I have tried to reference the feature, and have asked you questions which might enable me to guide you to it, but on the face of it you seemed unable to understand the questions. Here are a couple of examples:

Example 1: As a response to being asked whether you understood that some atheists thought there was no afterlife, and whether you could understand what those atheists imagined death would be like, you replied that no one knows what death would be like. But the question did not suggest anyone knew what death would be like, and there was no philosophical point being made which relied on anyone knowing. So your response was inappropriate. The question only required you to understand what those atheists believed death would be like, and that belief is one the vast majority of humans understand. Are you claiming that you do not understand how they imagine it to be?

Example 2: Regarding the film the matrix, you were asked whether you had seen the film, and understood that some scenes depicted what it would be like for the characters plugged into machines. Your response made it seem that you thought the question was about whether the film was trying to make any philosophical points. It was not. It was a simple question. Have you seen the film, and did you understand that some scenes depicted what it would be like for the characters plugged into machines? It was an key part in the plot, and I have yet to meet one person that did not understand what those scenes were supposed to depict.

Your replies could be taken to not reflect a lack of comprehension, but motivated by you trying to avoid admitting you have no response to certain philosophical arguments by claiming to not understand them. If you could not follow parts of a discussion that an average 10 year old could, then it would not be a refutation of the argument it would  just reflect *your* inability to follow it. Regarding the motivated response, to attribute such a motive to you would be to paint you as a pitiful character and so I will assume that there was not such motive behind your response. And based on that assumption, and since you are not an average 10 year old, but someone that has presumably done at least an undergraduate course in philosophy, I will try some other attempts at explaining what feature of reality is being referred to in the discussion. I assume you have come across the philosophical works of Berkeley, and if you did, did you manage to understand what he was suggesting reality was or were you about the only one in the class that could not?

Do you understand what a first person perspective is and do you think the majority of people believe a cup has one?

I understand you may have previously just responded quickly without giving too much thought to it, and misunderstood the questions, but this time, perhaps take some more care. There are four questions in this reply, perhaps you could make sure you feel that you understand them before giving a response, and ask for clarification if you feel that I have not been clear, because not that I mind trying to help you understand, but I do not want to just be wasting my time if you were motivated in the fashion that I hope you are not. Though presumably if you were, you would just look for a quick exit from the conversation before you started to look ridiculous.  

As for what you stated about zombies, as I have already explained there is a distinction between understanding what feature is being referred to, and knowing what gives rise to that feature. The point of the zombies is to examine some theories about what gives rise to the feature.