There are a couple of misunderstandings in this post. I'll try to just address those one at a time.
1) Logic doesn't require a consciousness to exist -- the laws of logic do, however. Humans do invent the words, the symbols, the syntax, the utterances, and so on in order to describe logic via laws. However, humans don't invent the things to which the laws of logic refer (which can be called "logic," or "logical facts," or "logical objects," whatever).
As a crude analogy, Earth exists regardless of whether there are any minds to look at it or not. Minds make up the word "Earth," they make up the practice of differentiating it from the rest of the universe as a distinct thing that has a name, and so on; but minds aren't responsible for it being there and minds aren't responsible for it being what it is.
That second part (things being what they are, regardless of minds) is logic (the thing). We invent laws and words and terms and symbols to describe logic, but "the laws of logic" aren't what logic is, they're referencing logic, which humans didn't create -- they discovered.
Consciousness is necessary to make laws about logic, but consciousness doesn't create or cause logic -- in fact, that would be self-contradictory; since logic is about things being self-consistent, about things being what they are and not what they are not. Saying consciousness creates logic is putting the cart before the horse, since in order for consciousness to be consciousness (rather than a horse or a transcendental number or whatever) logic would already have to be the case. So, no, consciousness isn't required for logic to exist -- though the mistake is understandable since consciousness is necessary for laws about logic to exist.
2) You ask, "what is the logic of countless stars, infinite snowflake variety, etc.?"
This is a nonsense question. Logic is simply to have limitation, to have self-consistency and external consistency: to be is to be something, to be something is to be that thing and not something else.
I think the word you're looking for with this second part is "reason" or something. Are you trying to ask "what is the reason for the countless stars," or "what is the reason for snowflakes having variety?" The word "logic" doesn't apply in the context you used it there at all.
As a fun side note for Star Trek fans, Spock always used the word "logical" incorrectly as well. What he meant to say 99% of the time was "reasonable." The terms mean entirely different things.
) is indicative that our consciousness changes, so it must be subject to time. And that all of this points to the brain as the seat of consciousness certainly suggests a connection to space.
