The Argument From Consciousness

[Angrboda]

A more fatal flaw, to my mind, is that while it may be true that our form of consciousness, and the way it is realized, may necessarily entail that it exists in time, this doesn't mean that any form that consciousness might take must necessarily occur in time. It would be similar to noting that all life on our planet is carbon based, and concluding that life can't exist in a world without carbon. The generalization doesn't hold unless you can in some sense show that it is reasonable to conclude that a consciousness dependent on time is the only form that consciousness can take; failing that, I don't see how it can avoid being nothing more than an argument from ignorance ("I can't imagine how consciousness could exist without time, therefore consciousness must require time.")

I suppose ultimately the main problem here is pinning down exactly what consciousness is such that you can make the argument directly, rather than indirectly as you seem to be doing. However, once you do that, it may no longer be necessary to even make the argument, it might be self-evident.

(ETA: Another way of looking at the difficulty is to reframe your argument to something along the lines of, for all X such that X is conscious, Y [requires temporality]. I haven't the first clue how to rigorously bound the set of all X that are consciousness in order to demonstrate this, and the fact that there are numerous existents on the planet [in the animal kingdom] for which I can't conclusively say whether or not they belong to the set of all X or not [are conscious] suggests that my definition of what counts as a member of that set is not well enough defined for me to be making arguments about what does and does not belong in that set.)