Ah, you ask for a series of encyclopedic volumes!
ok, only 99% kidding. Let me see, where to start.
I began exploring the foundations of science in the late 60s, in my teens. This was a time when psychologists, despite the so-called “cognitive revolution” begun in the early 1960s, would rarely even use the word “mind,” instead mostly talking about behavior (for people whose knowledge of psychology is from popular writings, I’m talking about those psychologists who considered themselves scientists).
Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” had not been talked of yet, and evolution was seen as utterly mindless and deterministic. People were still (incorrectly) accusing parapsychology of fraud, poor methodology, bad statistics, and 100% failure to replicate. The flurry of non-materialistic interpretations of quantum physics from earlier in the century were gone.
But there was a new trend emerging, and in fact, many of those who came of age in the 60s worked tirelessly for 30, 40 years and now are seen as elder “statesmen/women” in the attempt to provide a sane, rational foundation for science, one which is not limited to pure abstractions amounting to equating “Reality” with equations.
We’re now seeing respectable philosophers of science moving beyond the materialism vs dualism debate that has plagued science and limited it for decades.
We’re now seeing valid interpretations of quantum physics (NOT related ot the measurement problem or dimensions, NOT thinking that physics provides empirical evidence for these interpretations!) which bring in panpsychism, idealism and even nondualism. For the single best book I know of, see “Beyond Physicalism,” edited by Ed Kelly. I wrote an extensive review of the book on Amazon, and Ed as well as several other authors said it provided a good overview of the book. If you want to see where science is going, take a look at that book. It may not come to pass before we leave this life, but those in their 30s, 20s and younger will very likely survive (if any of us survive) to see a science as different from the one that prevails today as Galileo’s science was from that of the alchemists and astrologers of his day.
“Fundamental Awareness” is an excellent online essay: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951167/
As is Michel Bitbol’s ‘Is Consciousness Primary?” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4007/1/ConsciousnessPrimaryArt2.pdf
Bernardo Kastrup was kind enough to keep my review of “Beyond Physicalism” posted on his website: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/03/review-of-beyond-physicalism.html
This is tough stuff, and each of these requires focused reading of a kind that is all too rare these days. But I believe it’s well worth it; a window on the future, one might say.