Below's the dictionary meaning of the term "psychological consciousness" -
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-spell. Words depend-on reality - not reality on your tinkering-around with words. "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.