You've made a lot of interesting points, but I disagree with you, let me try to explain why. I'm generally of the understanding that consciousness is marked by

You've made a lot of interesting points, but I disagree with you, let me try to explain why. I'm generally of the understanding that consciousness is marked by being with reflexivity. That can definitely be applied to non-biological, not classically living entities. That being said, I deeply disagree with your idea that "any dichotomous distinction between conscious and non-conscious [...] systems on Earth falls apart upon closer inspection". I don't think there's any compelling way to argue this in a way which is coherent, and does not involve breaking down the meanings of words to the point where they become meaningless. This is mostly why I disagree with the author. I find that on close inspection, their argument becomes nonsense in a lot of places. The way the definitions are strained render a lot of them meaningless, and as a result we can't reason with them anymore. That being said, a lot of these words are then used to infer other conclusions. Your argument, to me, really implies that intelligence necessitates reflexive being, or another interpretation: is synonymous with consciousness. "The sheet could be assigned a kind of consciousness as it seems to be self-modifying" is one example where I see this inference. Simply because something is self modifying does not mean that it is conscious, this to me comes off as a false equivalency. Further, saying that "there is certainly something “like being” slime mold" does not mean that that being also has reflexivity. I see the points you're making, and you've got a lot of interesting ideas for sure. That being said, I think you've fallen into a similar trap as the author in drawing a false equivalency in a few places.