What do "sense" and "perceived" mean? I think they both loop back to "aware", and the reason I point that out is that circular definitions are useless. How can you say that plants lack a sense of self and consciousness, if you can't even define those terms properly? What about crown shyness? Trees seem to be able to tell the difference between themselves and others.
As an example of the circularity, "sense" means (using Wiktionary, but pick your favorite if you don't like it) "Any of the manners by which living beings perceive the physical world". What does "perceive" mean? "To become aware of, through the physical senses". So in your definition, "aware" loops back to "aware" (Wiktionary also has a definition of "sense" that just defines it as "awareness", for a more direct route, too).
I meant that plants don't have thoughts more in the sense of "woah, dude", pushing back on something without any explanatory power. But really, how do you define "thought"? I actually think Wiktionary is slightly more helpful here, in that it defines "thought" as "A representation created in the mind without the use of one's faculties of vision, sound, smell, touch, or taste". That's kind of getting to what I've commented elsewhere, with trying to come up with a more objective definition based around "world model". Basing all of these definitions on "representation" or "world model" seems to the closest to an objective definition as we can get.
Of course, that brings up the question of "What is a model?" / "What does represent mean?". Is that just pushing the circularity elsewhere? I think not, if you accept a looser definition. If anything has an internal state that appears to correlate to external state, then it has a world model, and is at some level "conscious". You have to accept things that many people don't want to, such as that AI is conscious of much of the universe (albeit experienced through the narrow peephole of human-written text). I just kind of embraced that though and said "sure, why not?". Maybe it's not satisfying philosophically, but it's pragmatically useful.
I made another comment pointing this out for a similar definition, but OK so awareness is being able to "recognize", and recognize in turn means "To realize or discover the nature of something" (using Wiktionary, but pick your favorite dictionary), and "realize" means "To become aware of or understand", completing the loop. I point that out, because IMO the circularity means the whole thing is useless from an empirical perspective and should be discarded. I also think qualia is just philosophical navel-gazing for what it's worth, much like common definitions of "awareness". I think it's perfectly possible in theory to read someone's brain to see how something is represented and then twiddle someone else's brain in the same way to cause the same experience, or compare the two to see if they're equivalent.
As far as a computer process recognizing itself, it certainly can compare itself to other processes. It can e.g. iterate through the list of processes and kill everything that isn't itself. It can look at processes and say "this other process consumes more memory than I do". It's super primitive and hardcoded, but why doesn't that count? I also thinking learning is separate but related. If we take the definition of "consciousness" as a world model or representation, learning is simply how you expand that world model based on input. Something can have a world model without any ability to learn, such as a chess engine. It models chess very well and better than humans, but is incapable of learning anything else, i.e. expanding its world model beyond chess.
I think we largely agree then, other than my quibble about learning not being necessary. A lot of people want to reject the idea of machines being conscious, but I've reached the "Sure, why not?" stage. To be a useful definition though, we need to go beyond that and start asking questions like "Conscious of what?"