As andrewfinr mentioned, it seems like you might be working with a different definition of "consciousness" than most people are using, hence why their responses appear to be nonsense.

Certainly when I talked about consciousness and the brain, I was going by the most basic, simple definition: awareness. Are you awake and perceiving the world? Then you're conscious. Are you asleep or knocked out? Then you're unconscious.

Now, self-awareness (the ability to reason about one's own consciousness) is one meta step beyond being conscious. Animals have awareness, experience the world through their senses, and so on. But to date, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that animals can reason about their own experience of the world. Learn from it, yes: many animals are capable of remembering past experiences and learning from them (if I push this lever I receive food, and so on). But reasoning about it, thinking about the process of thinking and so on? So far it appears that that ability is unique to human beings. (And contra the paper's authors, I don't believe that the LLMs are doing that. The reasons why would be complex and this comment is long enough already, so I'll defer the long explanation unless anyone actually cares to hear it).

EDIT to add this P.S.: I realized on re-reading my first comment that I wasn't entirely consistent in how I used the term "consciousness". Specifically, when I said that we're not entirely sure how the brain produces consciousness, I was thinking more of self-awareness than of awareness. Sure, we also don't fully understand the mechanics of how the brain takes nerve signals from our retinas and turns that into "sight", but we understand quite a bit of the process. But how the brain produces the sense of self, the sense that "I" exist as a separate being from "you" and all that goes along with that? That's still a deep mystery, and we have (if anything) only the most surface-level understanding of that process. In the rest of my comment I was using the most simple definition of consciousness, as I mentioned... but in that one sentence I slipped into the more meta definition.

Which goes to illustrate how hard these things can be to talk about: any time there's more than one definition for a single word, confusion can arise. I was trying to stick to one definition and I failed; imagine how confusing it can be to have a group discussion where multiple people are mentally thinking of different definitions of the word? There's a good reason why most philosophy texts I read (I took a philosophy minor in college, though I haven't kept up on it) spend the first few chapters carefully defining their terms, only launching into their actual argument once the terms have been defined.