At this point whether we agree that the mbp should be called a problem or not is a matter of semantics.Almost. It's more like this: The MPB is not a valid problem because explaining how the mind an body are related cannot be done. We can only describe the situation involving minds and bodies. But there might be an explanation for how such things are related when we can explain how the rules of nature came into existence. Unfortunately, that is well beyond my intellectual reach.
we both agree that we currently do not have a theory that begins to explain how the mind and body are related.
at best we can say human consciousness seems to be related to the body, especially the brain, and especially neurons.
but we are nowhere near having a scientific explanation of why, say, the taste of chocolate is correlated with certain neural states and not, say, the taste of vanilla.
you seem content to say “let’s stop calling it a problem and just accept that certain feelings/sensations are correlated with certain neural states even though we have no idea how or why.”
I say it is a problem, you say it’s not. Let’s move on.
I also quibble with your suggestion that consciousness, somehow being caused by physical processes in the brain, is fundamental. If that’s the case, it would be a case of strong emergence on my understanding.
if something were to be fundamental, it would have no priors that we know of. Human organism and brains would be required for consciousness, which in your account mysteriously (strongly) emerges from them.
save me your bricks and house analogy. Again, let’s move on.
my position is as follows: there are multiple lines of evidence converging on the idea that the classical reality we perceive is not base reality. There are conversations in physics atm about the reality of space, time, causality, etc. The science of perception is converging on the idea that, to some degree, we don’t see reality in itself but in a limited, subjective way that has been adaptive for our species.
couple the above with the fact that we have no beginnings of a theory ( or idea ) of how consciousness might emerge from neural processes.
I don’t dispute the fact that states of human consciousness seem to correlate with states of the human brain and body. What i do dispute is the intuition that the human brain and neurons cause consciousness.
I think we are beginning to understand that space, time, and causality are not fundamental. That means things like brains and neurons are not fundamental either.
this, I believe, is why we can’t move beyond mere correlation when it comes to the nature of the relationship between mind and matter.
I think mind and matter share a deeper relationship than can be revealed via classical physics, chemistry, or biology.
I think an understanding of the relationship between what we know as the mind and the body will come, if ever, when we have models of reality at a deeper level then we do currently.