The question of consciousness itself is unfalsifiable and as such cannot be fully explained via science. It's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness. As Mr Chopra explains, you cannot go outside of consciousness, to observe consciousness. You can't tell that something else is conscious. For example you can see neurons firing in someone's brain, and you can say "that's consciousness" but you don't know for absolute certain unless you are inside that person's consciousness itself. It's a qualia. As such questions of consciousness cannot be fully answered via the scientific method. And that is why Descartes was actually correct. Everything you think you know, could be wrong. You could be delusional. You could be in a dream. You could be in a simulation. You don't know that what your mind is telling you about the world is correct with 100% certainty. The one thing you CAN be certain of is that you exist and that YOU are conscious. That is what Descartes meant by cogito ergo sum.

The same question is about "how did existence begin". We can't look beyond the Big Bang. We can't use science to go beyond existence and look at it from the outside. Does that mean such questions aren't worth considering because they're "unfalsifiable"?

Science is a very valuable discipline but for questions of qualia and questions of "first causes" it can't answer everything.