[Mithriil]

Author writes about and formalizes "consciousness of an object". Like "[Person A] has more consciousness than [Person B] about the object being described".

This kind of consciousness is relative to an object. Shouldn't Consciousness be more about what separates the self and something else?

So, what author talks about should be probably named "instantaneous understanding of an object in consciousness", not "Consciousness".

Also, I disagree about limiting things with the first premise:

> Everything/object has a description, that is, everything has a definite state (no matter what it is).

"Objects" are not permanent. A definite state is hardly possible, except maybe for sub-atomic particles that are be indivisible (according to our current models). And even then, you should describe how they exist with relation to processes and interactions with other particles.

Consciousness of an "object" is thus, I think, not something that has to do with its definite state. Unless you speak of "consciousness of an object through an instantaneous snapshot".

[Trenthug]

It's not of an object, about an object had by the observer

And yes the contrast between the self and the object is quite clear here , Consciousness can only be had when an inference has been made, only inferences(whether made in qualia or in a shared language) can lead to consciousness consciousness

[Trenthug]

It seems what is meant by an object is misunderstood here ,even if an object shows a change of state overtime,even that fact is a quality of the object...

And, Consciousness is had by an observer about an object (it's a property of the observer, dependent on the state of the object)