if you asked this question about an inanimate object the answer is much more obvious - if i ‘teleport’ a bicycle by grinding it into atomic dust, then use a computer scanner/matter replicator to create an exact copy of the bike i destroyed with a store of different atomic dust on the other side of the galaxy, is it the same bike? obviously not, even if it is functionally identical. the human desire to deny their own existence is so powerful that when it comes to the concept of consciousness we get confused on this point.

physicalist eliminativist accounts of consciousness essentially deny that it exists at all, reducing Qualia somehow to information processing despite no explanation for the experiential component of consciousness - why do we ‘feel’ our information processing when a calculator does not? what algorithm produces internal awareness in the sense of experiential existence? if we assume that consciousness is just another kind of information processing, what kind is it? how do we avoid slipping into pure animism, if any physical system can have ‘consciousness’ because it is simply a kind of information processing, how do we know that self-regulating, complex physical systems like stars, planets, galaxies, subatomic particles are not conscious in some way?

eliminativists argue that those that do not believe we already fully understand consciousness are unscientific or non-empirical, however in fact, Integrated Information Theory has already been used to develop successful clinical techniques to determine the level of consciousness in unresponsive patients, using the existence of Qualia as one of its fundamental assumptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory