A few days ago I published two short philosophical arguments against physicalism, here they are: If you like them and think they are worth spreading (for example in discussion forums), please do. The main point here is that physicalism cannot explain our daily actions. First, almost every one of our actions seems to be purposeful in one way or another, and these purposes are needed in the full explanation of our actions. Also, these purposes cannot be explained by means of prior physical causes. Second, we need to be able to steer our body towards our purposeful destinations. Physicalism cannot explain how that happens; in physicalism each and every one of our body movements is just a lucky chance, comparable to dyskinesia and tics. From the point of view of the laws of motion, there's no difference between voluntary and involuntary movements; if physicalism is true, they both are completely uncontrollabe. In the real world, however, we need and have our consciousness to guide and control our actions -- the laws of motion cannot do that.