In order for my definition to make sense, the organism or program must be able to observe the memory of the state. In the case of the bacteria and the Python program, I doubt they are able to do that in any meaningful way.
But I would not mind if a slightly more involved program, or a system of plants for that matter, would be considered conscious. The basic definition seems fairly irrelevant, and it obviously matters how much the specific type of consciousness matches our own experience for us humans to actually care.
Just handwavy nonsense. What counts as “observing”? Obviously the bacterial system will “observe” the memory when using it determine current behavior. If the basic definition is irrelevant, why did you post a comment outlining a claim of what consciousness is “nothing more than”? This is silly and not worth further engagement.
Note that I tried to counter the idea that an AI should presumably get human rights. In that context, I think a definition of consciousness is irrelevant.
I'd even go so far to say that consciousness is nothing more than having a memory of the state you were in.