Exactly.Personally, my views about the ground-state of consciousness and being derive from a theistic view of reality. But I thought I would post one comment that expresses my question about the meaning of the term "physicalism" as discussed at the Stanford Encyclopedia:
12.2 Hempel's dilemmaOne might object that any formulation of physicalism which utilizes the theory-based conception will be either trivial or false. Carl Hempel (cf. Hempel 1969, see also Crane and Mellor 1990) provided a classic formulation of this problem: if physicalism is defined via reference to contemporary physics, then it is false — after all, who thinks that contemporary physics is complete? — but if physicalism is defined via reference to a future or ideal physics, then it is trivial — after all, who can predict what a future physics contains? Perhaps, for example, it contains even mental items. The conclusion of the dilemma is that one has no clear concept of a physical property, or at least no concept that is clear enough to do the job that philosophers of mind want the physical to play.
This paragraph is preceded and succeeded with much more information that I have not time to able to dive into to learn adequately. But it seems to me that use of the term physicalism requires a very tight initial definition, otherwise, the arguments will indeed go round and round till everyone pukes. What the heck, modern "science" says that the universe consists of 96 percent of unknown stuff - dark matter, dark energy - that no one has yet observed, but that physical observations seem to require. Personally, I think mental reality - consciousness and being - indeed are based on actual "stuff", but that "stuff" will never be adequately examined by us humans.
It is self evident that mind and matter interact but it doesn’t follow that mind is matter (physicalIsm) not that matter is mind (idealism).
it simply begs the question: how are the mind and body related? Ie the mind body problem.