Take the following set of 3 conscious beings (2 of which may be considered hypothetical) :
Being one: is small, conceived, grows up, lives their entire life and dies within 1 nanosecond.
Being two: is human, achieves the process of a fully experienced life over 80 - 90 years
Being 3: is large, it takes millenia to be conceived, several hundred more to mature, myriad eons further to grow old and centuries in the dying process (like the sun for lack of a better comparison).

All are conscious, and all consider their lifespan normal and the properties required to give rise to that consciousness.

For being one: bacteria are huge, static and ever enduring - many thousands of years old (but only a few hours - days from the reference of being 2).

To being 2). Being one has little more in behavioural traits than simple spontaneous appearance and disappearance. On the other hand being 3s behaviour is understood as physical constants and laws, as from our perspective they appear to be unchanging between every measurement.

To being 3, humans are merely a flitting blur, the briefest blink, barely perceptible, only with the highest fps high speed microscopic instruments, and even then little detail can be elucidated as to our nature. The entirety of human evolution and transformation of the planet occurs in just a few seconds. As for Being 1, it isn't even detectable by being 3 as its existence is too brief for them to discern.

This hypothetical is designed to put into perspective the importance of the percieved passage of time in conscious awareness.

Consciousness could possibly operate in such a multi-level format, and we would not consider either being 1 or being 3 to be conscious as they are so extremely outside of 1). our accepted frame-rate of existence and 2). Our ability to qualify their behaviours as being like/similar to our own conscious behaviour. Nor would being 1 or 3 think the same of us in equal respect.

On the contrary, just like many other conditions in the universe, perhaps consciousness has a goldilocks zone, that human consciousness falls directly in the center of.

If consciousness is fundamental it must operate on all magnitudes. If it is emergent, then perhaps we are the only things within the correct range of rate for such a property to emerge.

The idea that such starkly different consciousness could exist would make it very difficult to define what consciousness is.

Looking at a vine from human frame rate it appears motionless. But a time-lapse shows a writhing, swirling, active, feeling plant stretching out its tendrils, flexing its foliage and reaching for the skies. Very much alive. And much more sentient seeming.