Today I've got a nice gift in one of the replies that may clarify why I'm criticizing neuroscience. It is talking about the findings I was referring to.
So, if you classify consciousness as an activity (and in that case it is an activity of brain which I call awareness), that problem was already solved, observed, and understood. Yet, it still says nothing about how or even what actually is that which knows. Thus in your case that Chalmers' expression translates to "the hard problem of awareness".
That awareness in your framework is indeed the "fundamental is-ness" and is the same as "existence" aspect of Brahman. Still, the “preexistent awareness-existence” is also the source of our sense of self. That sense does not come from what you call consciousness. This can be observed while emerging from deep sleep -- there is no movement but the continuity of existence ("is-ness") as well as knowledge is uninterrupted. Thus, it can be known that this continuous "preexistent awareness-existence" (or Brahman, God, etc.) is, in its "original state", completely still and unmoving. The movements are what is perceived and they exist simultaneously with(in) that "default" stillness (well, they are in essence one and the same).
