No, I understand it. It is self-defining as you say: "fact of conscious experience". Is it a fact? Who knows. However, your definition claims that it is, and once it is a fact that is indisputable, it is something that we can't argue about. It is like talking to the Pope about God...there is no argument what so ever about if God exists, therefore we are constrained to the fact that we have to define it as such...regardless if it is a false statement or not.

These were all arguments when I was working in machine intelligence. In fact, the color argument is one of the philosophical questions...can machines imagine the color red? Not just a hexadecimal color, but something that it 'experiences'.

It has been a decade since I worked in machine intelligence (I now study knowledge acquisition / learning in the pure biological side where it is practical...I am employed to fix education...to whatever extent that I can actually do so)...but the idea of qualia is more a philosophical question than one of science. I was attempting to explain why it is more philosophy than science with my examples, but it seems I've failed to do this as I'd misinterpreted our comparative knowledge of the subject. So I'll just leave it with...it is an interesting subject, just not one I personally felt the need to devote much time to (i.e., my machine intelligence I was working in was of a practical nature, however others I knew were working in a theoretical area...they will probably push the science further than I will as a whole, but I will probably accomplished more in the short term...most of the work I did in the '90s and early 2000s has already been eclipsed!!!)