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.
Or that they are crude approximations of more fundamental neural activations. Like how clouds follow the laws of physics.
edit: (i seem to be restricted from posting)
i m not claiming clouds are an illusion, that's a strawman, but that studying the shape of clouds is the wrong way to go about physics.
I also don't understand the arguments for 'inner life'. as far as neuroscience of the brain is concerned that's an interpretation of brain dynamics. It has been given too much undeserved attention in philosophy imho. Inner life is defined as opposed to what? outer life ? as far as the brain is concerned there is no external world, it processes neural signals that are generated entirely inside the organism, sometimes in response to external stimuli like light. Why would it be impossible for it to process the neural activity of itself the same way that it processes the neural activity of the retina.
I don't understand this need that behaviorists have to not just set the inner life aside but to claim that it doesn't even exist. It clearly does. It's the one thing each of us knows with utmost certainty. Just because there might be an explanation for it based on more fundamental principles—principles which, I might add, we are nowhere near understanding—doesn't mean it's not real.
Studying clouds may not be a productive way to explore physics, but it is absolutely a productive way to explore clouds! Such study may very well be informed by physics, but the study of clouds (and related phenomena) is a field in its own right.
All of that is to say that I don’t find statements like “X is just <some underpinning of X>” to be particularly consequential, even if such a statement is true. The higher-level phenomenon is still worthy of study in its own right.