An interesting debate, and one that I've thought about quite a lot. Firstly let me say that I think that the mind (defined as mental cognition - any act of thinking) and the brain are one and the same - I am a materialist (or physicalist, same difference).

In reaching this conclusion, I am therefore rejecting the notion of a soul, all forms of dualism, and I also reject the notion of qualia. I really want to respond to Korritke's post (very interesting - great post!) but first I think I'll stake my claim for materialism.

Dualism (the notion of mind being seperate from the brain) is very inviting, and I used to subscribe to it, but I think it is ultimately flawed. Just about every contemporary philosopher rejects it, it's most famous proponent Descartes has been ruthlessly picked apart, and the whole fields of psychiatry, medicine, cognitive neuroscience depend on dualism being false.

There is a huge correlation between the mind and the brain, and whole fields of research are dedicated to this. For one to argue for the seperation of mind and brain, these issues emerge:

1. If the mind is not physical, what is it made of?
2. If the mind is not physical, how does it seemingly have a causal effect upon the physical?
3. If the mind is not physical, why do we end with our death? Why are we 'anchored' to our bodies? Could we not be capable of swapping minds with another's body? Could our minds not survive our physical death?

I think that the first point is the most damaging to Dualism (again, the theory that mind is not identical with matter.) If the mind is not physical, what can it be? The definition of 'physical' is all matter contained in the universe. If the mind is thought to be some form of 'energy' it would still be physical. To be a seperate substance to all known physical matter is indeed challenging, although this is mainly a question of semantics, and it does not exactly counteract the argument of mind being seperate to the brain.

The second point is very much related to the first. In dualism, if the mind is nonphysical, how can it have an effect upon physical matter? To have a causal effect on physical matter, it would have to be physical itself. In everyday life we see a huge correlation between the brain and the mind. Take alcohol for example - we drink a beer and the alcohol in our blood affects the synapses in our brain and results in us becoming intoxicated. Our mental cognition is hampered - our decision-making, reaction time etc. All these things are 'the mind' and they are seemingly affected in a causal way by a physical chemical process in the brain. But this is just one example - think of drinking coffee, taking an asprin for a headache, taking LSD or any such substance.

The third point is pretty much self-explanatory. If our mind is seperate from our matter - our bodies, our brains - then what anchors our minds to us? Would it not be possible for two people to 'swap' minds?

But Korittke makes a very different argument. I'll adress that in a second post for better clarity. It's probably going to be a rather long post.