That sounds like a rather anthropocentric application of anthropomorphism.

(I'd have gone further but I ran out of applicable anthro- terms)

It does feel a lot like the definition of "life" though. That's also a slippery moving-goalposts kind of thing.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

LLMs should make us take seriously that the whole idea of consciousness is just superstition and unnecessary.

That definition is precisely how people define something that isn't real and doesn't exist.

If you can get there, it is quite amusing to think about a huge group of people who would think the idea of angels as complete foolish superstition but consciousness? Of course, we just haven't located this extra property of the brain, yet! It is there though, I know it is because I know is.

There's something that goes on inside the heads of organisms sufficiently like us. We give that something the name consciousness. It doesn't make much sense to deny that it is there. Denying consciousness because it doesn't fit well into our ontology derived from science is to elevate science to unreasonable heights. Science is great, but it's subject matter is inferred (the external world). It doesn't have the power to undermine non-inferred knowledge.

There is a bit more to it than that, although still nothing close to a rigorous definition. Consciousness encompasses things like an ability to model the world and the causes acting in it, an awareness of oneself as an entity in that world, a theory of mind about other people, the ability to contemplate counterfactuals, and having general-purpose language skills.

It is sometimes suggested that we cannot study it without a definition, but definitions are written (and rewritten) as we acquire knowledge. It is plausible that studying the above will lead to explanations.