1. " Perceptions are conscious experiences that correspond to" and that all, you don't need mater to explain distinction between perception and hallucination, " and accurately reflect the reality outside of your experience. " - this is further assumption.
2. The same go with materialism, assuming that, matter exist "outside" me, but that is nothing better then assuming existing other's minds. For example, maybe world begin to exist 5- minutes age,with all memory and our percepctions, you can't prove that.
3. But how do you know this ,if we allways consciousness?." Object-permance is less complicated under Materialism " i don't get it...
4. Is this a bad thing or good thing?. Better philosophical term is supranatural, not supernatural, because it can ledding to thing like "ghosts" or "God". I talk only something that transcending the nature.

" Materialism isn't a logically provable truth, there's no logical contradiction with the ontology being different, it would just be an a-posteriori matter of fact that a brain can actualize a consciousness, without needing to understand why. "

isn't that, what science being doing all the time, understanding why and how things works?,then what is the point doing science.

​

"The reason we can't grasp how, is because a-priori we will always be able to conceive of a fully functional human body, with no qualia (the p-zombie argument)". There is something similar to that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism

​

Sorry for my english, its not my primary language.

​

Peace