Point to yourself and bellow this sentence: "I am Julius Ceasar, and since Ceasar is dead, I do not exist!". A self-referential contradiction is produced. You exist despite trying to POOF yourself away by shifting a reference from the proper name of a dead, Roman to the first-person pronoun via a cheap word-stunt. Words depend on reality - not reality on your tinkering-around with word-meanings. "primitive low level intentionality" ain't the advanced cognitive trait of psychological consciousness, and thermostats - in no way, shape or form - contain representational states, no matter how these phrase-meanings are wrenched-about.
A few centuries ago, Bishop Berkeley belched-forth with quite a howler - to wit: "houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects" exist - because they are perceived by sentient creatures. His words are: "esse est percipi" - "to be is to be perceived". Or, E=P. From what I've witnessed, this caustically foul cult has plunged itself collectively, step-by-step, into a muck far deeper than a cockamamie Berkeleyan idealism.
I pronounce it: "esse est terminare" - "to be is to be defined". Or, E=D. All conditions in reality depend on how the cultists (re)define words. Above - by Khuno's redefining "psychological consciousness" (an advanced form of self-consciousness) into non-consciousness and "representational states" into what they are not, as if by magic - ipso facto/presto chango - thermostats(!) become "psychologically conscious" and "have representational states".
However, we can test the esse est terminare thesis that conditions in reality depend on the definitions of words. If the cultists were thrown into a sealed pit and all of the oxygen was sucked out of it, no amount of their defining that: "The lack of an oxygen supply means the sufficiency of an oxygen supply." would save them from suffocating to death. The cultists ability to redefine words depends on the conditions in the world - not the conditions in the world on their redefinitions.
Below, David Stove's criticism of Berkeley's E=P, i.e. his GEM was a logical refutation of Berkeley's botched ontology.
"It is impossible to think a thought without the thought being thought of -> It is impossible for a thing to exist without the thing being thought of."
Mutatis mutandis, we might apply Stove's criticism to the cult's E=D (their GEM).
It is impossible for a word to have meaning without the word being defined -> It is impossible for a thing to exist without the thing being defined (or re-defined).
This cult's E=D is futher off-the-rails than Berkeley's E=P, and there's no viagra around potent enough to treat this hyper-flaccid form of E.D.