A problem at the heart of scientific discourse on reality is the basic assumption that humans are mentally equipped to ask and answer questions about the nature of reality in a way that accurately reflects the world in itself. There is simply no way to justify that assumption. It simply must be assumed in order to get off the ground. But there's nothing actually supporting it, other than wishful thinking and an inhibition to contemplate the alternative.
Take a dog as a counter example. It sees food emerge from the cupboard every day. It may wonder to itself, "how does the cupboard make food?"
From our perspective that question betrays a basic misunderstanding of the reality of the situation, and no matter how hard the dog tries to answer the question he's not going to arrive at what a realist would call an "objective" answer to the question as framed. It's the wrong question to start with.
So Cofty thinks he's got a trump card when he says, "do rocks have consciousness?" is a question for science and science alone. The problem is how do we even know it's a valid question in relation to the world in itself in the first place? What if the question, "do rocks have consciousness?" makes as much sense as the dog's question, "how does the cupboard make food?"
In other words what if the question itself betrays a misunderstanding of reality so fundamental that we cannot even begin to understand how the question distorts the world in itself that it seeks to explain? There is no way to rule it out. In fact there may be good reasons to suspect that our understanding of reality is distorted at exactly that sort of fundamental level.