I listened again to Daniel Dennett’s 2001 Stanford address.
In summary in response to the “Hard Problem” of Chalmers, he notes that not all nouns phrases denote something.
He characterizes explanations of consciousness as either including, or excluding the subject as a feature of the theory.
A theory that includes it, as Chalmers seems to require, has explained nothing for it assumes something very much like what it is trying to explain.
<p>I think that a proposal to explain the ‘illusion of a unity’ widely reported by people, especially as the denotation of “I”.
Philosophers seldom carp about other illusions, such as optical illusions.
I suppose that illusions of one’s ‘self’ occupy a special place however.