Consciousness Trilemma

[The Grand Nudger]

I know what you're trying to say... but you're failing to say it.

Consciousness takes time to come into effect so when we experience it we experience it after the corresponding brain areas produce it. That doesn't change the fact that when we experience it we experience it when we experience it.

This would be to equate memory with experience, and, in this case, consciousness.....which I'm fine with (dennet would be fine with that too)...though you might want to rethink it.......

You may as well say that the present doesn't exist because it would be an indivisible instant ant time requires motion.

Why would I say that?  I'm confident that our experience describes -some- moment that was once present...but that doesn't change the fact that my very -experience- of experiencing...as being aware in the moment of awareness, for example, is necesarrily an illusion.  You've agreed to that much already, just in the above.  Yes, whenever we experience something we experience it, whatever that means....but if we have a misapprehension about that it;s not exactly the same as misremembering the time as being 1pm instead of am...it;s a phantom experience of some present moment that no longer exists, a present experience that cannot -be- what oit purports to be. That makes..to take jorgs phrase, the witness highly impeachable.

But the reality of the matter is that the present is presently moving. It's a pulsating present. There is not just the present in the sense of what "happens" generally but here is also the present in the sense of happening. Present time is presently in motion.

What present?  Processing takes time.  You can only possibly have experienced a past moment, and there's no guarantee that whatever you remember experiencing was even -that- .  If you have to spin off into some novel theory of time to rescue your non-criticisms of the eliminativist position I think you might have completely lost the thread.