No, I'm saying that things without consciousness don't have consciousness.
My chair doesn't have consciousness.
A dead body doesn't have consciousness - that's the difference between it and a living body.
That there is something called prakṛti which is insentient matter is simple and obvious to understand. When your entire philosophy is predicated on an untenable assumption (viz, that something that is obviously non-conscious is in fact, conscious), you really need to re-examine your underlying assumptions more carefully.

Why do some people think that Brahman has no form and no attributes
As someone who has a science degree and studies Vedānta, I find this claim very peculiar.
For something to be "true," it must be based on principles of science, which means using the scientific method to make a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis by gathering data.
In Vedānta terms, the scientific method is nothing more than the formal application of pratyakṣa and anumān - sense perception and logical deduction.

Formless Brahman runs into a major problem - you cannot know Brahman through pratyakṣa and anumān. Brahm…

By the statement Brahman is everything, you have to say a dead body, a living person and Ishvara (God) all are Brahman
How is it possible? Though Brahman is everything, it has to project through a medium (upadhi)
Take the case of TV airwaves. They are there. Now take three cases: a broken TV, a TV that can receive only Doordarshan, a good TV. These are respectively non-living being, a living being and God.
TV airwaves are everywhere but the broken TV does not have the chit to receive these airwaves. So there is only existence