Thread: can the mind exist independent from the brain?

Perhaps the philosophy section is a better place to put this.

I personally would prefer to think that it can... but I am just too painfully aware that I/we humans don't know much.

We don't fully understand the brain. That said, my personal uninformed opinion (though who is informed on this question?) is that the mind is dependant on the brain. The brain constitutes everything we precieve. The neural connections allow thought, memory, so on. Does a braindead person have a mind in the sense that we know it? Doubtfully.

To take it to the next level-- spirituality. Perhaps the soul will carry on the mind, one made new. That is an entirely different discussion though. So to conclude, looking at just the physical world we humans know-- I do not think the mind can exist independent from the brain.

The mind is the conscious part of the brain. They are one.
Also, mind is just a human expression, you can't really locate the mind in a brain.

It would help to direct the flow of this discussion if you are more precise about how you define "mind". Memories and the like certainly are dependant on having a brain as evidenced by the effects of brain damage to them. The question of whether a hypothetical soul requires a brain makes for a more interesting debate though.

can the mind exist independent from the brain?

I'll answer you with a question: If I take away your brain, what do you think would happen?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'll answer you with a question: If I take away your brain, what do you think would happen?

You're thinking too literally. And I think Mes is right, this should probably belong in the Philosophy section.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut_Jeff777

You're thinking too literally.

Well maybe the thread starter should elaborate a little then, because it seems so obvious ...

If you mean mind as in qualia of mind or subjective mind, then I believe the following, assuming that causality exists (which I have heard it doesn't):

Mind and brain correlate, that is, their informational content is exactly identical but of a different nature, and neither of them could be said to have causal influence on the other. Instead, they correlate by some universal process that translates neuron-states into mind-states (and vice versa) for no reason.
However, the physical universe has causal influence on the brain. Causal influences on the mind cannot be said to exist because qualia cannot access themselves and thus cannot analyze their qualia-influences. Since the physical universe is causally closed, it shall be assumed that qualia have no causal influences on their own.

The illusion of free will is a result of several psychological factors which are (a) self-consciousness (as in the brain's capability to refer to itself in information processing processes), (b) emulating capabilities (imagination, memory etc.) and (c) reason.

Taking causality out of the calculation, I'd say that mind and matter are two sides of the same coin in that they correlate as described above. I would assume, without being able to prove this, that every set of connected neurons has a correlating set of qualia. I'm not entirely sure if something similar could be said about (a) cells that are not neurons, (b) one-cell organisms, (c) viruses and (d) dead matter.

I'm also arguing that the 'mind', as we perceive it, does not play a role in the evolutionary process and that it's just bad ass luck that we get a mind with our neurons, even though it doesn't have a point. Also, as I'm writing this, my brain, when using the word 'mind', thinks of a part of itself while in my subjective mind the term mind refers to my subjective mind itself rather than to the abstract concept that my brain uses. Did that make sense?

Furthermore I believe that it is impossible to investigate this problem on a scientific basis and that it is impossible to solve or even come close to a solution. I believe that the problem will not be solved as long as this universe with its current setup of mind/matter exists. And by 'solved' I mean solved in such a way that the solution can be put into words. I think the closest you can get is naming the subjective experience of solving the puzzle, a word that carries no meaning if you have not experienced it (look below for Zen).

The task of philosophy is to bring the mind/body problem into alignment with the natural sciences without explaining away human dignity or free will. I think that this is best done by looking at matter and mind as two sides of the same coin, as said above.



Another way to explain this is to assume a kind of substance that is totally different from mind and matter and that is a closed system. This substance would be the foundation to both mind and matter in that they are both equal representations (projections) of this substance into their respective dimensions. It would be the underlying principle of the universe, neither mind nor matter.

It could be argued that the process of spiritual enlightenment ('Satori' in Zen) enables both mind and matter to get in a state that is in total alignment with the guiding principles of this underlying substance. It would be for mind and matter to join in unity and for the mind to get access to this substance, to 'sneak a peak' on it. This alignment is given in at least all forms of dead matter, maybe even stupid animals. A stone is enlightened in that it does what it does. To become enlightened as a human being is to reacquire this type of alignment and to overcome the illusion of division of mind and matter. I have found that this analogy works decently to explain Zen. But I'm not the one to talk.

It really depends on what you define 'mind' as.

I don't think there's a mind without the brain\body. If you consider people's thoughts, actions, and emotions to be part of the mind, of what makes up in personality, that can be altered, for example, by a disease, surgery (lobotomies), or an accident (like Phineas Gage).

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'll answer you with a question: If I take away your brain, what do you think would happen?

Spartiate, this isn't about separating the brain from the body, it is about separating the brain from the conscious mind.

Originally Posted by CymekSniper

Spartiate, this isn't about separating the brain from the body, it is about separating the brain from the conscious mind.

OK then, let me rephrase... If I take away your brain, what would happen to your mind?

I think it's possible. But look at The Matrix, the only way to get to mind (which controls everything you do) is trough the brain. Sticking that long metal stick in the back of your head.

Or even look at the computer. Is it really CPU thats makes it work, or the operating system, without the software (the mind), the hardware (the physical brain) is nothing. Even our mind exists outside already, look at what we're doing now, posting our thoughts into an interconnected network of information over cyberspace for "other minds" to read.

Iunno if this makes any sense but thats my view, if it makes sense.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

OK then, let me rephrase... If I take away your brain, what would happen to your mind?

Simple, Spartiate, it would cease to exist.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

OK then, let me rephrase... If I take away your brain, what would happen to your mind?

im not exactly sure. it hasn’t been scientifically proven that consciousness is just a chemical reaction in the brain. and i think there is some good evidence that would suggest otherwise.