Concur. Jumping from "a collection of sensory neurons remained active after a sensory experience" to "Crows have subjective experience and 'ponder' the contents of their own minds" is an editorial leap. The latter likely isn't even provable in a scientific way.

If I said a fly wheel keeps spinning after being in contact with an outside force, you would never characterize it as "fly wheel acts of its own accord following demonstration".

A lot of the field of neurology is about sensationalising your findings by binding them to some abstract notion of psychology which doesn't even fit the study.