What has changed with viewpoints on this topic in the past 18yrs I wonder?
Since "consciousness" isn't adorned with an adjective in the title (like "phenomenal"), there's tentatively little reason to address more than learning, identification (discrimination), understanding, etc. Just like the rest of the world, those processes can occur "in the dark"[1] without any need of being represented slash manifested as visual, auditory, etc experiences. (
philosophical zombie)
A sophisticated memory system is required for cognition, which a rock does not have. So a version of that has to arise in nature (or organisms) before even a bare level of the "dark version" of consciousness can be instantiated.
For instance, one of those vintage mechanical toy trains without a track -- the kind that autonomously "navagated" a room by backing up when it struck an obstacle -- might even count as some bare minimum of awareness if you based consciousness purely on response to the existence of another object. Instead, you want incoming sensory data about an object to be connected to stored data that has been arranged in some way to offer a degree of identification and background comprehension of "what's going on".
Disembodied or "resting on the shelf" AI already exemplifies advanced "information manipulation" of that kind that is utterly amenable to being realized and/or explained by interacting structure (mechanistic relationships).
"Ego" or self is simply the individual history (memory) of an embodied biological or corresponding technological intelligence as dominated by innate or programmed survival imperatives (built-in settings universal to the species). Eliminate the entire stored knowledge acquired since early years and that "unique" person is gone, though the body would still be alive/functioning and sport something akin to the original "infantile vegetable" basic self.
However, supposing that the original poster intended to be gesturing at something other than "unlighted or dark consciousness", but fumbled at it in terms of language...
Phenomenal consciousness has a parallel association with brain activity (
NCCs), so that -- in theory -- if you could somehow technologically replicate all the electrochemical patterns, transactions and oscillations occurring in an NCC, then you would also have a corresponding experience with respect to the artificial apparatus. Reproducing the entirety of such might not be necessary, but [in theory] mirroring all the biophysical details would maximize the possibility of private manifestations arising.
So even though there is no underlying science for the origin of the "phantasmal" content of thoughts and senations (only correlation and multiple philosophical proposals), that is not necessarily an impediment to human technology producing the same. People utilized gun powder long before they had a chemistry/physics explaining how the explosions occurred.
- - - footnote - - -
[1] Most people are naive realists and/or even implicit panpsychists (lacking explicit apprehension that they are such). But let's instead pretend that most humans are non-eccentric materialists who do not project psychological affairs upon a mind-independent world...
In that context, the situation after my death or before the first vestiges of my fetal awareness is what matter normally is to itself -- i.e., the absence of everything (not even a presentation of nothingness). Accordingly, the capacity to "manifest" begins with phenomenal consciousness -- thus, the topic's title might arguably be putting the cart before the horse, IF that was what had been intended by the "C-word".
_