Depends entirely on what you mean by "prove". If you mean "explain or understand how physical processes give rise to conscious experience" or "from third-person observation, know with any kind of certainty whether a given system is conscious" - you run into what philosophers call the "explanatory gap" and/or the "hard problem". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Things that may be asserted regarding “consciousness”:

Consciousness “decides” through constructive and destructive interference (not linear logic).

I assert vehemently that consciousness is the “inflection upon the substrate of existence.” Which means that it is the material universe which is the substantive capacity of consciousness, and living systems are animating this through biotechnology. Therefore all life is “consciousness” yet scale in complexity allows a “holographic” rendering of details (aside from composite wave fronts) the more neurons bound, the greater their shared resolution at a single point of “awareness.”

The tricky part is that consciousness simulates and virtualizes, thus any variation of expectation and anticipation may be found.

Consciousness “smooths” resolve, it does not immediately provide reliable results. It is our trial and error, and manageable error rate over time which allows us to survive at all.

By this line of consideration, a stupid quantum computer is closer to consciousness than a smart learning algorithm (intelligence == mitigates uncertainty; if it does not mitigate uncertainty, it is not intelligence).

Consciousness is not intelligence, consciousness co-opts intelligence as a tool for perpetuation.

Playful intelligence applies uncertainty overmatch to defeat the opponent as a chess master does to beginners played in parallel.

Maximum entropy, maximum resolve.

That is also a brief description of warfare. That and perhaps “maximum attrition”.