1. My point about the quality of questions is just that those who have 'done the math' are more interested in talking to those who have also. I did not mean to imply that all questions are so disqualified or even that they should be. Nor did I mean that such disqualification was capricious. Just based on the context of the dialogue.
2. " ID's answer to what you call "the problem of intentionality" is a religious one. That's demonstrably not true".
Some proponents of Intelligent Design argue that there must therefore be a single-source Intentional Designer, or Watching Watchmaker, to play on Dawkins' title. This gets very close to religous assertion, in my view. The fact that consciousness -- and therefore intelligence -- is not understood fully means that neither grand scheme -- the one asserting no design exists, the other asserting it must exist and is intelligent -- can really be argued conclusively. The main point I was making about consciousness discussions is that too much emphasis is placed on perception and too little on intentionality, which to my mind is the more interesting flip side of consciousness.
3. "You simultaneously seem to imply that science has no problem "getting around" the necessity for "the problem of intentionality". "
Well, as far as I know, the Blind Watchmaker (no design) school leaves intentionality out of the picture, aside from the individual organism's intention to achieve survival. That is their view of the minimal inclusion necessary to explain the larger copmplexity, and it is quite elegant. I think it leaves gaps in understanding that are important, but I am a neophyte in the subject. I haven't even read Darwin in the original. I am studying two of Dawkins' books right now, enjoying them greatly. There is a lot of careful thought and well-arrayed factual discussion in them which is giving me much to chew over.
I think there is a great deal more to consciousness than even complex neuronic wave equations can reveal, but so far that is just a semi-eddicated opinion.