Thanks Paul, I do use materialism and physicalism as synonyms and only chose physicalism because in what I was reading the time it seemed much more common usage. An example is "Beyond Physicalism" by the editors of "Irreducible Mind." I didn't do a study of the terms to determine if they were exactly synonymous or if there were subtle differences. If there are some differences perhaps you could explain them.

As for "dislike" you appropriate point out that was a bad word choice for me. I chose that I suppose because I did and do sense some personalization in your comments about many of them. Some of the comments do seem more personally directed. I left the Kastrup out of the discussion because while he has come into the strongest of your criticisms, he also goes way over the top in my mind in the viciousness of his attacks against materialism and those who hold it. He has many good and interesting things to say, but I don't appreciate that part of his style.

Your last comment about Chalmers and those with religious beliefs is interesting. What I understand you to say, (please correct me if I'm wrong), if a critic of materialism is non-religious, or even anti-religious, you would take their comments about materialism more seriously than those (like me) who profess a religious perspective, is that right? If so, this goes to the heart of my extended post on your approach to these issues. We all have presuppositions, predispositions, biases and to some extent blind spots. But to dismiss perspectives merely because these can be exposed or are self-revealed does not contribute to meaningful discussions. We learn from each other who do not share our worldviews, wouldn't you agree. If the arguments are bad, or the evidence presented is faulty, that is where the discussion should focus.