> Im not sure how you assign probability to finding truths of this manner. Again in the grand scheme of things, few hundred years is not very We're not talking

> Im not sure how you assign probability to finding truths of this manner. Again in the grand scheme of things, few hundred years is not very We're not talking a few hundred years, we're talking a few thousand at least. Human specialness rarely survives serious inquiry. There are no divine kings or priests, humans are not created in God's image, we're just another animal, and other animals have similar cognitive functions as we do. All of these and more were believed at one time or another, but have no factual basis. > Second, what you consider to be "materialist" is entirely subjective which can and has been amended. We readily accept force/energy and now randomness as part of material science. Materialism hasn't really changed, it's always and continues to be the position that all that we perceive is made of some common, physical substance governed by natural laws. That our understanding of how this works evolves doesn't change anything. > And if one cannot explain onserved phenomena, it is only logical to have to add onto a model. The suggestion that we cannot explain observed phenomena is exactly the point in contention. Neuroscience has barely gotten started, and the cracks in mystical properties of consciousness are practically chasms already. There is simply no basis for claiming that we need to extend our ontology to account for the mind. > Lastly, what distinction do you make between experience and perception exactly? Machine perception is a thing, machine experience is not. We too are machines with some extra capabilities, and one of them must produce the belief of experience as a side-effect. The conclusion is based on an illusion though, it's only perception and information processing in the end.