Hi Gerald:

You're getting clearer over the years. Good stuff!

I like simplicity. I notice, as has happened every time Paul Austin Murphy responds to something I say, he simply dismisses it without addressing any of the points.

Because he can't.

Here's a simple way of putting what you wrote, and I absolutely guarantee, if Paul tries, he will simply fail to even address it, much less refute it.

What we know, most directly, in immediate experience, is a world of awareness (I prefer that to mind, since thoughts - or "mind" - can appear in awareness but awareness continues to be when thoughts are totally absent)

All talk of something "physical" - something existing in the absence of any awareness - is pure speculation, The furthest galaxies are only known through awareness - and I don't mean human awareness, as everything human, animal, plant or mineral also appears in awareness, not "my" or "your" awareness, just awareness.

Now, try to define physical without simply presenting a tautology: "physical" is what physicists study. And I assume since we're doing philosophy here, nobody is going to use the naive realist response: "You want to know what physical means. Here, I have a hammer, I'll hit you on the head and you'll know.

SUMMARY

All we know is known through the medium of awareness. Full stop.

if you want to posit something outside of awareness, the burden of proof is on you, If you want to just make up a definition: "physical' is the foundation of everything - then the burden of proof is on you to show us why we should believe in such a non empirical concept for which nobody has or could ever provide even one scintilla of evidence.

PREDICTION: If Paul does happen to stop by, he will once again say something like "Your comments are so obviously absurd, nobody should waste time addressing them.

Which I would take as an implicit admission that he can't address them.