Re intersubjectivity, I believe the mind develops mainly through social interaction, and that this view is becoming quite mainstream. [Added later: here's a paper by Evan Thompson, from the Journal of Consciousness Studies, entitled Empathy and Consciousness, which is very good on this issue.]

Assuming that any critic of Dennett is threatened by having consciousness explained is like assuming any critic of Israel is anti-Semitic. In fact, I go further than him, in stating clearly that, in strictly third-person, objective terms, “phenomenal consciousness” is meaningless, so in that context, in effect, consciousness doesn’t exist. Much of what he says implies that but he seems scared of saying it clearly, probably because he doesn’t appreciate that subjective and intersubjective considerations more than make up for the negativity of the objective aspect.

When I first studied philosophy, I was a Nagel fan, and Dennett was my ideological arch-enemy. Over many years I gradually swung around, almost to the opposite extreme. I now think he was probably the most important philosopher of mind of the latter half of the twentieth century (and some of Nagel’s output is just rubbish). But even so, Dennett’s neglect of simulation (and affect: see the essay) was a serious omission that is becoming more and more obvious. See, for instance, Gallese’s “shared manifold” concept.

A new-born child has yet to acquire any memes, but for Dennett “Human consciousness is itself a huge com-
plex of memes…” (CE, 210), so the new-born is not conscious. A reasonable fall-back is that it is sentient, but for Dennett sentience is nothing but sensitivity (KoM, 97): the new-born is just a sensitive mechanism. For me, the piece that’s missing from that jigsaw picture is simulation+affect, or in other words, empathy. I dare say that “in real life” Dennett is as empathetic as anyone else. But that begs the question: why is it such a glaring omission in his theory? I can only suppose that, being intersubjective, it was not considered worthy of inclusion. Which is rather a serious mistake for a philosopher of mind to make. But he was a man of his time. Not so long ago academics in the arts and humanities used to ignore popular culture for reasons that are not quite the same, but interestingly similar.

The title was intended to be provocative, and it seems to be working!

Incidentally, Dennett has children and grandchildren and I think, with your friend, would be just as horrified by someone suggesting that they were somehow less than human.

PS the title of your post is unhelpful.

I’d also ask that you spell out your own vision and motives a little. Your tone certainly suggests being threatened by having consciousness explained. But you really shouldn’t be. As a father of three myself, I can assure you, watching a mind develop is every bit as fantastic and wonderful an experience as it ever was.