Solving the Mind-Body Problem with Biological Naturalism

The mind-body problem stems from the difficulty of reconciling the physical sciences with the mind. However, according to Searle, there is a solution that does not require reconciliation or filling the gap between mind and body. Indeed, there is no need for reconciliation in Searle’s “biological naturalism” because they are inseparable in their definition and function. More specifically, the biological naturalism view states that, “Mental phenomena are caused by neuropsychological processes in the brain and are themselves features of the brain (The Rediscovery of the Mind, Searle, 1).” Though a seemingly simplistic solution to the mind-body problem, and perhaps because of its simplistic nature, biological naturalism is still able to withstand the objections to its viewpoints.

To clarify the relationship between the consciousness of minds and the neurological architecture of brains, it must be understood that they are both one system, not two distinct entities such as the vocabulary of ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ would suggest. The word ‘Mental’, meaning mind that occurs independent of the ‘physical’ body and vise versa. The state of the brain, such as consciousness, is a mode, a state, of existence much like liquidity is a state of water. Simply stated, it is that brains cause minds and minds are features of brains. There is no explanatory gap in which a mysterious homunculus are at the controls nor is there a complete separation of mind and body as stated in Cartesian dualism. Indeed, the mind and body is one global causation. It is a system that can be described at the micro level, such as neuron firings, or at the macro level, such as consciousness. Minds are therefore as much biological phenomena as enzyme secretion, mitosis, and digestion.

One of the objections to biological naturalism comes from Thomas Nagel. In his challenge, he states, “Causal explanations in the natural sciences have a kind of causal necessity (The Rediscovery of the Mind, Searle, 100).” He finds the fact that certain neuronal firings do not necessitate an equivalent mental state to be contradictory to epistemological knowledge. Without knowledge, without specific concepts, visualization becomes impossible and what one cannot visualize must be faulty. However, the inability to visualize certain phenomena says only to the limitations of one’s ability to visualize. Quantum mechanics is arguably so backwards from the older sciences such that one cannot subjectively approach the visualization, but that does not mean it is has no explanation level. Similarly, there is nothing to refute the biological nature of the mind. All it takes is finding the explanatory or relevant level of principle in order to test and predict the science behind the phenomena. For example, to study biology, it is not necessary to apply quantum mechanics, though it does exist on a certain level. Until the level is found, how the mind works will remain mysterious, but it is inconceivable to say that biological naturalism is false as a result.

The mystery of life once puzzled philosophers and scientists alike, however, it is now known that life is a biological process. Taken in the same context, the problem of the mind and brain will cease mystify once the neurological level of relevance is found. Searle states, “âÂ?¦the solution to the mind-body problem should be obvious to any educated personâÂ?¦(The Rediscovery of the Mind, Searle, 2).” Indeed, the de-mystifying has begun with tests of causal relations on the brain and mind, such as the effect of cocaine, all but indicates that brains cause consciousness and thus minds.