You're calling it "semantic quibbling," but defining terms isn’t a sideshow - it’s the foundation of a meaningful conversation. If two people are using the same word to mean different things, then there’s no actual disagreement to resolve, just a tangle of miscommunication. It’s not about clinging to labels – it’s about making sure we’re not just talking past each other.

And on the claim that consciousness – in the Nagel sense – is the one thing that can’t be an illusion: I don’t think you’ve fully appreciated the argument if your first response is to ask for scientific evidence. The entire point is that consciousness is the thing that makes evidence possible in the first place. It’s the medium in which anything at all can be observed or known. You can doubt every perception, every belief, every model of the universe - but not the fact that you are experiencing something right now. Even if that experience is a hallucination or a dream, it’s still being had by someone. That’s the baseline from which everything else follows. Without that, even neuroscience is just lines on a chart with nobody home to read them.