Consciousness is a word used to describe the dynamic collection of cognitive processes that people possess.

There doesn't seem to be any kind of "consciousness particle" (i.e. physical spirit) so science has had a hard time pinning this down to a certain "thing". A hard problem to be sure.

Science does indeed know "what consciousness is". Perhaps you've been listening to silly old non-scientist David Chalmers, who believes in magic? His entire schtick is ignoring the fact that consciousness can be (and has been) fully explained from a neurological standpoint. You don't need spooky magic for consciousness. In fact, your initial response to me applies far more to Chalmers's unscientific ramblings than to the observable, empirically-verified description of the mechanism of consciousness that has been established over decades of scientific research.

Just wanted to add that this is an absurd discussion to even have in the science subreddit, because David Chalmers is not a scientist, and has no understanding of the workings of the brain (or else he would realize that conscious experience is fully explained via physical means that can be understood and observed). Chalmers's "hard problem" only presents difficulty to people without knowledge of neurology and cognition...because people with knowledge in those fields can and have elucidated the nature and origin of conscious experience via purely physical means.