As one who has used the Brain/TV analogy let me come to its defense, sort of. You are correct, the analogy fails for many reasons. However it does demonstrate the possibility that the brain could function in conjunction with another force (? a signal isn't per se a force but I can't think of a better word at the moment.)
In any event I think the TV demonstrates the possibility that our mind, like the TV, could be more than the physical components we can examine under a microscope.
That being said there is zero evidence that there is anything besides the protein and chemical based computer residing in our cranium. There is not even a hypotheses as to what that something else could be or how it would function or interact with the brain.
The status so far is just conjecture. Lacking a testable hypothesis it is currently a dead end.
One last thought (hope springs eternal...) about the television analogy. In dissecting a television, we can find the components which pick up the signal. We may not understand them at first, but through careful experimentation, we can understand their function even if we do not understand their structure, and of course in the real world we understand their structure too. We see, both functionally and structurally, devices which are sensitive to a particular band of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum.
What we do not see in this dissection is, say, a means for television sets to pick up x-rays, or gamma radiation, or ultraviolet or even most visible light (if it has a remote, it may pick up infrared, though). We see, both functionally (when we aim x-rays at it, it does not act differently) and structurally (we know what each component does, and there is none left to serve as x-ray sensor), that it does not pick up x-rays, gamma rays, yadda yadda yadda. Indeed, there are no unknown left-over parts to pick up unknown left-over signals of any sort.
Same with our brains. We understand them both functionally and structurally, at least to the extent that we can be certain that there is no physical component sensitive to signals of any sort other than the senses we already know. We know how vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, balance, kinesthetic senses send signals to the brain; we know where they are processed, we know what energies are transduced, we know characteristics both of the energies and of the signals produced (either of which, alone, would be enough to either structurally or functionally demonstrate the action of this sort of signal).
There has been no demonstration of any reaction to an unknown signal. There has been no demonstration of any unknown sensory pathway.
There would be fame and fortune for any researcher who discovers either of these; within sensation/perception research, even minor discoveries make major names, tenure, grants, endowements....
We have looked for such things for over a century. They aren't there.
The television set analogy is very apt. It quite clearly shows that there is no "consciousness signal" being picked up by the brain. We know exactly how to demonstrate it if it were there, and we have every motivation to do so. The only thing missing is one shred of evidence that the consciousness signal exists at all.
