Well, needless to say, I completely disagree. First, the analogy with computers and "solveability" is so completely fallacious it boggles my mind. My head just about exploded when I read that. ;-) We have a formalism (more than one, actually) and a set of theorems regarding the universality of some Turing machines. We're not even close to having even a single formalism, let alone a body of theorems, showing that the mind is generated solely from the body. (An operational closure.)
But, more importantly, the best criticism you'll be able to muster against those who see a categorical difference between mind and body is that the problem is ill-posed. You can't say that all thoughts are generated from the body with anything coming close to credibility. The first, but not the least, objection to such a claim is the quantifier "all". You can't even estimate the cardinality of thought. You can't say whether language is required for thought. You can't account for qualia. You can _barely_ demonstrate neural correlates between bodily actions (like speaking or looking) and activity in the brain. In fact there is very little you can claim about the mind. And yet you can miraculously claim you know, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that all mind is generated by the body? Wow. Talk about an article of faith. Now, I'm not suggesting that the mind is generated by something other than the body. All I'm doing is avoiding conviction within a particular conclusion[*]. I believe that the body is a medium for the mind (there may be other media). In that, we agree. But I am not so arrogant to say that the mind is solely a behavior of the body. (And I'm especially not so arrogant as to claim we've proven that.) The difference is subtle. All we've done so far is demonstrate that there is an absence of evidence for the mind without the (a) body. But absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. There is clearly a Big Question. And that is: What changes can we make to the body without categorically changing the mind? Or, vice versa: What changes can we make to the mind without categorically changing the body? We already know many of the changes. You can change out someone's hip, for example, without fundamentally altering their mind. Medically, this Big Question flows down into questions like: 1) Does a person's identity change after a stroke? Or the onset of Alzheimer's? Parkinson's? Cancer? A bunion? 2) How is a schizophrenic person different from a "healthy" person and what changes can/should we make to "heal" such a person? 3) What is the personhood status of a fetus? A comatose patient? A brain-dead patient? These aren't just "little mysteries", as you so belittle them. They are instances of the mind-body problem with very practical and often heartbreaking contexts. [*] We do have a significant non-whacko population of people who believe in things like memes, social construction/regulation of the mind, evo-devo, multi-level selection, extended physiology, etc. To say the mind-body problem is solved is to dismiss all these positions and their backers. ERIC P. CHARLES wrote circa 11-09-20 07:48 AM: > Well... yes and no. > > To keep my metaphor in the 'P.S.' going, we also can't say exactly how a > computer could solve every solvable problem... but that doesn't mean > there is a Big Question 'solveability' mystery still around. Instead > there are many little mysteries: How would this particular problem be > solved? > > For example, the point I was trying to make was that mind and body do > not differ in the manner the Big Question version of the 'mind-body' > problem assumes. Mental things are one of the many things that bodies > do, nothing more. If you accept that (which I am fairly certain you do), > then you have already moved beyond thinking there is mystery of how mind > and body are related. What you (and I) are left with is a bunch of > little, normal science questions. What is the exact mechanism of X? How > does Y develop? etc. Such questions represent scientific unknowns, just > as do questions about how to synthesize a particular compound. There has > been much success in solving many of the little mysteries. Many, many, > brilliant experiments illuminating the mechanisms by which bodies do > mental things, and explaining how such mechanisms develop. I could > recommend several large books if desired. > > When people talk about a 'mind-body' problem, they are convinced there > is still a Big Question. Something like the question of where and how > the soul enters the body, or the question about how the ethereal mind > connects with our corporeal mere-matter. Robert's link showed this > nicely. Though some of that language has been rejected (souls are not > mentioned much anymore), any sense of Big Question 'mysteriousness' > indicates that people are still thinking along those lines. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
