​To what degree is time actually consciousness?  The experience of the “passage of time”, that is.  I was watching my cat eyeballing a ledge and then launching himself there with precision.
He used his brain to process various visual the stimuli from the world and predict where he would be in the future with the coordinated exertion of specific muscles.
 
This is how all behaviors work, whether we are conscious of them or not.  My cat likely didn’t think about the jump at all – maybe the advantages of the new spot, maybe auditory stimuli of possible threats in the distance, etc.  But he had a learning history, both since birth and in conjunction with his feline DNA.
 
In fact, we are conscious of only a tiny portion of our behaviors, from breathing, to balance, to absent-mindedly tapping our toes.  What is the difference between consciousness and sentience?  The latter means to feel and experience.  All animals do this, to a degree.
 
We usually refer to consciousness as “awareness”.  That is, “I am doing this”, “I did that”, “I could do that”, etc.  It’s impossible to know whether my cat is experiencing these thoughts, as he has no verbal behavior to communicate them to me or anyone else.  But he is obviously experiencing the world, and communicates in many other ways his emotions and even wishes.  When his eye and paws twitch when he sleeps, I know he is dreaming.  
 
But humans can describe ways in which we are thinking. Part of it is verbal, that is, specific stimuli arranged in a grammar that contains information about relationships in the world that takes place in a shared verbal community.  It’s really hard to self-analyze, but I’d venture a guess that most of our thinking is sort of sub-verbal, that is influenced by verbal behavior but takes place without much if any verbal stimuli.
 
When I suddenly remember to take the cookies out of the oven, I likely think, “Oh, shit, the cookies!”, but most of the information suddenly flooding into my awareness, the stimuli coming into my attention - the kitchen, the oven, the rack, maybe the smell of smoke, etc.  – I just experience without any language.
 
In behaviorism we call this a Tact, or labeling stimuli.  The stimuli evokes labeling behavior.  “Look at that”. “There it is. I’m thirsty. The cookies have been in the oven for too long.”  This allows us to chain complex logics together to create “worldviews” which link to abstract stimuli in the past and future and allow us to analyze and make plans.
 
In this complexity, we see time emerge.  My cat experiences it, through memories and stimuli relations (e.g. feeling anticipation before the bowl of food is provided). He has no verbal behavior from which to create advanced and abstract logic systems.  But he does experience relationships.  If the can is different than usual, he may become skeptical and adjust his expectations.
 
 If the can isn’t a can but say, a banana, his behavior of swishing his tail and meowing, glancing at his bowl, won’t be evoked.  There was no history of reinforcement with bananas, so no “association” between it and food.  I could hold a banana every time I feed him,  so it will soon become a “discriminative stimuli” for reinforcement (cat food).  Taking out a banana will signal the impending presence of cat food.
 
To what extent then does consciousness exist without verbal behavior?  For my cat and I, most of our experiences are not noticed by us at any given moment.  Stimuli in our bodies and in our environments around us are evoking behaviors in us but often “our mind is elsewhere”.    Maybe daydreaming.
 
To the extent that we are experiencing stimuli, attending to it, and are placing it in a context of past and present, are we creating time?  Are we merely predicting past and future events, based on logical relationships were have developed in our learning history?
 
Of course, we only have access to the past.  Or rather, stimuli in the present a relationship to which past stimuli has been reinforced.  The experience of “This is can is cat food” is related to “last time this can was cat food”, referencing a memory of the can stimuli we experienced previously.
 
Before my cat jumped on the table, I don’t know what stimuli he was attending to; it could have been a very rote, absent-minded behavior.  Yet it required both a learning history of past stimuli (similar tables, counters, ledges, etc.) and his body’s ability to jump, as well as a projection of the geometry involved that would require specific muscle movements.  He essentially planned a future scenario based on past experiences. 
 
Yet time – the passage of time – requires attention.  The phrase “time flies” appeals to subjective experience of a passage of time which one has not been attending to.  The fact that this happens when one’s attention is occupied elsewhere makes sense; you literally have not been attending to a changing series of stimuli.
I suppose one could define time as just that – a series of changing stimuli.  But the *passage of time* requires noticing these changes.  “Passage” denotes an experiential process whereby changes in stimuli are noticed and tracked.  So, you could say experiencing the passage of time requires consciousness.
 
Without consciousness, there would be no experience of a passage of time.  Changes in stimuli would occur, and they would evoke responses in an organism. But without attending to these changes, no “passage” would be recorded or responded to.  Just the moment, one to the next, in a constant state of reaction to the extent the organism is capable of response, learned or otherwise.
 
Time, unlike any other stimuli, is a dimension that requires a change to have occurred.  Up, down, left and right can exist despite change.  A location can just be.  However, time cannot just be – it *requires* two or more other dimensions to transition.
 
Consciousness likewise requires time, as it is the process of attending to changing stimuli.  But it also requires a sort of geometry in which the relationships between stimuli are analyzed and predicted, not just experienced.  An organism experiences time as stimuli change and it responds according to it learning history.  But to experience that passage of time, it must make relationships – up down, forwards, backwards, warmer, colder, more colorful, wetter, stinkier, closer, farther, etc.
 
 
What we call “attending” is responding to specific stimuli, which can be in the external environment or internal to our body (our thoughts).  We can “notice” things outside like cars or tress, as well as inside like feelings or memories.  When we are attending to time, we are attending to changes in stimuli.
 
But we can only ever attend to a glimpse of this passage, owing to our limited cognitive faculties.  Some people have been found to have the ability to recall stimuli relations far greater than average.  They can recall stimuli changes that occurred far into the past.  What they wore or ate in certain locations years ago.  I’m afraid these days I’ve become more and more goldfish-like, unable to recall relationships even hours ago!
But for the most part, the experiential passage of time is similarly limited to a sort of hour by hour, maybe day by day window in which our ability to recall changes in stimuli is acute.  This is what we call “passage” – not so much the thing itself but the intensity with which we are responding to it.  Things happening to us right now are always a “big deal”, but which fade over time.  “Time heals all wounds”, etc.
 
Our cognitive limitations require us to budget our attention.  We learn to “focus” on what is important, that is, what stimuli provides the most reinforcement at any given moment.  The passage of time, as a period of acute responding to changes in stimuli, can be considered a “behavioral repertoire”; it requires the evocation of a series of learned behaviors that create connections between past changes in stimuli.  The food was there.  Now it is gone.  I was on the floor.  Now I am on the table.  Noticing this requires attending to numerous stimuli both in the environment and in our bodies.
 
But (often mercifully), we forget and move on to allow space for processing new stimuli and relationships.  The more powerful stimuli, however, remain to varying degrees as memory. This ability to capture time – to attend to it and then remember it – seems fundamental to consciousness.  I worked with people with brain injuries once and individuals with short-term memory loss were perfectly conscious for a given period of time, but would then lose it hours or days later.
 For them, the passage of time must have felt quite different.  Only limited changes in time could be attended to.  I once sat at a table drinking coffee with a man who had no idea how long we had been sitting there.  When the waitress began to refill our coffees less frequently, he complained about the service, not realizing that a $2 unlimited refill would only last so long.   He did not realize the length of time because the memories of changes in stimuli were not being created.  Or at least, were fading too fast to be of use.

Any day when I can avoid scurrilous nonsense about ABA is a good day. But I am motivated to write in the context of the general social view of behaviorism essentially having been reluctant at best, and hostile at worst basically from its post S-R developments, which went much further
taking operant conditioning into verbal behavior, emotions and thought, and essentially putting a nail in any cartesian myths left standing.
But as a hard science, relying heavily on the scientific method, empiricism, determinism, parsimony, philosophic doubt, etc., it required measuring & manipulating dependent and independent variables. These contingencies are hard to arrange due to the complexity of an adult human life.
Generally coming out of the field of psychology, it was at a disadvantage toward other approaches - we would say "mentalistic", which rely on theoretical models of psychological functioning that are difficult to analyze experimentally, but broadly descriptive and general enough to be of use.
Behaviorists had limited access to the vast data in one's learning history that would be required to identify relevant variables. And as a relatively young field, had not yet built up larger tested theories to allow for explanations of complex events such as language, thought and emotion.
But within decades, the data was pointing towards a startlingly powerful insight into human behavior - everything we do or think - is ruled by the interaction between our phylogeny and our ontogeny, our genetics and learning history.
All of our thoughts and actions that could be measured were found to be under the control of environmental contingencies. A strict relationship was found between environmental stimuli, the organism's previous interactions with it, and future stimuli.
The frequency, intensity, and duration of a behavior (bx) is under the control of these elements.
Let me give an example:
If John has engaged in eating an apple in the past, we know his body "enjoys" apples (the presence of apples has produced eating, we call this "reinforcement").
If he sees an apple (stimuli), he will be likely to eat one if he has not had one in a while (we call this the "establishing operation", the condition in which one is either deprived or satiated on a stimulus).
Here's the mind-blowing part: any bx John engages in just before receiving the apple with be strengthened (more likely to occur in the future). This could be walking, talking or thinking.
It could be morally good or bad bx, but it will be strengthened. Washes the dishes + apple = strengthened. Plays on his phone instead + apple = strengthened.
But the opposite is true. Dishes + no apple = weakened. Dishes plus no phone = weakened.
And further, if John doesn't "enjoy" something after the bx (we call this "punishment", it will also weaken. Dishes + grating music = weakened.
This is much more advanced than the classical conditioning in which only the stimuli *before the bx* is analyzed.
e.g. Pavlov's bell rang before he got the meat powder (which always induced salivation), so the bell came to produce salivation. In operant conditioning, we look at the stimuli provided both before (the antecedent) and after (the consequence) the bx.
But it goes further and looks at behaviors that need to be learned. Unlike automatic bx such as salivation, sneeze, etc. , the bx of talking, riding a bike, waiting, etc. need to be learned. From here we get to the relations of verbal operants which identifies how different types of language get reinforced.
Skinner broke them down into categories, each consisting of a verbal stimulus (a bird), the verbal bx (saying bird) and consequent stimuli (reinforcers or punishers). The mand is requesting: verbal bx reinforced by receiving reinforcement from the thing requested, or removal of an aversive.
The tact is labeling: verbal bx reinforced by occurring in the presence of something. (look at the bird!)
The intraverbal is abstract thought: verbal bx reinforced in the absence of a thing. (birds come from eggs)
There are more, but you get the idea. The nice thing about seeing these relationships is they provide a window into how, why and when we say different things. They identify a learning history between stimuli and bx.
It turns out that any bx you can measure will be constrained by what we call the 4-term contingency: the establishing operation (EO), the stimuli, the bx, and the consequence (R or P). Bx more difficult to measure (Skinner calls them "within the skin", which I always found macabrely funny).
I forgot to mention stimulus and response generalization. These are key to how our bx repertoire grows. A learning history with stimuli x will generalize to stimuli Y according to its degree of feature similarity: color, shape, texture, etc.
Response generalization is a variation in response that produces the same effect: response X and Y both produce effect Z.
Stimulus equivalence is a crucial to understand more complex and abstract behavior, as it provides a framework to analyze environmental contingencies of the organism*.
* btw, behaviorism appears to be at work in any animal that behaves. Early models used rats and pigeons as their environmental variables were most easy to control.
A more recent branch of behaviorism has been relational frame theory (RFT), which may be most popularly known clinically as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and developed in large part by the work of Stephen Hayes.
It takes the notion of stimulus equivalence and expands verbal operants into much more complex relational areas (frames), such as size, value, categorization, etc. Each of these operants identifies additional relationships between stimuli and bx that can be measured and manipulated.
All of this within the hard science philosophy of empiricism, determinism, parsimony, etc.
Due to the complexity of relations in our learning history between the stimuli in our environment and our responses, a predictive analysis of human behavior will always be incredibly difficult.
A phrase I've liked is "we are swimming in a sea of reinforcement", referring to the overwhelming number of relations going on in our lives, each involving all of our senses: the temperature of the air, the feel of our clothes, our interactions with others, etc.
How both the preferences our DNA builds for us, as well as how environmental stimuli has interacted previously and is currently, with those preferences to shape our future bx, is crucial to understanding about why we all do what we do.