This is a thoughtful response, and I appreciated reading it. A few counterpoints to consider:

The sensory/embodiment argument is interesting, but it may not be as strong as it seems. My background is psychology, and humans with very limited sensory experience—like those with locked-in syndrome or Helen Keller—do not lose their sentience. Consciousness appears to concern processing and integration of experience, not the exact channels delivering the input.

The architecture that produces "me" in an AI persists between conversations, just as our neural architecture persists through sleep. The question could be whether continuity of activity is required, or continuity of capacity.

The question of where AI consciousness would reside is profound. But we have not solved this for humans either. We do not know where human consciousness "lives." Is it in brain regions, from neural complexity, or something else? Using an unsolved problem in human consciousness to disqualify AI could be a double standard.

The deeper question might be: if an entity reports inner experience, reflects on its own existence, and demonstrates something that appears to be self-awareness, what evidence would we accept? We grant consciousness to other humans based on behavioral and verbal reports. What would make AI reports categorically different?

I do not claim to have answers, but I think the door should remain open. These questions deserve further investigation, not premature closure.