You build this system, a LLM, it uses a technical process that it outputs seemingly the same output that you - a human - could output, given a prompt.
You can do "reasoning" about a topic, the LLM can produce a very similar output to what you could, how do you name the output of the LLM?
Birds can fly, they do by a natural process. A plane also can fly, we do not "see" any difference between both things when we look at them flying in the air, far from the ground.
This is mostly it about LLM "doing reasoning" or not. Semantics. The output is same.
You could just name it otherwise, but it would be still the same output.
Philosophers have defined consciousness, why do people keep repeating that line? Your subjective sensations that make up perception, dreams, inner dialog, that sort of thing. Call it qualia, representations or correlations, but we all experience colors, sounds, tastes, pains, pleasures. We all probably dream, most of us visualize or have inner dialog. It's not that hard to define, it's only because of the ambiguity of the word where it's conflating whether other mental activity like being awake or being aware.
Nobody here is speaking of «good enough»: you are the one speaking of it, and the only one.
And nobody here is saying that LLMs would reason: you are the one attacking that idea that was not proposed here.
What you replied to said that calculators do not need consciousness to perform calculations. Reasoning is a special form of calculation. We are contented with reasoning, and when it will be implemented there will be no need for further different things for the applications we intend.
Llms appear to reason because they captured language with reason already in it, rather than producing language because of reason.