I think it's wrong to define the physical process by contrasting it with the goal, because this assumes the goal exists.
A physical process consists of patterns of intentions, desires, emotions, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or actions, as they interactively constitute the chain-reactionary process of one's being; I consider things like thoughts to be physical processes, such as subtle (but tangible) astral energies or, if you prefer, sparks of electricity and neuron relationships in the brain.
A goal, on the other hand, is defined by a specific, set target, but not by virtue of what that target's physical process constitutes in its very animation, but rather by virtue of what one takes that target's physical process to mean. What is this "meaning", where does it exist?
Just as if I define myself by asserting that I'm not a giant pink elephant I fail to delineate very much of my definition's contour, similarly defining a process in contrast to its "goal" is illogical.
Allow me however to play devil's advocate. If a physical process consists of patterns of intentions, desires, emotions, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or actions, as they interactively constitute the chain-reactionary process of one's being, what if the process is not constituted by the thought or action itself, but by the deliberate, purposive choice of the thinker to choose that thought over another thought, that intention over another intention or that action over another action?
Let us put aside, for the moment, that the vast majority of people have dreadfully poor grip of their physical and mental faculties.
The problem is, if we consider the physical definition of something to be based on existential self-determination, then again we're defining it in contrast of something terribly moot. One never chooses to think one thought over one other thought as if those were exclusively the two possible options. Nor, for that matter, can one potentially choose from an infinite amount of thoughts to think.
What doesn't matter?
If enlightenment is liberation from ignorance, then to what end is it so? If enlightenment is the pure ISness of being, the physical process itself in its very animation, then what is the point of pursuing enlightenment if the physical process' chain-reactionary flow dictates in the first place through existential gridlock when you pursue it and when you attain it?
Unfortunately I must depart for bed before unraveling my own mystery. I'm sure I'll succeed at it, the bed is only a few steps away and I'm perfectly able-bodied.