But the point is, why should you think that "all we humans are" are material objects, and nothing else?
That, in effect, humans and all of biology "reduce to" — that is, are ultimately explainable by — physics and chemistry, and nothing else? Leading theorists for decades now have been telling us that biological information — which is neither physical nor chemical — is indispensable for biological organization.
Question: Do you draw any distinction between "perception" and "visualization?" Or, when you say "perception," do you mean only sense perception? Arguably, we humans are strongly conditioned by sensory experiences, not only as individuals, but arguably as a species. But do we actually "reduce to" sensory experience?
Or might the noun "perception" itself encompass a wider field than that which can be experienced by sense perception, direct or as technologically aided?
Just asking. Trying to get on the same page with you here....
That looks like an exercise in "filling in the blanks". Admitting that our sensory perception is necessarily limited by the properties of the material of our physical bodies does not require denying a spiritual existence. I don't see why it is necessary to assume that it does.
It might, but if objectivity is of any consequence in the investigation that leaves a question of how to establish any measure of objectivity without an underlying reliance on empirical evidence, and what seems to be a inherent connection between empirical measure and sensory perception.
A man and a rock are made of the same quantum fields and particles, but there is no point in developing an H1N1 vaccine for a rock.
Since the discovery of DNA, biologists ignore information theory to their own loss.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!