I apologize if I am misrepresenting the article points, but in this kind of discussion often the only thing I see is "If we take unnecessarily strict dictionary definition of terms then obvious things become false"
There are interesting ways to look at consciousness, e.g. you can look at it in terms of how the psychology of an individual evolves over time, or you can study apparent and emerging structures in the psyche and its illnesses (personally I am a fan of Jung's approach).
I am not even saying that this article is unnecessary by itself. The author is not straw-manning the opposition, it is just that the whole debate looks like a caste in the sky we would be better of dropping.
