I just discovered Prudence Louise' writings, and i'm not sure I fully grasp what she is saying but I'll give it a try.

It's not that we don't YET grasp what is physical. If you study all the leading physicalist philosophers (the online article by D Stoljar as part of the Stanford series on philosophy is a good place to start) you'll notice to a person, they all simply assume the existence of something physical.

now, you don't have to be an idealist to see that this is problematic.

As part of my doctoral training as a psychologist, I received extensive training in research methodology and successfully conducted two research studies. According to a physicist friend who has explored the foundations of science extensively, this following is an accurate description of what science tells us about the world - pay close attention to step one:

1. We start with sensory data. THIS MEANS, SENSORY INFORMATION AS PRESENTED IN CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE.

2. Measurements are taken FROM the data, and based on those purely quantitative data points, we develop and test hypotheses, develop theories, and use those theories as a means of further analysis of what we started from : SENSORY INFORMATION AS PRESENTED IN CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE.

Note this takes us beyond panpsychism. NOWHERE in any scientific experiment ever conducted do we find a single data point OUTSIDE conscious experience, except by abstraction.

Now, do you know the difference between ontology and epistemology? If not, please take the time to look it up. At no point in this discussion am I making ANY ontological claims - I'm NOT claiming that ONLY conscious experience is real (Donald Hoffman makes that claim and I think he's wrong). I'm not claiming physicalism (Or panpsychism) is wrong.

I'm just saying, if we only accept scientific evidence as currently construed, the evidence for physicalism is non existent. Physicalism may be true, but there is nothing in science that provides evidence for it.

I just saw a physicalist proponent claim physicalism is true because ultimately everything is made of the kind of subatomic particles that physicists 'discover."

But physicists DO NOT discover such particles, they theorize that such things exist. Not I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm simply saying that there is no evidence for them as conceived by physicalists

I'm describing a profoundly different way of thinking, one more akin to that of Vedanta than the kind we usually employ, so i realize this may be difficult. But what I'm saying does not require faith, only the careful use of reason. .