In the article: "Therefore anyone who supposes that the sun is conscious is making a childish error, projecting anthropomorphic illusions onto inanimate nature."
Fair, the article made a reference to it. In the first paragraph where the author is clearly making a representation of a contrary argument.
A paragraph that starts "s the sun conscious? Obviously not, from the point of view of mechanistic materialism or physicalism".
So I see now why you'd raise that point. Still, it is a minor throwaway figure of speech that doesn't really encapsulate what the author is discussing further in the article.
In the article: "Therefore anyone who supposes that the sun is conscious is making a childish error, projecting anthropomorphic illusions onto inanimate nature."