Again, with the misuse of language in order to create the illusion of a point. In this case, in an attempt to create a ridiculously reductionist hallucination that the human brain is in the same essential category as a tree, toy, or computer, and therefore that cross-assigning human traits is a rational discussion. This topic, taken seriously, makes science-oriented people look bad.
A nuclear reactor, a bear, and a blade of grass are also all objects. Yet, we don't casually cross assign their essential traits.
For what it's worth, I've given serious thought to whether a rock or the wind have consciousness. I rejected the idea, but it's essential for us to consider it for reasons of ethics. Consciousness is something even now we have essentially no understanding of. If we make something that mimics human behavior perfectly well and kinda-sorta parallels parts of how the brain works, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate human intelligence to it, just as we extrapolate our individual experience of consciousness to other humans. Defining consciousness to be a purely human/biological trait could lead us to do terrible things to entities worthy of moral consideration.
A nuclear reactor, a bear, and a blade of grass are also all objects. Yet, we don't casually cross assign their essential traits.