The issue is semantic, but not all semantic issues are pointless. The question is whether in being so broad, naturalism becomes trivial or vacuous. Hempel's dilemma makes this a pointed challenge, so I tried to explain how naturalism is both coherent and meaningful.

I agree that this challenge can certainly be met. But you seem to want to exchange "natural vs supernatural" for "real vs unreal." I suspect a similar semantic issue would arise, then, in saying what's credited with being real. You're saying consciousness is real because it's grounded in what's scientifically explained (quarks, brains, etc). That would return us to naturalism.