WRT some recent posts on consciousness, mostly by Academician, eg "There must be something more":

There are 3 popular stances on consciousness:

1. Consciousness is spiritual, non-physical.

2. Consciousness can be explained by materialism.

3. Consciousness does not exist. (How I characterize the Dennett position.)

Suppose you provide a complete, materialistic account of how a human behaves, that explains every detail of how sensory stimuli are translated into beliefs and actions. A person holding position 2 will say, "Okay, but you still need to explain consciousness." A person holding position 3 denies that there's anything more to be explained.

I've found these posts perplexing, and I think this is why: What's happening is that someone who holds position 3 is arguing against position 2 by characterizing it as position 1.