>>11604928well i agree it's counterintuitive to say thoughts are physical but i don't make the connection with the science of physics. i take it that physicalism commonly understood to be just synonymous with materialism or materialism + nitpicky subtleties, and materialism understood to be a kind of realism which on top of holding that all of my sensory experiences correspond to an external and independently existing reality(so my thought isn't the whole story), it also adds that this reality by nature is not fundamentally consciousness involving (so i don't believe in an externally existing but weird reality with strange dualisms like my thought has causal freewill powers or religious cosmologies going on in the background) and so all that's left is the usual peaceful spatio temporal playground where the objects of my perception and everything else that exists is located and all the events play out. if physicalism adds anything special beyond that then it's that whatever it is that exists there, is "physical" which is meant as opposed to "mental" or "imaginary", so i see no special value in the term physical beyond regular physicalism. i the extra addition in panpsychist physicalism is then to say that traditionally-viewed-as-mental things like experiences or redness are also physical, by this only meaning that those things also exist in that same spatio temporal playground alongside everything else, and not in some spooky mental playground uniquely equipped for housing transient "mental" entities like my feelings, visualizations, inner monologue, and all the other stuff my lonely eye of consciousness experiences without the use of bodily senses. so the stress in this idea is on there being no special hermetically sealed room where my attention encounters those special objects thought to only exist in the mind which it privately observes, as opposed to those public objects thought to exist in reality. i want to be a real realist and not a dualist in denial
