Yes, I agree in a way. I was being somewhat flippant. I think there are better ways (well, I'm not sure - I hope there are!) to understand the falsity of physicalism.

Any suggestions, by the way?

oh, and I responded to a post of yours on lucid dreams. I think that lucid dreaming, if it was made more accessible (I'm working on it with music I've composed:>)) would help.

And I made a comment on your post. The Tantric Buddhist and Tantric Hindu traditions have astonishing understandings of dream interpretation, but if you read their medieval and ancient writings looking for something like what we have, you won't find it. It was just an implicit undersatnding that all writings are symbolic, and symbolic (ie interpretative) understanding was taken for granted.

They didn't think they had to remind people of this any more than they would write a text saying, "Don't forget to breathe while you're reading this!"

And because of this, we think they didn't know anything about dream interpretaion!

It's like so many of my fellow psychologists who say the Buddha didn't know anything about psychological development or about the Jungian shadow.

The problem is they're looking at meditation texts for this. It would be like someone from the 25th century opening a book on chemistry and saying, "Gosh, these people in the 21st century knew nothing about music!"