(Note also that I've stopped smoking, and so am quite irritable.)
Gah, Self Anti-Realists are stupid, and increasingly dominant. (For the links NS will annoy you about logins, but will let you log in and look without paying)
I really think this field of study is more an exercise in professional psychological nihilism rather than any real attempt to find out what's going on with our apparent consciousness. I get especially annoyed when commentators attack a two-hundred years dead argument**, and think they've destroyed a modern concept. I'm prepared to accept some pretty wild things about what my consciousness actually is***, however, as literally all things are predicated on the fact that we are perceiving, one should probably make sure one has an pretty water-tight argument before saying one has demonstrated that actually we aren't. I also find the optical illusion arguments to be trivial curios being used to attempt to fully describe the attributes of a complex, and ill-understood system. It's a bit like saying the monitor flicker on a BBC microcomputer shows that actually there isn't a processor anywhere, because sometimes the image is gone.
Because something that's apparently clearly present, but doesn't fit your theories, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (though it's possible that it genuinely doesn't). There's a good likelihood that you don't quite understand everything yet. More looking, less grand announcements.
* I'm willing to accept that there's not, if a good description of how the illusion works is provided. (Also, who or what is perceiving the illusion?)
** that we're not actually ghosts in a machine, who'll go to heaven, we're part of the machine (or some sort of weird resultant effect).
*** I'm totally happy that it's nothing like what it looks like. I don't think it must be continuous, indeed, I suspect it isn't; I may well be a series of deluded flashes of universe processing.