If you can define consciousness in a way that is independently verifiable, you should definitely do so. World-wide fame and riches await you.

I doubt it, because my definition implies that consciousness is not that interesting. It's just the feeling of self-awareness, which can be independent of actual self awareness.

If you have a phantom limb, you feel "conscious" of the extra limb even if it's not a real demonstration of self-awareness.

Animal Intelligence is an emergent phenomena resulting from many neurons coordinating. Conciousness is the feeling that all of those subsystems working together as a single thing, even if they aren't

Philosophers are known for being rich, that's a claim being made here?