Mind-body dualism – solved
The mind-body dualism is a problem that ultimately comes back to a wrong categorization. I would like to show this below using a simple equation. The mind-body problem describes an apparent contrast between physis and consciousness, in which on the one hand the physique stands in the form of physical connections, on the other hand consciousness in the form of a philosophical attribution. If you write this down as an equation, then on the left side is the physical connection, in which I disregard the concrete content (as well as the calculation rule), on the right side the consciousness, in which it is just as little about the content. It is neurons A (physics) plus/ multiplied neurons B = consciousness (philosophy). You can see at a glance that such an equation makes no sense, since different languages are used on both sides. It's like saying apple 1 plus apple 2 equals pear.Physicalists get rid of this problem by simply deleting the right side of this "equation" and claiming that there is no consciousness at all. If one asks what sensations are, it is said that these are perceptions that the physique produces, which in turn causes the problem. The same applies to the question of how decisions are made. The common answer is that the physical brain makes decisions and then communicates them to conscious experience, as claimed in the Libet experiment. The entire complex process of decision-making with doubts, considerations, revisions, planning, etc. is simply reduced to a physical process, which as such should already provide the explanation. For understanding: I am describing here an ontological concept of consciousness that answers the question: what is consciousness in principle.

The above equation, if written correctly, should be: Neurons A (physics) plus/ multiplied neurons B (physics) = consciousness (physics). However, this equation would be largely meaningless, since physics deals on the one hand with inanimate nature and on the other hand only provides abstract concepts that cannot be further specified on a physical level. It is precisely this fact that distinguishes Tononi's Integrated Information Theory, whose (physical) concept of information makes no distinction between animate and inanimate nature and thus opens the door to panpsychism.
What about an equation that relates to chemistry? You have exactly the same problems there, but at this level an essential principle of life can be presented very nicely.

A small digression: At the precursor to life, molecules (accidentally!) came together and, with the help of catalysts, generated reaction cycles that reinforced themselves by means of energy exchange with the environment and thus maintained themselves. This is the basis for the self-activity of life as opposed to the inanimate passive object world. Only with the 'encapsulation' as a cell does it act independently in this environment. This also adds a self-control, which makes the pure random walk an 'intended' one. What this 'intention' is, I show below.

Let's move on to biology. There the above equation is: Neurons A (biology) plus/ multiplied neurons B (biology) = consciousness (biology). What can a 'biological' consciousness mean here? If we argue purely biologically, then consciousness must be in a historical series, starting with the first single-celled organisms. Single-celled organisms do not just move in the world by chance, otherwise they would hardly be able to survive. The above intention is nothing more than an orientation system. In single-celled organisms, this takes the form of 'orientation' based on physical and chemical gradients. If one extrapolates this phylogenetically, this means that what can be called consciousness also serves the orientation of the organism, only on the basis of nervous systems. At the same time, these nervous systems generate an excitation or excitement that the individual organism perceives as an experience and which can be measured as an observer.

One can now use different models with which this excitement can be described and concretized. We are still at the biological level here. Thus, the physical theory of dynamical systems could be transformed into a model in which that consciousness could be described as an attractor, the physical concept of information (not Shannon!) in connection with information or structure density describes the same dynamic 'center', or evolutionary graph theory can be described as an orientation (random) walk.

On this basis, neuroscientific approaches could now be classified that can lead to a convergence of the different concepts of consciousness, as a medical term (conscious vs. unconscious), psychological (conscious vs. subconscious) or neuropsychological (attentive vs. relaxed). Without such a scientific-theoretical categorization of consciousness, one moves in the realm of complete arbitrariness and indeterminacy. It also shows that consciousness – as well as life in general – cannot be described with any physical model. Biological terms are necessary, which form a basis for concretizations of any kind.
I haven't solved the mind-body problem here because, as you have seen, it doesn't exist at all. What I solved is this epistemological misunderstanding.

Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that sensations based on excitability (sensory and neural) naturally gave rise to behavior and hence communication, which was associated with sounds and thus these sounds became associated with meanings. With these patterns of meaning, one has made the world usable for oneself, it has been measured, so to speak. We call these linguistically meaningful sensations thinking.

From this point of view, it becomes obvious that thinking has nothing to do with any cognition of an 'objective' reality. It is nothing more than the (highly differentiated) process of perception of reality, which (for us and not in itself) has produced tools with which we are able to process nature in a highly complex way.

Since life only begins at the molecular level, there is no need to search for life on all the scales below.
Since the philosophy of mind addresses consciousness as an entity in its own right, it fails to present it as an (emergent) consequence of life.