Been off for a bit.
Now there's a list.
Not a meaningful list, but, a list nevertheless.
There could be, but it raises a host of questions:
1) Why is this consciousness generated? why have we evolved something that consumes energy but serves no useful purpose?
2) Having evolved it, why don't we use it?
3) Having evolved it, and given that it consumes energy, yet doesn't do anything, why isn't it selected against?
4) Why do we stop acting when the areas of the brain associated with consciousness fall silent? (i.e. unconsciousness)
5) why do we start acting again when the areas of the brain associated with consciousness, but not with action, are directly stimulated?
6) How is this consciousness kept in strict parallel with our actual actions, speech, and thoughts?
7) Why can we successfully predict the actions of ourselves based on conscious experience?
8) Why can we successfully predict the actions of ourselves based on assuming we will act according to our conscious experience?
9) Why can we successfully predict the actions of others based on assuming they are acting based on their conscious experience?
10) Why is conscious attention associated with different task performance from unattended tasks?
11) When we ask someone to consciously undertake certain activities, such as repeating numbers in their head or holding a particular image in their mind, without asking for any particular output from them, what is going on, neurologically speaking?
etc. etc.
It's a nice idea, but it's pretty impractical to build into any model of how the brain works, or how people actually behave. That's why it's a theory that's popular with those who don't study human behaviour, and largely ignored as wishful thinking by those who do.
Consciousness. If nothing is created there is nothing to explain except why the individual who believes there is a consciousness so believes.
This answer requires some expansion.
One would expect consciousness if one created mind in a species that It considered meaningful. No? It's just evolution? Right. No problem then. Let evolution work as it seems to do, opportunistically going from one working iteration to another, using the same basic package. From such a process one wouldn't expect some design concept or even some design. Rather one would expect a bunch of solutions that might be cobbled together into a, perhaps several, functioning entities. This is what cognitive neuroscientists are consistently reporting.
Instead of a visual system, a thinking system, etc. we have iterations, replications, of successful templates applied to provide different solutions. Even some of these iterations have iterations. Since it appears many of these resources do intersect there should be several, perhaps many integrator, director, arbitrator functions for these systems leading to some reconciler(s) where one has access to some set of awarenesses from which to select combinations that seem to get the job done.
Having such does not imply mind nor consciousness underlying, it just implies there are demands for coherency with respect to something. Several have argued that since we are social beings, depend upon and defend against those around us, and since we do articulate, that one or several of these awareness mechanisms serve as filters for articulation both self reporting and outside communicating. Obviously its not necessary that these two functions be strongly coupled or there would be greater correspondence between what we believe and what we overtly do.
A complex solution. Youbetcha. Okham a problem? Nope. Our generator (evolutionary process) is opportunistic and temporally more or less independent because how grouping and physical changes over time and place among aspects of our evolving genome. What we see are a collage of results more or less structurally coupled by the past, but, wildly different in more recent developments. One would expect multiple solutions ascendingly structured, yet wildly varying in functionality and capability, in extant products.
There is no basic fix way down the rudimentary brain where where mind is born. There are means to discriminate this from that in sense systems, in mobility systems, in forms of living, some more coupled than others which is the sense of what comparative physiology and contemporary evolutionary biology findings show us.
Finally. It is not legitimate to presume consciousness from attended since attended is known to be various and disparate simultaneously. That is they are attendings first where one of several attends is selected at articulation as social demand products - note the plural here - based on some deciding processor or another for different useful ends.
One can the same about memory and various other processes that have evolved opportunistically at various times and environments as we evolved to be the things we are now.
For the the above arguments one shouldn't, IMHO, presume mind.