I really wish I could just sit here and watch this thread all day. err...to everybody doing the work of actually writing out the answers, I just want to say thanks for the work. I really want to write something substantial, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything to add that isn't discursive or trite.
Since there are obviously some minds here that can help me tackle this, I just want to ask this: If there "is no body," and hence "no mind/body problem" is it even approaching correct to say that a mind which still has substance and therefore a responsibility to figure out some kind of "truth" as a starting point for moral decision making, can ever approach truth as "what is," or "that which is"? Is a Caspar Hauser or boy raised by wolves and completely "uncultured" still able to discern truth, or is that just solipsism?