Yep.
Like I said at the beginning. My first definition of consciousness is "a word meaningless enough to mean what you want, while still sounding like a serious person having a serious conversation".
Here is a list of your mistakes:
- you never provided a competing definition of consciousness, meaning I set the terms of the debate.
- you seem to have realized (1), and instead of correcting it you started answering arguments you invented on my behalf, instead of responding to the arguments I made.
- you are now trying to fix (1), but in a roundabout way involving (2), which makes you look unserious.
- you ignored my first definition, in which I made it pretty clear I didn't take you very seriously at all to begin with. Still don't, much like I don't take anyone seriously when they discuss consciousness.
On the other hand, you don't seem stupid. Try joining a debate club at the local college, learn some fundamentals of rhetoric, and things will go much better for you in the future.
Edit: theories of consciousness are just as BS as theories of teapots orbiting Uranus, as they are unfalsifiable without arbitrary constraints.
Edit2: also, I should point out that having defined consciousness as 'awareness of the passage of time' after mentioning stimulus-response, I was pretty clearly setting up an argument that literally everything is conscious. That's why you should not have let me define the terms, and brought your own definition that I would have had to argue against.