From my proposition as a possible answer to that question, the final line reads:
“Because I objectively know that I subjectively know something objective, I am sure it is true that I am.”
Recall Descartes' "evil demon" argument, or "brain in a vat" query or the "dream within a dream" argument - all of which question the reliability of what we sense and thus know, and further try to complicate the question but proposing an imaginary "malicious deceiver" who deliberately alters your perception to make it deceiving - does this "proof" cut through the problem?
It seems to me that the statement would be true in any state - be in actual consciousness, or in a dream, or in any altered state. It seems to me that if the reliability of our senses was in question, it would prevent us from reaching the conclusion accurately. However, once reached, it seems to me it would stand true in any state, thus invalidating the significance of "where our consciousness lives".
Let me know what you think.