It's kind of strange that perfectly obvious things like this need to be pointed out. Even for a non-reductionist about mind/psychology this all is trivially true. People must have very strange ideas about how psychology and physiology relate.
I think it's just that most people, including a surprising number of people who definitely should given their profession, never really give much thought to this kind of conceptual issues. So it's not even that they have strange ideas about how psychology and physiology relate, it's that they have no idea at all, because they have never really taken the time to think about it and as a result they are extremely confused and say nonsensical things.
You see a variant of this in medicine too. It's common to hear "organic" contrasted with "psychiatric" illness, for example if you're trying to figure out whether a patient is catatonic due to bipolar mania ("psychiatric") or anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis ("organic"). I think most people using those terms would, if questioned, probably acknowledge the organic/psychiatric difference is illusory, it survives as a kind of shorthand to indicate what diagnostic/treatment path you're going to take.
Well, it is obvious that they have not thought about this much. Perhaps it makes sense to say that they have strange "implied ideas", which is just another way of saying they are confused, I guess.
We suffer from a deeply ingrained mind/body dualism, going back at least to Descartes (but probably much further). It's been so thoroughly internalized we mistake it for a self-evident truth. It's a source of constant confusion.
Overlooks the fact that newborns haven’t been socialised yet , still there are differences in the female and male newborn brains , so at least the differences that exist at birth must be biological .
It's kind of strange that perfectly obvious things like this need to be pointed out. Even for a non-reductionist about mind/psychology this all is trivially true. People must have very strange ideas about how psychology and physiology relate.
I think it's just that most people, including a surprising number of people who definitely should given their profession, never really give much thought to this kind of conceptual issues. So it's not even that they have strange ideas about how psychology and physiology relate, it's that they have no idea at all, because they have never really taken the time to think about it and as a result they are extremely confused and say nonsensical things.
You see a variant of this in medicine too. It's common to hear "organic" contrasted with "psychiatric" illness, for example if you're trying to figure out whether a patient is catatonic due to bipolar mania ("psychiatric") or anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis ("organic"). I think most people using those terms would, if questioned, probably acknowledge the organic/psychiatric difference is illusory, it survives as a kind of shorthand to indicate what diagnostic/treatment path you're going to take.
Well, it is obvious that they have not thought about this much. Perhaps it makes sense to say that they have strange "implied ideas", which is just another way of saying they are confused, I guess.
We suffer from a deeply ingrained mind/body dualism, going back at least to Descartes (but probably much further). It's been so thoroughly internalized we mistake it for a self-evident truth. It's a source of constant confusion.
Overlooks the fact that newborns haven’t been socialised yet , still there are differences in the female and male newborn brains , so at least the differences that exist at birth must be biological .
Fetuses also have environments as pointed out in footnote number 2