yes. Consciousness is for the most part an illusion and there are pretty good evidence for this. Even in times we think we get it all "clear" our past experiences are so full of false concepts and perceptions that make the current experiences complete delusions (not just illusions). Consciousness is based on memories and past experiences. If memories are mostly made up shortcuts, mixed up with dreams and false perceptions (i will let you google it) then the sheer clusterfuck of the sum of all people's beliefs become nonsense.

"For the most part", you say, so I would ask about the part that remains. I'm aware of all the ways our minds trick us, but that's a different question. There is one thing about which it's impossible to be wrong - the one thing in the world we're certain about - and that's that we exist. That's what Descartes proved with his famous line (there's a whole passage and a whole book wrapped around that single line), even though it's fashionable sometimes now to challenge it, but really no one could ever prove him wrong without contradicting themselves. I could be a brain in a vat, you could be a robot, this could all be happening in my mind or in a dream, I could have been created just a millisecond ago and all my memories could be implanted - but there's one thing I can't be wrong about: I AM. (And by that, we mean consciousness, we mean our qualia to use the philosophical term.)

As a "philosopher" you shouldn't make these logical fallacies. I am an atheist, Stalin was an atheist, therefore I support mass killings? :) come on. don't let me catch your leg that easy.

Let me rephrase that for you. "Alex is a philosopher. Therefore he should be very aware of this fallacy - just because Dennett is wrong about one thing, doesn't mean he's wrong about another thing. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that Alex wasn't making that fallacy. If that's true, then what else could he be trying to illustrate with that paragraph? Maybe he was trying to say 'There are great philosophers who share your opinion. But don't get all jolly just yet: just because they're great doesn't mean they're right. After all, the same philosopher, despite his greatness, is a compatibilist about free will.' Yes, that seems like a far more reasonable interpretation."

Or maybe, even better: "That was just a side-thought, after all Alex always tends to talk too much."

(I am also aware the fallacy of which you have accused me is a different one than the one I used in my rephrasing.)