> Is "consciousness" in the sense of the article just a synonym for "anything the brain processes"?
And is able to describe that thing, even if just to itself.
Have you ever experienced in a dream, being able to do some wondrous thing - write music, feel a wall from a distance, whatever. In the dream you feel that ability. But when you wake up, while you remember dreaming about it, you can not actually make yourself re-experience it. (For example: Describe the song you wrote.)
That's what the author claims is the difference between conscious and not conscious. (If I understood him correctly.)
If you have conscious thought, you can cause your mind to experience any sensation you have already had. A non-conscious being can not do that, they can only experience what they experience right this moment.
In your dream example, I remember the music. But in the article's example, I don't even remember my breath. Since I don't remember it, I cannot recall it. So while that's a nice distinction, it doesn't seem to be what the article was trying to get at.
And is able to describe that thing, even if just to itself.
Have you ever experienced in a dream, being able to do some wondrous thing - write music, feel a wall from a distance, whatever. In the dream you feel that ability. But when you wake up, while you remember dreaming about it, you can not actually make yourself re-experience it. (For example: Describe the song you wrote.)
That's what the author claims is the difference between conscious and not conscious. (If I understood him correctly.)
If you have conscious thought, you can cause your mind to experience any sensation you have already had. A non-conscious being can not do that, they can only experience what they experience right this moment.