<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Has anyone read George Lakoff’s writings on functionalism? His essay “Philosophy in the Flesh” is Brockman’s <i>The Mind: Leading Scientists Explore the Brain</i>, dismisses functionalism as Putman’s former interest, which he later dismissed and argued against. Lakoff claims that the mind is studied in terms of its cognitive functions independently of the brain and body. How can this be possible? If the mind is what the brain does (More) and the brain is an organ of the body, then how can Lakoff make this claim? It seems absurd to me and misleading. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>We have already discussed embodiment vs. disembodiment and the consensus is that we will exist in some type of system/substrate that can be seen or understood as a body (or new interpretation of body). If functionalism is the most appropriate position to take in this regard, why would functionalism claim to be devoid of a body? This brings us back to the annoying issue of disembodiment, which Lakoff claims to be the objective of and metaphor for neural computation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Natasha<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Natasha Vita-More</span></a><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>PhD Researcher, Univ. of Plymouth, UK<br>Chairman, Humanity+ </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Co-Editor, <i>The Transhumanist Reader<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>