With your definition they clearly are. They move around, they respond to their environment and take decisive actions when needed. If a human does that they are absolutely "conscious" if you only mean it as the sense of conscious/unconscious.
If you define that bacteria are never conscious, you should be able to come up with a definition that doesn't accidentally make them conscious in your definition of the word without just arbitrarily adding "oh, but not bacteria" at some point.
I'll state it again: DEFINE THE WORD. People just argue and scream at each other and no one defined their terms. It's absolute madness to us who see that this is what happens. It's like arguing over the color of the sky and using the word "fnord" and no side has defined the frequency of light that "fnord" should correspond to. BOTH sides are wrong in that situation, because they both don't define the word.
>With your definition they clearly are.
No absolutely not. My definition was exclusively defining in terms of a human phenomena.
>I'll state it again: DEFINE THE WORD
Instead of repeating yourself reread again what I initially wrote. I think you missed more than it being scoped exclusively to humans.
> My definition was exclusively defining in terms of a human phenomena
Well that's a horrible definition. You put into the DEFINITION that ONLY humans can be conscious?
> Instead of repeating yourself reread again what I initially wrote.
The problem is that you were only talking about a very narrow English expression, and then just insinuating that this had some implication which you then didn't define.