"The evidence I'd point to with respect to the mind being a part of the body -- and only a part (my foot is not a mind) -- is that what we normally think of as mind is influenced by physical things."

So, the donut affects what goes on in my mind....therefore i am a donut?

But this - "Things that affect the body affect the mind. For example, drinking alcohol changes what we feel. Construct a long list of such examples" - does not imply the mind is the body. Alcohol affects my mind, but that doesn't imply that my mind is alcohol. My brain affects my mind. That doesn't imply my mind is my brain.

"Inference to the best explanation suggests that therefore the body is the mind, or perhaps the functions of the body is the mind."

Why, without assuming that materialism is true, is that the best explanation?

Where's the evidence that the mind is the body? Without assuming that the mind is the body - which is question begging - what evidence is there that the mind is part of the body?

Isn’t a law of logic defined by its origin rather than by how general it is? In other words, a law of logic comes from Reason itself, not like a law that describes the behavior of physical things (a law of nature).

If that’s right, then there’s nothing in the concept of a law of logic that demands it must always apply universally. That just seems to be a characteristic these laws often exhibit, but it’s not essential to what they are. So, if it turns out that all proposed logical laws have exceptions, it doesn’t mean there are no laws of logic—only that they are more specific than we once thought.

I’m new here, but I’m curious to know what evidence there is that my mind is the same as my body. The quote from Maurice Merleau-Ponty didn’t offer any evidence. I haven’t read any of his work, so maybe he does make a case elsewhere, but it wasn’t in the quote I saw.