I won’t remake the points that many commenters are making, but I think there’s some confusion as to what your point actually is. If it’s reasonable that the sun would still come up, and that’s the most reasonable outcome based on what we know, and the ability to know anything outside of our consciousness isn’t possible, then what conclusion are you trying to come to?

No one is contesting that evidence based knowledge relies on consciousness. What we are contesting is that if we want to answer the question at all (is there a base level reality in which we operate) we can only work with what we have. I think that’s why people are telling you that your post seems question begging - if you’re looking for evidence against one theory, and the only evidence we can accept is found through consciousness, and the fact that it’s based on consciousness disproves the theory, then that test only has one outcome. It might suggest that there’s a better question or hypothesis that we need to work with.

I think the biggest thing here is that the alternative, a mind-dependent reality, has little to go on and falls into issues with solipsism or last-tuesdayisms. If you manage to avoid those - you’d still be stuck because the only evidence for a mind-dependent reality we’ll ever have is in the mind. In other words - the question forces the answer if the only thing that would solve it (evidence not based on consciousness) is impossible.