Neuroscientist here: There is no such thing as a mind-body duality. Your body is your mind and your mind is your body. Full stop.
We are still in the very infancy of the study of the mind body and brain. We're finally uncovering some of the most basic tools that will serve us for millennia to come. Imagine trying to understand a 2022 Ford F-150 with only a 7/16ths wrench and a flat-head screwdriver: You can get pretty far, but you're not getting anywhere near the cylinders. It's going to take along time to even get the tools to understand the brain.
For example: We don't even have all the basic circuit components that the brain has. We have resistors, capacitors, and inductors. All things that the electrical systems of the brain have analogs to (very very roughly, I am simplifying a lot here). But we're missing the memristor. We know the brain has a memristor, it's the synapse, but we don't really have ones to play around with and use as tools. Yes, you can model these things in software. But then you miss out on most of the ugly reality that is hard/wetware; and that's where all the magic happens.
But that's just the electrical parts of the nervous system. Most of what is happening is in the electrically dark chemistry. Heck, we can't even agree on what percentage of the brain is glia. Is it 50%, is it 90%? Whose paper should you trust? We don't even have a good census of what is in the damn thing!
But of course you can't take the brain in isolation. The inputs and effects on it are still nearly completely unknown to us. And that's not hyperbole either. We really are mostly in the dark as to what effects the brain. Just look at temperature. We know that the rate of firing of neurons goes as T ^ 4. Yes, that's the hypercube of temperature. Even the slightest change in temperature has massive changes to firing rates. How in God's name do any of us function on a hot or cold day!? We haven't the foggiest idea.
So again, we're in the absolute infancy of our study of the brain. Fortunately, most of us HNers are going to live to see a lot of progress in this science. It's an exciting time to be alive.
>The acquisition of donor personality characteristics by recipients following heart transplantation is hypothesized to occur via the transfer of cellular memory
>There have been perplexing reports of organ transplant receivers claiming that they seem to have inherited the memory, experiences and emotions of their deceased donors, and which are causing quirky changes in their personality."
This post was in response to one describing decapitated worms growing new heads with their old memories intact, as well as old studies where planarians were trained to navigate a simple maze, then fed to other planarians who were then also able to navigate the maze. Fascinating stuff!
> Your body is your mind and your mind is your body. Full stop.
This is completely unwarranted judging from the rest of your post ("in the very infancy", "nearly completely unknown", "mostly in the dark", "haven't the foggiest idea"; although I appreciate the frankness).
If people made bold statements like "There is no such thing as X" in any other field at a similar stage of development, their claims would be rightly dismissed as pseudoscience. ("There is no such thing as a graviton. Full stop.")
Your claim is not a finding of your field of expertise, or any other branch of science. It's metaphysical belief. You're entitled to it. It's a widely shared belief. It might be a belief with a lot going for it. Metaphysical claims are fun! They can be discussed! But I wish people wouldn't confuse them with scientific knowledge.
I gather that there are two (somewhat related) definitions of mind-body duality:
1. mental phenomena are not physical
2. the mind and body are distinct and separable
Neither of these claims are supported by modern science in any meaningful way. It is perfectly reasonable to say that mind-body duality has been disproven by science, insofar as it is reasonable to say anything has been disproven by science. Just because neuroscience is still in its infancy doesn't mean there can be no established foundations of the discipline. These foundations may turn out to be wrong or incomplete, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about them.
Would you say there’s a gut/body duality then? Or a fascia/body duality? Understanding of the gut and fascia are also in their infancy. We barely knew anything about the gut microbiome until a decade or two ago. Up until about a decade and a half ago, when doctors dissected cadavers, they simply threw out the fascia. Now we know it’s got more nerve endings than the eyes.
We’re in the infancy of understanding the human body, period. But why does that imply a mind/body duality? One thing that’s clear is that everything is interconnected, and I think that much is clear from the comment.
The whole idea of a mind/body duality is a historical artifact. If someone wants to argue that there is a duality, then I think the onus is on them to prove it exists, not the other way around.
I took it as them dispelling the notion of metaphysical nonsense, not unlike how space and time are talked about as spacetime.
Not that it matters all that much. Every single test ever performed looking for a mind absent a body has conclusively, and unquestioningly failed. There are even large bounties available for showing a single successful test which have yet to be claimed.
So let's say that you cut off a person's arm. and then you cut off their other one. and their legs too. and then you take out organs that they definitely don't need to live, exactly when do they stop being human? What are they then?
I don't totally disagree with your notion that the body is the mind, but I'm struggling to determine what a MVH (Minimum viable human) is.
We are still in the very infancy of the study of the mind body and brain. We're finally uncovering some of the most basic tools that will serve us for millennia to come. Imagine trying to understand a 2022 Ford F-150 with only a 7/16ths wrench and a flat-head screwdriver: You can get pretty far, but you're not getting anywhere near the cylinders. It's going to take along time to even get the tools to understand the brain.
For example: We don't even have all the basic circuit components that the brain has. We have resistors, capacitors, and inductors. All things that the electrical systems of the brain have analogs to (very very roughly, I am simplifying a lot here). But we're missing the memristor. We know the brain has a memristor, it's the synapse, but we don't really have ones to play around with and use as tools. Yes, you can model these things in software. But then you miss out on most of the ugly reality that is hard/wetware; and that's where all the magic happens.
But that's just the electrical parts of the nervous system. Most of what is happening is in the electrically dark chemistry. Heck, we can't even agree on what percentage of the brain is glia. Is it 50%, is it 90%? Whose paper should you trust? We don't even have a good census of what is in the damn thing!
But of course you can't take the brain in isolation. The inputs and effects on it are still nearly completely unknown to us. And that's not hyperbole either. We really are mostly in the dark as to what effects the brain. Just look at temperature. We know that the rate of firing of neurons goes as T ^ 4. Yes, that's the hypercube of temperature. Even the slightest change in temperature has massive changes to firing rates. How in God's name do any of us function on a hot or cold day!? We haven't the foggiest idea.
So again, we're in the absolute infancy of our study of the brain. Fortunately, most of us HNers are going to live to see a lot of progress in this science. It's an exciting time to be alive.