In addition, given the current state of knowledge, both are true. Characterization of the position of Searle in relation to problem mind – brain physicalism naive + naive Mentalism of Searle biological naturalism has been criticized for reasons different and heterogeneous: criticisms of the biological NATURALISM of JOHN SEARLE 1. Despite his insistence on denying it, the core of his thesis is basically dualism of properties. 2. Regardless of their filiation, the theory does not end make intelligible the relationship between the micro-level and the macro-level. In this sense, is the problem of misunderstanding between the brain causes and their effects and/or mental achievements to talk of interaction or causation filmmaker, remains.

What’s more, many of the examples of physics which provides the same Searle (i.e., the solidity of the bodies) show precisely how the invocation of micro makes intelligible the properties of the level pop-up; but in the case of the Neurocommons problem perplexity is equal (if not greater) that before the explanation. In the words of T. Nagel: () when we discovered the chemical composition of the water, we are dealing with something that obviously is out there, in the physical world. When we find out that it is composed of atoms, we are only reducing a physical substance to (more) minor physical parts to discover that savor a chocolate really only is a brain process, we would have to analyze something mental (in terms of physical parts), and there is no way that a number of brain physical events are the parties that a taste sensation is composed: an any physicist can be analyzed in physical parts, but a mental process not: physical parts cannot be added to a whole mental 1. Although, it should be considered another type of examples (i.e. the theory of gravity), where the application of the phenomenon allows describing the macroscopic behaviour, but not hence the ultimate reason for the relationship, nothing prohibits the need for further research in the pursuit of such understanding.