Derek, you say "[Nagel's] 'insight' is, quite simply, philosophically vacuous."

I'm afraid that reaction seems to me philosophically naive. Philosophy is not a hard science, it leans heavily on subtle and complex semantics, so what is useful and meaningful to some will often be useless and meaningless to others. To say that something means nothing to you is perfectly valid, but you go further.

As I've suggested before, you apparently have some kind of grudge against analytic philosophy, and as a philosopher yourself, I feel that your approach throughout this discussion has been quite unprofessional, using a lack of appreciation of another branch of your subject as a blunt object with which to attack it. But those who do appreciate a thing are never impressed by the fulminations of those who do not. Even if, for some of us, Nagel's insight does, indeed, say more about analytic philosophy at a particular stage of its development than about consciousness, that's no justification for such blatant disrespect between fellow professionals. I believe you're probably wasting your time here, though I can't be sure, because I don't know what you're hoping to achieve.