Irrelevant. Why did you even bring it up?
I am as open to your idea as I am to any other.
Your idea involves the capacity to deceive oneself into believing they have a grasp of the variables involved in what they propose to explain. You propose that you know all the variables involved (you don't, no one does), you propsoe that you understand how they relate to one another (you don't, no one does), and on top of everything you want others to consider your conclusion seriously based on your personal authority as a "smart guy". (due to an inability to render it in plain language).
Have you sent a formal version of your thesis to a Nobel Prize committee? You should, they accept submissions from teenagers, so no worries.
What prize would I get? Peace, Physics? Its really neither, well, if it was one, its physics, but, it requires you to understand the basis of it.
I don't propose to understand every variable about the brain, however, I know that every variable we will find is limited to movement. Of all the variables we'll discover in the brain, the only thing we're going to find is movement- unless computer science shows that A.I. code starts doing things that are completely random and unexpected, when the code is fully understood- in which case my hypothesis would be supported, but that's something I almost expect not to happen.
However, don't begin to think that I am denying evolutionary consciousness. That is the awareness that science is discovering- my hypothesis wouldn't in fact be possible, or logical without it. Without the evolutionary consciousness being the result of movement, my theory would fall apart. But, if the evolutionary awareness was not, for some reason, part of only movement, then what I am trying to prove would be proven--however, I doubt that scenario as well.
To complete the final section of the overall explaination, the reason I don't believe awareness is physical, is because the universe is one big 10 dimensional shape, and energy is functionally a bunch of infinitesmals moving in unicen existing in point A, then existing in point B. The universe is made up entirely of energy. That also happens to be a past hypothesis of mine that it turns out I was right about. Its now usually accepted that matter is just a compression of energy.
So, if the universe is a bunch of empty space and infintesmals moving in unicen, and the awareness is physical- then the awareness is a bunch of infintesmals moving in unicen. That means the only thing that can decide this argument is answering both of these questions no- "Is awareness an illusion?" and "Is awareness another physical phenomenon- separate from energy, forces and empty space?"
The first question is complicated- immune to logical thought. The answer to the first one for me is- "I am here, so it can't be a total illusion." The second- its just an interpretation of what it could be if its not energy, force or empty space.
I don't know if I wish to even try to prove it anymore.
I also have a philosophical belief that science, religion and philosophy are all equally, but differently important to the truth. "A somewhat unfamiliar concept to the average mind."