For many people, the existence of consciousness is undeniably obvious. But it is quite difficult to understand what it is or why it arises. Today, although there are many attempts to understand consciousness and many theories about it, it is not possible to talk to a consensus on the issue. However, according to some philosophers, the difficulties faced by efforts to explain consciousness stem from the fact that there is nothing to explain. In other words, there is no consciousness to explain, and therefore trying to explain it is like trying to show something that is not there. This is the reason for all the difficulties encountered. In this study, I will examine the main claims and arguments of this view, which were defended by important figures, especially in the second half of the last century. I will then argue that it is reasonable to argue that these claims fall short of demonstrating the absence of consciousness and that they still impose their existence on us. Because our folk psychology (our everyday concepts and psychological explanations etc.), which is based on the thesis of the existence of consciousness, is still a necessary part of our lives, and it is still not clear what kind of concepts or ways of speaking will be replaced when consciousness is eliminated. The claim that consciousness is an illusion still does not seem credible, at least based on the available data and arguments.
