can simply prompt another query as to 'why?'.The approach conventional science and religion uses is referred to in POR as "turtles all the way down".

>I suppose the necessity of my thoughts and conclusions hasn’t bin a concern of mine.

It really should be. And I think it actually is, or you would not be here trying to discuss philosophy. The necessity of your consciousness is the absolute root of "why".

>The cat is still dead even if we do not know it is dead.

You are simultaneously misrepresenting the truth of the gedanken and misunderstanding the philosophical implications of that truth. The cat is not dead until the superstate of being both alive and dead collapses to a finite state of either living or dead. Your assumption (which seems reasonable in reality but is physically incorrect in terms of quantum mechanics and Schrödinger's Cat,) that it is dead even if we do not know it yet, is inaccurate. Schrödinger's cat isn't dead until you open the box to find out whether it is alive or not.

>The presumption of our awareness having any affect on the universe is backed by the same reason as magic

Up until you start talking about that damned cat, meaning you are referring to quantum physics rather than biological organisms, sure. But metaphysical uncertainty is real even outside of the spooky weirdness of QM. It's just easier to be in denial about that until the empirical experiments and math of physics makes it undeniable, forcing you to confront it's reality. You say your awareness cannot have any effect on the universe, but that assumption is backed by the same reason as a baby who thinks that things stop existing when they can no longer be seen.

The resolution to all this requires an unconventional perspective, which POR provides. The effect of your consciousness only needs to have a minuscule impact on the universe in one very particular and specific case in order to have an effect on the universe. It does not have to be a general effect or affect, as in "magic", to be real. That one real and necessary absolute root of being, where your consciousness can change what happens in the physical universe, is self-determination. Since the conventional approach you are relying on for your thinking can only explain self-determination as "free will" or an illusion, your approach fails, because it is neither.

Thanks again for your time. Hope, it helps.