Thanks for your response. I wasn't aware of Solms's book, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I regret, given my limited time, that I am unlikely to read it

I am not likely to agree with anyone who thinks that any part of the brain is responsible for consciousness, especially if they are starting from a (neo-)Freudian perspective. To me, not being a fan of Freud, that gives the game away from the start. I am likely to remain with my understanding that the Transmission model is the correct one. The fact that Solms believes his work lays a foundation for developing machine consciousness, also makes me suspect that I am unlikely to be persuaded.

His work may be helpful in understanding the brain, but that is all that neuroscience can, and should be, concerned with. I believe that the fundamental mistake is to interpret brain activity as producing consciousness, when it is consciousness that is producing the brain activity that neuroscientists observe. You say that “Solms asserts the mind/brain identity theory without much discussion”. Indeed, that is the problem; it's just assumed without considering alternatives. Just like Eagleman and Seth in my article.