Moved: The brain is not the source of all thought and reason - the mind is.

[Marybeloved]

Okay, now I have to ask…what does God or the Angels’ lack of brains have to do with human beings, mind, and brain?

You see the claim is that the brain is the origin of the mind, or that it is the mind. Since we see mind as awareness/knowing etc, we know that Our beliefs tell us that God, and angels have a “mind”- That is, they know, are aware etc. Therefore that’s why I said that the brain being a physical organ cannot be the mind or the source of the mind, because these spiritual beings do have a “mind” yet no brain. I hope that clears up the reason for bringing up God and angels (and dead humans called saints whose bodies are rotting/gone but we still know they are aware of us, our struggles and our prayers to them).

 

[Jesusismyfriend]

I think there is some truth to the point that the mind and brain are different. It’s like when you “ask Jesus into your heart” in the Protestant way. Jesus doesn’t literally live inside your heart. Your heart is an organ that pumps blood. It is meant in a spiritual sense.
So I think that’s what they mean by mind. Maybe the physical brain controls body functions, and is capable of creative and analytical thinking. Maybe the mind is a part that cannot be seen. Like the soul. It can help you discern right from wrong. It can help you develop spiritual wisdom.
I think maybe they are considered to be the same is because the brain is the part of the body that holds potential for intelligence. But the mind does seem to have beliefs and feelings that even the best psychologist cannot understand. So I think the mind is similar to the soul.

 

[Jesusismyfriend]

No- actually, we are talking about “mind”. I’ve given the definitions from the dictionaries, it’s the awareness, thinking, consciousness. If you think it’s the brain then you have to explain to us how others without brains still have this “mind”. And I know I can’t do those things you say without a brain- That’s not the point! The point is whether the brain simply enables my mind to act in this world or whether the brain itself IS the mind or the ORIGIN of the mind. I, as a christian cannot believe that the brain is either the mind or it’s origin. My brain is important and totally essential to me in this material world because that’s the nature God gave me, soul and body. I cannot be a ghost in this world- I’m a union of body and spirit. But that does not mean that the Brain is the origin of my capacity to “know”.

Good point. I think the soul is more involved, because I don’t think any doctor could ever fathom important aspects such as faith. They have taken brains apart to figure things out, but they still haven’t figured that out.

 

[CopticChristian]

You see the claim is that the brain is the origin of the mind, or that it is the mind. Since we see mind as awareness/knowing etc, we know that Our beliefs tell us that God, and angels have a “mind”- That is, they know, are aware etc. Therefore that’s why I said that the brain being a physical organ cannot be the mind or the source of the mind, because these spiritual beings do have a “mind” yet no brain. I hope that clears up the reason for bringing up God and angels (and dead humans called saints whose bodies are rotting/gone but we still know they are aware of us, our struggles and our prayers to them).

Jesus has a body. Angels have no body. Jesus we believe had two minds and one brain. Is the mind of the brainless different than the mind of those with brains? We will never know nor can we offer proof.

There is a mind without a brain and a mind with a brain. Are those minds the same, different or something in between. When you find out…meet me in the telephone booth with everyone else that understands.

 

[Marybeloved]

Jesus has a body. Angels have no body. Jesus we believe had two minds and one brain. Is the mind of the brainless different than the mind of those with brains? We will never know nor can we offer proof.

There is a mind without a brain and a mind with a brain. Are those minds the same, different or something in between. When you find out…meet me in the telephone booth with everyone else that understands.

Since we have an agreement that mind does exist outside physical brains, no need for telephone booths- whatever that means. I did not discuss the different natures of mind (which I regard as synonymous with intellect)- I know that a creature limited by my double nature cannot have the same mind as a purely intellectual creature like an angel, or the infinite unfathomable mind of my God. Yet, that was not the point.

 

[Faith1960]

You see the claim is that the brain is the origin of the mind, or that it is the mind. Since we see mind as awareness/knowing etc, we know that Our beliefs tell us that God, and angels have a “mind”- That is, they know, are aware etc. Therefore that’s why I said that the brain being a physical organ cannot be the mind or the source of the mind, because these spiritual beings do have a “mind” yet no brain. I hope that clears up the reason for bringing up God and angels (and dead humans called saints whose bodies are rotting/gone but we still know they are aware of us, our struggles and our prayers to them).

Would any neurosurgeons agree with you?

 

[CopticChristian]

Since we have an agreement that mind does exist outside physical brains, no need for telephone booths- whatever that means. I did not discuss the different natures of mind (which I regard as synonymous with intellect)- I know that a creature limited by my double nature cannot have the same mind as a purely intellectual creature like an angel, or the infinite unfathomable mind of my God. Yet, that was not the point.

You see the claim is that the brain is the origin of the mind, or that it is the mind. Since we see mind as awareness/knowing etc, we know that Our beliefs tell us that God, and angels have a “mind”- That is, they know, are aware etc. Therefore that’s why I said that the brain being a physical organ cannot be the mind or the source of the mind, because these spiritual beings do have a “mind” yet no brain.

You see. In other words I am demonstrating something to you that you should understand. To see is to visualize. You see, you visualize, you understand.

The claim. Someone has claimed that. This is the premise you object to. This claim is the origin of the mind and then you declare for clarification that it is the mind. In other words someone, somewhere has claimed this and you object.

Since. This you believe is fact. We see. We understand. I understand and you should understand that I believe and want you to believe that mind is…awareness/knowing etc.

We know that our beliefs. Our Faith. Not fact. We believe something to be true that no one else can prove to be true and here you depart into what cannot be proved. We believe that angels and God have a mind. This is built on your prior premise and you believe it and you want others to accept and believe it as fact. It is Faith that caused you to believe it. That is…you clarify because you want to be clear about what you believe.

THEREFORE…this is where you transition into what it is you believe and want others to accept because you have outlined your strategy…and your strategy is based on a claim and a belief.

Your proposition although believeable is not based on fact it is based on belief.

 

[Khalid]

The existence of other minds beyond one’s own is also based on faith or belief and not “fact”, or empirically verifiable evidence. (Plantinga, God and Other Minds, Introduction.)

 

[CopticChristian]

The existence of other minds beyond one’s own is also based on faith or belief and not “fact”, or empirically verifiable evidence. (Plantinga, God and Other Minds, Introduction.)

K,

While one can “observe another’s behavior and circumstances, he cannot perceive another’s mental states” (188). Plantinga notes that we can determine by observation (understood in more of a technical sense) to better understand this idea.

If faith is the cause of our belief in other minds then reckon what Plantinga says concerning another’s mental states. We can observe behavior but not percieve the mental state then it is concluded that there is a mental state that cannot be perceived however we acknowledge that it exists but not by Faith. To understand an idea means that we have some place to have that idea and that is in the mind. If I have a mind and I am created as Plantinga is then Plantingal has a mind.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isn’t there a belief that our heart also has a mind of sorts?

Can’t find where I read about it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Isn’t there a belief that our heart also has a mind of sorts?

Can’t find where I read about it.

Is,

It is like “I believe this in my heart”…to mean perhaps " I hold this near and dear" or “I firmly believe this” or “I believe this personally”…it is a figure of speech.

on the other hand see this, Human Heart has a mind…

arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article150010.ece

“What they have revealed is that there are neurons in our heart similar to the ones in our brain, and the existence of neurons in our heart has led to the creation of a whole new area called neurocardiology,”

Makes the whole convesation something unexpected does it not?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is,

It is like “I believe this in my heart”…to mean perhaps " I hold this near and dear" or “I firmly believe this” or “I believe this personally”…it is a figure of speech.

I understand this. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my post.

on the other hand see this, Human Heart has a mind…

arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article150010.ece

Makes the whole convesation something unexpected does it not?

Yes, this is more of what I wanted to focus on. Medical/Scientific findings/theories. I might be confusing you with another poster, but - aren’t you a Medical Dr.?

If memory serves me right, I believe I read some articles regarding heart transplants and the recipients “inherit” memories from the donors.

Also, about psychological trauma that reflects directly in the heart organ.

I have googled a bit but can’t quite put my finger on what I have read in the past.

But yes, it does add another dimension to the conversation.

 

[CopticChristian]

I understand this. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my post.

Yes, this is more of what I wanted to focus on. Medical/Scientific findings/theories. I might be confusing you with another poster, but - aren’t you a Medical Dr.?

If memory serves me right, I believe I read some articles regarding heart transplants and the recipients “inherit” memories from the donors.

Also, about psychological trauma that reflects directly in the heart organ.

I have googled a bit but can’t quite put my finger on what I have read in the past.

But yes, it does add another dimension to the conversation.

9,

Yes I am. You may want to consider this I pulled from a book that I am reviewing and abstracting…PsychoCybernetics, by Maxwell Maltz, M.D., page 20.

The more that is learned about the human brain, the more closely it resembles—insofar as function is concerned—a servo-mechanism. For example, Dr. Wilder Penfield, director of the Montreal Neurological Institute, recently reported at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, that he had discovered a recording mechanism in a small area of the brain, which apparently faithfully records everything that a person has ever experienced, observed or learned. During a brain operation in which the patient was fully awake, Dr. Penfield happened to touch a small area of the cortex with a surgical instrument. At once the patient exclaimed that she was “reliving” an incident from her childhood, which she had consciously forgotten. Fur¬ther experiments along this line brought the same results. When certain areas of the cortex were touched, patients did not merely “remember” past experiences, they “relived” them, experiencing as very real all the sights, sounds and sensations of the original experience. It was just as if past experiences had been recorded on a tape recorder and played back. Just how a mechanism as small as the human brain can store such a vast amount of information is still a mystery.

 

[Marybeloved]

You see. In other words I am demonstrating something to you that you should understand. To see is to visualize. You see, you visualize, you understand.

The claim. Someone has claimed that. This is the premise you object to. This claim is the origin of the mind and then you declare for clarification that it is the mind. In other words someone, somewhere has claimed this and you object.

Since. This you believe is fact. We see. We understand. I understand and you should understand that I believe and want you to believe that mind is…awareness/knowing etc.

We know that our beliefs. Our Faith. Not fact. We believe something to be true that no one else can prove to be true and here you depart into what cannot be proved. We believe that angels and God have a mind. This is built on your prior premise and you believe it and you want others to accept and believe it as fact. It is Faith that caused you to believe it. That is…you clarify because you want to be clear about what you believe.

THEREFORE…this is where you transition into what it is you believe and want others to accept because you have outlined your strategy…and your strategy is based on a claim and a belief.

Your proposition although believeable is not based on fact it is based on belief.

I really don’t know why you need to explain my thought process to me. I’m pretty sure I know how I think and what my premises are. The point I’ve made from the beginning is that no person who accepts the reality of God can at the same time conflate mind with a physical organ called a brain. There’s no atheist here as far as I can tell so I don’t get all this talk of fact as if the existence of intelligent immaterial beings were mythical. Matter is not the only reality -that’s why empirical findings cannot be the only “facts” nor the sole consideration here (aka materialism)- Reason also counts.

 

[CopticChristian]

I really don’t know why you need to explain my thought process to me. I’m pretty sure I know how I think and what my premises are. The point I’ve made from the beginning is that no person who accepts the reality of God can at the same time conflate mind with a physical organ called a brain. There’s no atheist here as far as I can tell so I don’t get all this talk of fact as if the existence of intelligent immaterial beings were mythical. Matter is not the only reality -that’s why empirical findings cannot be the only “facts” nor the sole consideration here (aka materialism)- Reason also counts.

MaryB,

I took the time to read all your postings. You have made a decision to defend your position that the brain is not the mind and vice versa. You assume that my posting is just to you. Check to see how many people are viewing this thread and not posting. They read this stuff too and either learn or sometimes because of the discussion join CAF and these threads. I have had the experience of personal communication from individuals such as this that have joined CAF and posted because of postings made by me. So understand that you do not post in a vacuum.

You wrongly conclude that no person that accepts God can differ with your point of view. You have seen that I have posted information that opens the door to “I don’t know” and “I don’t understand”. That is me. I do not and cannot accept your matter of fact proposition. If you go back and read one of your postings you mention that you have provided “dictionary definitions”. You should know that the dictionary is not something that has been around for all time. You should know that dictionaries change and word usage changes based on usage. Dictionaries are useful. I challenge you and anyone else to go to a major library in any big city that has old dictionaries and compare and contrast the word “Christian” and “Euthanasia” and the definition over time. The definition changes with information and usage. So a dictionary definition is sometimes but not always useful.

You confuse fact with athiesm. You infer that my or anyone elses consideration of fact is only something an athiest would do. You are wrong. Did you ignore the past posting about the brain, stimulation, and elements of the mind and mystery?

“I really don’t know why”…I will share with you is a question that is never going to yield a good response. What I am saying is that the way the brain/mind works and I saying I have no clue how they work together while you believe they are separate. What I do know is that to get solid answers from your brain/mind is to ask “what” and “how” and that will indeed yield answers. Why questions yield confusion and drive the brain/mind crazy. Pose a what is the problem and how do I fix it inquiry to the brain/mind, will yield an answer in time and it always works that way.

In answer to your question as to not knowing why I expalined your thoughts you can infer from what I wrote the reason but more specifically and for your edification, that is how my mind works. That is what I do. I analyze thoughts for clarity and understanding. When things make sense I don’t do that. When they don’t make sense I do that. That is why and you may not like my mind and you may ignore my brain…but that is me.

I see what you are discussing is the age old mind/body problem. I am not my body. My mind resides in my body. My brain is part of my body and I am not my brain. I see the soul/body as one. The soul has faculties thatAquinas designates including intellect and even though I see the soul as seperate from the body, I accept that as something to hang my hat on…I cannot explain the brain/mind. I don’t understand it, cannot explain it, won’t try to teach it…we have brains and I have met people that are brainless…

 

[Marybeloved]

Coptic, a few things there. I don’t equate facts with atheism I equate apriori rejection of non-empirically verifiable facts with materialism, which it is. Not only lab tested and physically observable facts are truths- some truths can be demonstrated from reason and are no less ‘fact’ for that reason.

Also my first comment with regard to this particular issue here sought a clarification on what you guys conflating the mind with the brain defined or understood mind as- no definition has been forthcoming, just assertions on brain and mind. We cannot discuss in a meaningless vacuum, we have to know what we’re talking about. That’s the whole point of a language. What a word meant centuries ago is irrelevant since we’re having a conversation today in 2012 using today’s English and today’s understanding of the language. If you’re using a word differently than it’s common usage then it’s up to you to make that clear- Again, we must know what we’re talking about, not just endlessly engage in meaningless conversation (if it can be called that at all) which is what we’d be doing if we each had a different definition of the words we’re discussing -hence why I first sought for this before looking at the common usage which is recorded in the dictionaries.

 

[1AugustSon7]

None of which is even remotely possible without a functioning brain.

You ignored my last post. To assert this is to deny God. God is Spirit; He precedes and does not need “a functioning brain”.

What you are preaching is materialism. If you believe this then you can’t believe in Transubstantiation either, which requires belief in invisible substance, which for men is the rational soul. Materialism necessarily leads to (at least a practical) atheism, which wrongly assumes tangible mater is the sole reality; whereas, the corporeal world about us is but a contigent reality, utterly mutable and continually dependent upon God for its existence.

Further, it is de fide that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and that the soul is the seat of the imagination (or memory), the will and the intellect (or understanding). These things are not absolutely identical to the soul but are, as Saint Thomas puts it, like the heat that eminates from a flame - the flame being in this analogy the rational soul of man.