Alright, maybe a little bit loaded title here, but our author has really run aground in this chapter--either that or I'm just not reading his argument correctly. -"For even if the physical universe is all there is, our scientific data, that is, pointer readings, does not tell us of what it is made. For the nature of that physical universe lies hidden always behind the pointer-reading."-Quantum theory has told us what matter is. Matter consists of wave probabilities of positive, negative, and neutral charge. -These nonlocal probabilities collapse into local phenomenon whenever an "observation" is made, and in the sense of physicists, an "observation" can be something as mundane as two particles colliding. -In some respects he is repeating an argument from chapter one on why man can never create consciousness: there is more to human experience than one can write into a concise form. However in the case of matter--there is no "human experience" to talk about until we have humans. -Where he completely flies off the tracks is in the next excerpt: "If according to reductionists, consciousness must be a product of the mechanical processes of unconscious matter, that is seeing can be causally and logically derived from being seen, then according to them, seeing is not primary. Being seen is primary.-Intuitively, one feels that there is something wrong here. How can reality be derived from a passive verb?"-Firstly; reality isn't derived from a passive verb at all. But the hidden nature of his fallacious thinking lies ahead. But from what I can construct here: Because materialists place more value on "what can be seen," they make that the primary. But consciousness cannot be seen. Therefore, how can one take an entire factor of existence and not make it primary? -Next: He resurrects an old (and very easily dismissed) argument from Berkeley. 
"But something whose whole essence is to be perceived is cimply an idea in a mind because it by definition cannot exist except by being perceived by some mind." -In other words: If a tree falls in the forest with no one to witness, does it make a sound? -Here's the nail in his own coffin:
"The conclusion is inescapable. It is that consciousness is logically prior to unconscious matter. Without consciousness, nothing can exist." [emphasis added]-Never before have I read such rubbish from an otherwise well-educated man. According to this idea, when we go to sleep, the world ceases to exist. -The answer to this is of course--it ceases to exist for you. But the universe, without man, would still exist; if we destroy ourselves, does this then mean, all existence ends? Wow. I don't really want to read on from here, but I've already dug in this far. Too bad we couldn't get him on the forum. -Is there anything here in what I've quoted that negates my arguments here? Any other questions/comments? Am I off base?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"