If you had this same stupid debate with 100 other people that, you think, can't be rational about this subject, it's a pity you haven't yet realized that your answer is OFF THE MARK.

We ALL know that when you see red, what you only really "see" is neurons firing. Ultimately, of course, it's a model reconstruction. Call it illusion if you are happy with that, but that's NOT THE POINT AT ALL.

The point is that a conscious process is certainly explainable from the outside, but the subjective experience that you and me are having is not. You seems happy to call it an illusion (created by firing neurons) and have the feeling the mystery is gone. Very well, but for me and for the other 100 many people your are talking with, it is not. Save yourself some effort next time by pointing directly on this:

https://www.cinemah.com/altri/war/carpent.htm

I'm pretty sure than in a relatively short time frame, the technology will reach the capacity to functionally explain what a conscious process like our brain is. Maybe we will even be able to reproduce it artificially. At this point, you will "easily" be able to explain why such creation is functionally conscious. And of course this artificially and functional conscious thing will internally build some kind of illusion representing the external world. But good luck to prove that, beyond its functional consciousness, it will experience a true subjective point of view. You take it for granted because you think that "functional consciousness" and "subjective consciousness" is the same thing. My point of view is that taking something for granted without the slightest clue is everything but consistent with the scientific rigor that you invoke at the end of you speech.