From memory, (I don't have time at the moment to read his article again) I think his point here relates partly to the word 'vague'. He's saying: sure, you can answer the question 'what is human life like?' but the answer will obviously be so vague as to be virtually useless. I don't think he would disagree that life might have 'spatio-temporal' aspects. That would just be one of a vast multitude of aspects. 

His general point - the same I have tried to make on several occasions on this and another thread - is that the bat argument goes precisely nowhere. The attempt to base arguments about consciousness on 'something it is like'  is a philosophical blind alley - and a fairly obvious one at that, in my view.

DA