What you are doing here seems to be quite common in these discussions: take (some of) the authors's statements, interpret and extrapolate them in the light of y

What you are doing here seems to be quite common in these discussions: take (some of) the authors's statements, interpret and extrapolate them in the light of your own beliefs, and deduce he is saying something that you, at least, consider to be ridiculous. The problem with this is that in the second step, his and your views become inextricably entangled, and you and the author end up talking past one another. A more productive approach is to take the author's specific statements and reasoning, and see where you disagree. There is something in almost every paragraph that I think is at least debatable, but I don't see a clear denial of qualia - at most, he may be suggesting that they may not be what they seem.