Yes indeed, and it is compelling. Fading qualia and all that. It's the absurdity of philosophical zombies. Those arguments did have an influence on my thinking. On the other hand the idea that we *can* replicate all the brain's outputs remains an article of faith. I remember that almost the first thing I read in Dennett's book was his claim that rich, detailed hallucinations (perceptions in the absence of physical stimuli) are impossible. Dennett is either wrong on this - or a vast body of research into hallucinogens is. Not to mention NDEs and OBEs. Dennett may be right and these reports may all be mistakes and lies, but I doubt it. If he is wrong, the his arguments become a compelling case in quite the opposite sense to what he intended: the brain not as a manufacturer of consciousness but as something more like a receptor. My instinct tells me we don't know enough about the brain or consciousness to be certain of any conclusions derived from logic alone. We may be like Newtonians arguing cosmology without the benefit of QM and relativity.