TRYING TO REPLY EDUARDO OSTRONOFF'S CONTRIBUTION TO MY VIEW ON THE BODY-MIND PROBLEM

Dear Eduardo,

you've brought our question to its inevitable metaphysical point-of-no-return. As I've said in that post, there's no rational (empirically decisive) answer to the dilemma monism x dualism as applied to the mind-body problem. So, my monistic  approach is based only upon personal preferences informed by my clinical practice, besides of course all my previous thoughts and readings. It points out to a metaphysical choice.

To think about the deepest essence of the world, or "what the world really is" as you say, a quest inherent to our human condition, remains a big challenge. But it will for ever be our quimera, our pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

As I see it, this all too human desire is allegorically represented on the Genesis as the Adam and Eve eating of the pome of wisdom. G'd forbade such a meal because absolute knowledge (the world as it ultimately really is) is quite unattainable for us humans. They should better never try to achieve it!

But the snake (ambition?) piqued their rebellion, and all mankind suffers since then the consequences of such a move, for ever condemned to believe they might someday catch definitive truths.

All kinds of languages can't be anything more than tools in our quest for managing things around us! Notwithstanding the fact that some of such tools may be better than others for specific purposes, all of them will never be more than plain tools.

Mathematics is a far more reliable tool to manage empirical data, and to share results among experts from most scientific fields. But it remains also no more than just another language, just a useful tool, never an absolute truth.

I daresay that the explanation for the so extraordinarily wide range of mathematics's aplicability may lie on this simple proposition: 'mathematical truths are nothing but a set of relations aiming to describe our a priori mental conexions lying behind all kinds of hypotheses about empirical data'.