What's flawed about the question?
You can take any question you like and ask for a definition of every word in it, then ask for definitions of every word in those definitions, and so on forever.
Asking for definitions only makes sense when they're genuinely needed to answer the question.
That's very amusing Piggy and about as dishonest as anything that Malerin tries to foist here.
Conciousness is about as ambiguous as the word "God". There are technical meanings to it along with a "common" definition. Malerin likes to use it a certain way, a way that apparently he refuses to define. I use it a very different way as well.
Your incredulity and ignorance is pretty irrelevant.
Since you haven't shown that any definition is needed in this case, you're dragging out a red herring.
Psychotics are as concious as you are...or are they? What about the Delerium or drugged folk? How about a totally reponsive sleep walker who responds to your post? Can you tell when you are concious or whatever concious state you're in when you are in Dissociative State?
So tell me. When I take a drug called Versed now, write this entire reply down, go to sleep and wake up with zero memory of ever writing this down, was I concious?
Did I mention that Conciousness was complex? Because some folk like Malerin like to play semantic games or because you like nice little "common" meaning words to mean what YOU want does not change the relevance that he has not presented any definition ...in fact neither have you.
That is, unless you care to explain which particular definition you believe could sway the answer.
My definition takes into account a whole bunch of subconcious and unconcious stimuli that you concious "mind" is not aware of. So using my definition, I'm not concious of a whole of host of things even when I'm concious.
But since I have no idea what the hell Malerin definition he is using, I can't really answer the question now can I?