Not so self-evident, then? Sam Harris puts out a bunch of arguments, and Dennett puts out a bunch taking a different view, and lots of other philosophers argue these and other points of view, and you agree with Harris, but what role is "self-evidence" playing here? It looks like any other sort of argument, where people put forth evidence of the ordinary sort, and deductions, and intuition pumps, and so on, and because it's philosophy, no-one is persuaded by anything (except for graduate students adopting the dominant views of wherever they're studying).

You've read Harris, and it seems have had some sort of conversion experience. That is, you have acquired a belief without being able to access the reasons that you hold it, and take this to be a fact about the belief, its "self-evidence". But lots of other people -- Dennett, for example -- have read Harris and had a completely different experience, and find his view not self-evident at all.