Your challenge began: First give me an example of something that is physical, but not material. I did not answer because the language is one of the philosophy and not physics.
I shall borrow from your Bell's Inequalities dialogue and present the philosophical difference this way:
Both agree they don't know what is behind that door.
Doctor Materialist says "Whatever is behind that door is based on all the physical laws that are in the room of all scientific knowledge.”
Doctor Physicalist says "Perhaps it is, but we have no way of knowing, we must first find a way to open the door.”
There is yet another door marked "Consciousness."
Again, they both agree they don't know what is behind that door.
But Doctor Materialist says “I am sure that whatever is behind that door works the same as things do here in the room of all scientific knowledge.”
Doctor Physicalist says, “Perhaps it does, but we have no way of knowing, we must first find a way to open the door. For this one, we’ll need a new of kind of science.”
BTW – I am enjoying the discussion.
Thank you, I was going to bring that up before. What you previously posted about materialism and physicalism had to do with metaphysics, but the question of how consciousness works is one of epistemology. It is possible to be a philosophical non-materialist and still expect/accept a material explanation for the workings of the mind. Nobody invokes mysticism to explain how a Slinky works.
Doctor Materialist says "Whatever is behind that door is based on all the physical laws that are in the room of all scientific knowledge.”
That's where I'm confused. "Scientific knowledge" comprises what we know. It isn't about what we can know, but currently don't. If that's the difference between materialism and physicalism, then I submit that materialism is purely a straw-man position that nobody has ever seriously advocated. (Ironically, it's the holy-book-thumping mystics that come closest to saying that we already know almost everything we are capable of understanding.) Nobody seriously contends that we actually have an adequate explanation in hand for consciousness. Dennett named his book Consciousness Explained to be provocative and boost sales. Few people seriously contend that there are no discoveries yet to be made that will affect our understanding of consciousness. (Certainly I don't, but I expect the missing pieces to come from biology and chemistry, rather than physics.)
So I'm afraid I still don't see the difference between materialism and physicalism when it comes to understanding the mind.