Your issue here is that you fail to understand that your limited understanding of the concept "consciousness", so far from semantic completeness that I laugh at it, prevents you from understanding that
you cannot describe from what phenomena it emerges; you do not understand it on that level.
As such, you cannot claim in any reasonable respect what does or does not possess it.
Rather, "sapience", "consciousness" and other such words are generally as ill-defined as to their material nature as the words "religion" and "god", generally speaking.
Even so, it is not the case of these words for everyone. Apparently, between us, it is only the case for you.
This is because I actually have a model for it:
Consciousness is a subsystem having a dependent reaction on the output state of another subsystem.
"Switch A is conscious of the output of switch B".
The language, eventually, allows the concept to be pulled through all the scale of neurons to the concept of "this group of neurons is
conscious of the observation, through the eyes, of the 'door' signal."
And then I can just drop/substitute a bunch of equivalent words and treat some operators as implicit to get:
"The person was conscious of the door".
And I can apply such, by assembling switches such that they satisfy the definitions of the template created in the statement "the dwarf was conscious that the goblin could kill him, and he did not want to die, so he ran", at least within context of the objects referenced by 'dwarf', 'goblin', 'him', and 'ran'. 'kill' and 'die' also have semantic completion in the context, but I exclude them because they are not merely parallels but directly the same insofar as they relate to the dissociation of the elements which create the consciousness being referenced as 'dying' or 'being killed'.
I would imagine you can try pulling a few more No-True-Scotsman fallacies on "consciousness", and I accept that perhaps "this is not what you mean by consciousness" but again you will find yourself specially-pleading away humans for no rational reason.
You want to proclaim we are in some way special. Or at least some part of your subconscious does, because that is the thing that describes what you are doing. You are proclaiming humans 'special'. We are not.
There is nothing about humans or organic neurons that make them special in particular.
What makes us different in apparent character is that we have
a whole lot of neurons,
and so more of the same thing everything else has, alongside clever hands that let us make things, and clever mouths which allow the complexity of sounds to symbolize and communicate what we learn.
A transistor is like a... Less interesting neuron. To get the kinds of things neurons do in one object, you need to put together a good number of transistors and neurons can rewire much more elegantly than transistors.
But one can do the extent of the things done by the other.
There is no specialness across this boundary either.