āSentientā is the right word for “conscious.”. It means being able to feel anything at all ā whether positive, negative or neutral, faint or flagrant, sensory or semantic.
For ethics, itās the negative feelings that matter. But determining whether an organism feels anything at all (the other-minds problem) is hard enough without trying to speculate about whether there exit species that can only feel neutral (āunvalencedā) feelings. (I doubt that +/-/= feelings evolved separately, although their valence-weighting is no doubt functionally dissociable, as in the Melzack/Wall gate-control theory of pain.)
The word āsenseā in English is ambiguous, because it can mean both felt sensing and unfelt āsensing,ā as in an electronic device like a sensor, or a mechanical one, like a thermometer or a thermostat, or even a biological sensor, like an in-vitro retinal cone cell, which, like photosensitive film, senses and reacts to light, but does not feel a thing (though the brain it connects to might).
To the best of our knowledge so far, the phototropisms, thermotropisms and hydrotropisms of plants, even the ones that can be modulated by their history, are all like that too: sensing and reacting without feeling, as in homeostatic systems or servomechanisms.
Feel/feeling/felt would be fine for replacing all the ambiguous s-words (sense, sensor, sensationā¦) and dispelling their ambiguities.
(Although āfeelingā is somewhat biased toward emotion (i.e., +/- āfeelingsā), it is the right descriptor for neutral feelings too, like warmth, movement, or touch, which only become +/- at extreme intensities.)
The only thing the f-words lack is a generic noun for āhaving the capacity too feelā as a counterpart for the noun sentience itself (and its referent). (As usual, German has a candidate: GefĆ¼hlsfƤhigkeit.)
And all this, without having to use the weasel-word āconscious/consciousness,ā for which the f-words are a healthy antidote, to keep us honest, and coherent…