> I've already acknowledged that humans "experience" things, in a colloquial sense. Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps we don't disagree in the way I though

> I've already acknowledged that humans "experience" things, in a colloquial sense. Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps we don't disagree in the way I thought. Let me see if I understand our divergence. Because my experiences have a certain consistency, I infer an objective cause. Because this continues to happen, I become increasingly certain about this model (e.g., materialism). In brief, the way I model reality is the result of a particular configuration of experiences. I then use this model to explain the existence of experience itself. So far I hope we're on the same page. Where I think the divergence happens is in whether a person considers the inferred model (materialism) or the "sheer phenomenon" (colloquially, "experience") to be more fundamental. I think I understand (and respect) why you and others feel it should be the former. Being the sort of person who spends time relaxing my inferences about reality (i.e., "meditating"), I feel it's the latter. Anyway, I should probably go spend time doing something else. Apologies if I've mischaracterized your views.