I Read your referred Searle answer , relevant and clear in a “Searleish” way.
But, I cannot refrain from the impression that the distinction he makes between the “Property Dualism” and his “Biological Naturalism “ implies a too much fine resolution than the current state of knowledge , both in neurology and philosophy , could justify.
As it is, the “Dual Property” presents the advantage of an easier analogy with some well-known models in physics, as for instance, the particle/wave dual property of atomic and nuclear particles (see ,for instance, the diffraction of electrons !).Meaning, such dual descriptions have to be accepted in our material universe.
More or less similarly, the field concept is ,un-controversially, accepted in the physics understanding of the different types of interactions of “material” particles.,the gravitational field being an example.
It is amusing to see that physics is more liberal with its concepts ,than the philosophy is. In fact, this doesn’t come as a surprise, given the current poor definition of what has to be considered as matter !