I am open to the possibility that mind==brain, so in a sense the difference between us is how we weigh the evidence. BTW, I decided to start re-reading Penrose's book, "Shadows of the Mind" because he spends a lot of time refuting arguments that people have put forward to his Gödel argument.
I just think that if science generally treated mind==brain as a
hypothesis (which is what it is) rather than a fact - and therefore encouraged the collection of data that refutes that hypothesis, we would be a lot further forward. I also think that anyone who estimates that we may need 200 years (your estimate a year or two back - so maybe 198 to go

)) of ongoing research before we understand consciousness in physical terms, should realise why alternative ideas have some real force - and that is even before we consider the 'woo' evidence that this site is focused on!
David