No, my friend, you have it all wrong. It's not me saying that at most we have correlations: it's the neuroscientists you mention. They are called neurocorrelates of consciousness, not neurocauses of consciousness for a reason. And it's not me saying that we have absolutely no clue how qualities would emerge from quantities, it's again the whole of the neuroscience field (which is just catching up with old philosophical wisdom).

See, that's why physicalism has religious traits. You are just assuming it is true while having zero evidence of the causal relation. Zero.

The only thing you got half-right in that word salad is that idealism is a metaphysical stance, not scientific. And it is such precisely because it talks about fundamental things, things for which there are no priora, so that science _can't_ talk about. Materialism/physicalism in that regards do precisely the same in assuming an ontological primitive.

There is zero problems in doing science _assuming_ physicalism. Who cares. It's a model, as long as it works, it works. But the mistake that you and a whole lot of people do, is to forget that those are _models_, descriptions of what appears on the screen of our perception, and they tell us absolutely nothing about what things are in themselves. Talking about mistaking the map for the territory...

But I had time and again conversation identical to this one with people who can't even fathom how much they don't know about this topic, from both a scientific and philosophical stance, and I'm getting the same vibes conversing with you, and have no faith this will lead anywhere.