My view about consciousness and it's relationship to form and other aggregates is that of Buddha. It requires quite some time of contemplation to really understand. The volume of the Pali Canon witch contains the fundamental doctrine is SN and it has about 1500pag about the problem. No sutta there is useless, all unnecessary repetitions have been removed by B.Bhodi who just puts dots instead of them. Every sutta that is there helps the person see the problem a little better, from another angle. The order in witch SN volume is exposed is also very important, been the only one of the 4 volume exposed in an order, that's why it's called "connected discourses". In that volume is "the dhamma that dispels all doubts."
Consciousness is the most difficult to understand of them all. Here are some good links with suttas about it from all 4 volumes posted by ToVicent recently: https://justpaste.it/v08vhttps://justpaste.it/urmwhttps://justpaste.it/p6gg
But one can not understand them without first reading SN, they are just extracts to re-read afterwards. I would say the most difficult thing to understand is this sutta, spoken to the fisherman son who believed there is a consciousness that transmigrates from body to body:
When consciousness arises in dependence on eye & forms, it is classified simply as eye-consciousness.
When consciousness arises in dependence on ear & sounds, it is classified simply as ear-consciousness.
When consciousness arises in dependence on nose & smells, it is classified simply as nose-consciousness.
When consciousness arises in dependence on tongue & tastes, it is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.
When consciousness arises in dependence on body & tactile sensations, it is classified simply as body-consciousness.
When consciousness arises in dependence on intellect & ideas, it is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
Other than that, a good starting point is to contemplate consciousness in a void. Try imagining that. Well, first thing you notice is that consciousness has to be conscious of something. And that something is form, etc. all this diversity that exists. By contemplating this, one also will understand why there is this separation between the being (internal) and the external world. By going in this direction, by looking from this angle one should continue to contemplate. But to really understand the problem and "dispel all doubts" one should simply read SN and contemplate it. Nobody from this forum can explain something in a post better than the Buddha could do in 1500 pag.
Even if I would not have heard Buddha explanation, It's not like there are too many other options. Only other explanations that we have at this time are the same materialism and idealism (christianity, islam etc,) that exist since the time of the Buddha. Materialism claims to know nothing about consciousness so it is not even an option. Idealism on the other hand is like "the theory of the turtle", not been too concerned with logic at all. So there are not too many options to chose from. Even for this very fact of not existing other options, one should check what Buddha had to say.
This leads us to the OP question. What one should do is read SN, hear what Buddha had to say and see if it withstands the test of logic or not. See if it's correct or not. Even if Buddha was wrong, at least the person will dispel all doubts regarding Buddhism. Either way, the person dispels all doubts. Otherwise there will always be doubts regarding what happens after death, weather Buddha really was enlightened or not, weather materialism or idealism might be right, etc.
There are also people in this world (especially in the west) who believe in the doctrine of eternal skepticism. Even if something is proven to them through logic, they will still not believe because that is the view in witch they are. This is why Buddha said the doctrine of eternal skepticism is one of the worst wrong views because the person, not even believing in logic, has no chance to ever make up his mind. If not based on logic and reason, then based on what could one possibly make up his mind ?