How you refer to state or behaviour is not strictly relevant to the definition of an object, because it depends on how you implement it. It might fit in the language it was used in, but it doesn't in others. Behaviour might be reactive on state changes, it might be perpetual in a nameless loop, it doesn't matter. In the same vein, referring to state as values and behaviour as functions is too narrow. The lifecycle of the object is part of its state too, an object's construction and destruction is part of its behaviour. That may sound like hair-splitting, but it can seriously trip you up and give you a wrong idea of what an object is in non-conventional settings. An object is more than a map of 'name' to 'value or function'.

It's possible that my dismissal of many definitions is partly because they're not my preferred one. I'm human, so it's most likely the case. I like to think my preferred one at least came about through some investigation, and it's the only one that I've seen fit a wide enough variety of cases. For me, at least part of the validation comes from the fact that I was frustrated at the definitions people gave me long before I found one I liked. Too many conversations with college teachers, mentors and colleagues that went

  "So how would you define/describe an object?" 
  -"..."
  "OK, but what about [language/edge case/model]?"
  -"Oh yeah..."

I'll gladly have this conversation again, and again, and again, and I hope somebody can poke holes in the definition I prefer, and put me on the other side of it.