Evidence: Rocks are not conscious. Or as you phrase it, 'non-conscious'.
No, rocks are many smaller reacting/acting beings (electrons, etc.) behaving in specific ways. Now, when a photon hits a rock, the rock reacts. When another particle hits the rock, the rock reacts. It reacts to the atmosphere, etc. In fact, although I've said otherwise, maybe a rock has its own identity, I do not know that they do not.
This is special pleading.
You claim that rocks are not beings that can be attributed consciousness or non-consciousness because they are made up of many subatomic particles. If that is your position, then it follows that humans are also not beings that can be attributed consciousness or non-consciousness.
In other words, if rocks cannot be non-conscious, then humans cannot be conscious.
And if humans cannot be conscious according to your definition, then your use of the term consciousness is invalid. You either need to stipulate a new definition for the exclusive use within this context, or you need to use a term that actually means what you want consciousness to mean.
I tend to think that larger unitary consciousnesses require some form of communication between the parts, like a human CNS-
The only observable evidence that there is communication between the parts of the CNS is in the form of communication to and from neurons, and that doesn't require consciousness at the level of individual neurons, or below. This neural network is also observably absent from rocks.
So what you 'tend to think' is a groundless conclusion, a presupposition, a belief formed by motivated reasoning.
this is why I think that consciousness is at the smallest level (particles), our level (unitary arrangements), and spacetime (largest continuous being). However, a rock may have various bonds between all the consciousnesses within itself, and the totality of consciousnesses may be aware of themselves as part of a singular entity via some sort of transmission of awareness.
This is a different reason than you have provided previously. Previously you presented an 'everything reacts, therefore everything is conscious' reason for believing that consciousness exists at the subatomic level.
I want to be clear- I've said numerous times: rules followed by a consciousness are not a consciousness themselves, although there could very well be a singular conscious being (or type of being) that follows rules perfectly. The axioms of arithmetic are not consciousness- they are behaviors of consciousnesses. I've already said that the axioms of arithmetic, and behaviors followed by conscious entities are not conscious themselves. My gait (stride) is not conscious.
You have not presented an argument here.
So what? You have failed to explain why reactions are indicative of consciousness, other than baldly assert that reaction entail consciousness (a fallacy that I have already pointed out).
I have pointed out that there is no indication that anything reacts without consciousness (rules don't react- they are reacted to by consciousness that creates and follows them). The claim of non-conscious reactions is the one that needs support. Reactions being different or on different scales, are not an indication of non-consciousness, although the proponents of non-consciousness claim they are without any evidence.
Now you have introduced a new claim, that conscious subatomic particles created the natural laws. Yet another bald assertion.
Surely you aren't making the following argument:
Humans created mathematical rules and agree to follow them, therefore
Subatomic particles created natural laws and agree to follow them,
Because that would be yet another fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Your consciousness is the fundamental substance interacting with itself inside and presumably outside of you. You have no justification to believe that other reactions, which you do not directly witness, are non-conscious. There are presumable actions within groups that members of the groups are not conscious of (you are not consciously aware of the majority of the interactions within your body- you can simply know that they occur).
Just a restatement of claims that have already been refuted.
Your lack of conscious awareness indicates that you are not consciously aware of what is occurring- it is not an indication that others are unaware.
Every human has experienced lack of consciousness first-hand, as well
You're experiencing it right now: lack of consciousness of the consciousness of energy. You are probably not conscious of the majority of interactions in the universe.
You have asserted repeatedly that there is no reason to believe that there is anything non-conscious in existence. We have presented rocks, dead humans, and unconscious living humans as examples. But whenever you are presented with an example that invalidates your claim, you engage in one logical fallacy or another, or simply ignore the evidence in favour of non-responses like the one immediately above.