Dr. Solenzol, I appreciate your guidance on this. You are at least partly right and your suggestion that my writing on this comes across as a crusade is appropriate but troubling to me. And, in retrospect, I responded emotionally to your requirement that I modify my statement about Dennett. It forced me to look more deeply at the issue and I see that the question is more one of definition. Koch and Stapp both had very dismissive statements about Dennett's denial of consciousness while Chalmers dealt with Dennett's position in far more detail. In Chalmers' definition of consciousness (and one I agree with) it does represent a denial. He classifies Dennett as a Type-A materialist. If one accepts the far more limited definition of consciousness that Dennett proposes (eg functionalism, reporting, etc.) then yes, he does say there is consciousness, just not the kind that the others accept.

I hope to have pleasant discussions with you and if I have come across as unpleasant I am very sorry about that. Not my intention at all.

As for my crusade, I do admit that to some degree. I am very much a layman but an interested one and have spent years reading a lot about what science teaches. There is much in science, and more all the time it seems, which points to the limitations of physicalism which is a philosophical position. It seems many scientists and philosophers are prepared to recognize and discuss this behind closed doors, but when it comes to putting a public face on it, everyone circles up the wagons and defends it as if it were indisputable science. My primary concern is not the scientists but the way those reporting on what science teaches are dealing with these issues.

But, believe it or not, I would very much enjoy your take on that.