Gold & Stoljar's (G&S's) characterization
of the trivial doctrine and of its relationships with the radical one
misses some differences that may be crucial. The radical doctrine can
be read as a derivative of the computational version of functionalism
that provides the backbone of current cognitive science and is
fundamentally uninterested in biology: Both doctrines are fundamentally
wrong. The synthesis between neurobiology and psychology requires
instead that minds be viewed as ontologically primitive, that is,
as material properties of functioning bodies. G&S's
characterization of the trivial doctrine should therefore be
correspondingly modified.