You can claim non-cognizance on just about anything. The ability to reflect on first order sensory inputs has clear evolutionary advantages. Either that is part of what you're calling consciousness, or it is not. If you fall into the latter camp then you're just debating semantics of an english word.
The ability to reflect on inputs (or even on internal processes) doesn’t necessarily imply a subjective experience—which is what most people mean by consciousness even if they’re unclear about it. Taken generously, it would be appropriate to replace “consciousness” in the GP’s argument with “the subjective experience”. In so doing I think I’d be hard-pressed to argue with his claims.
I'm talking about the hard problem, which is nothing to do with whether a system can analyse/reflect on inputs. Non concious computers can do this. The truth may be that analog computation in physical systems like the brain results in conciousoness. I.e you get conciousoness but it doesn't do anything, it's the result of something. The other option is that it enables functions that are not possible without it. We just don't have answers to these questions.
