There's nothing arbitrary about it. All of those ("thought", "doubt", "inner monolog") go hand in hand with consciousness in the common sense, and at worst case, they are phenomena that presuppose it (secondary effects).
It's also quite common in discussions regarding qualia for consciousness to include "self consciousness", not some low level awareness of surroundings that it's not aware of itself.
Else a Rumba is also conscious.
>And even the clinical definition is arguably not very useful in the grand scheme of things because it does not deal with inanimate objects and the definition of life is murky at best.
Well, everything's murky if you try hard enough. Still, aside from some corner cases (e.g. are viruses living, are robots?) life is as clear cut as things come.
>So the best the best definition we have for consciousness is a clinical definition which is only applicable to life as we know it which has nothing to do with what ever you were talking about
It makes sense it has "nothing to do" with what I was talking about, since that's a definition you brought forward here and put up as the "best" and single useful one.
It might be the simpler to test for, or the most useful for medical use. But it's even murkier than mine (since "awareness" itself reintroduces the issue). If we were to be content with low-level awareness then a Roomba is conscious, as it is in a way aware of its surroundings too.
When we discuss consciousness, qualia, etc, we go beyond this basic definition. That doesn't make it "utterly arbitrary" -- if that was the case any random definition would do.
Again an arbitrary definition based on a human centric view.
It's quite possible that we will develop an AI that would fall under what we would consider consciousness that has no inner monolog, on the other hand it's also quite possible that we'll develop AIs that come no where near consciousness with one.
Consciousness as you continue to use it is an utterly arbitrary and irrelevant definition you can set an arbitrary benchmark for any arbitrary type of consciousness you want this is simply defining heuristics which is while can be a useful tool in some cases is not natural law or anything other than arbitrary.
> Else a Rumba is also conscious.
And what would be the problem or wrong with that? If the definition that supports Rumba being a conscious contraption is a useful heuristic model for you then use it there is no wrong or right with arbitrary definitions there is just useful or not.
There is no single objective and useful definition for consciousness in philosophy or natural science other than the clinical definition of being aware and responsive to one's surroundings which technically mean that an ameba can be considered conscious since it's definitely aware of it's surroundings.
And even the clinical definition is arguably not very useful in the grand scheme of things because it does not deal with inanimate objects and the definition of life is murky at best.
So the best the best definition we have for consciousness is a clinical definition which is only applicable to life as we know it which has nothing to do with what ever you were talking about, hence utterly arbitrary.