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.

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 Oneironaut_Jeff777

You're thinking too literally.

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

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.

Software can easily be transcribed on a medium and deposited in a new computer. A mind, however, may differ in that capacity, yet still be a computer. A mechanical computer, for example, may run a 'program' determined by its mechanical elements, but the program and the 'computer' cannot be separated. To describe the program, the entire computer must be described.

I do not think the mind can be separated from the brain, but I do believe that it may be possible to construct a computerized analogue to the brain, allow it to communicate with a person's brain, and end up with a computerized version of a person's mind. It wouldn't be the same, of course, but I think that is as close to separating the mind and the brain as possible.

Almost all religeons believe that the conscious mind can exist independantly from the body.

Really, the answer to your question depends on your definition of mind and your definition of brain. For me, "the Mind" is an amalgamation of all of a person's thoughts. A brain is anything that houses these thoughts. In that sense, a mind cannot operate without a brain. In the classical human brain sense however, your mind is currently outside of your brain, as your ideas exist in places that your brain does not. They exist in other people's brains, they exist on a hard drive, they exist on paper, etc. I don't believe that the mind is any sort of religious soul, but I do believe that your ideas hold some essential part of you when they leave your body and together they still make up your 'mind.' Does this mean that the collection-of-your-ideas-outside-your-body can be conscious and aware? I don't know the answer to that question.

Very interesting discussion especially from Korittke
im trying to see what other people's opinions are instead of bringing up NDEs....

but i think it is possible if you view the brain like a television set. a machine that only puts the pictures together on the screen, but doesn’t actually create them from nothing. And the pictures (consciousness) are really being created somewhere else.

and just because the television set may be broken, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the pictures no longer exist. Just the apparatus no longer functions





PS: by Mind I meant clear lucid creative thought

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.

An interesting debate, and one that I've thought about quite a lot. Firstly let me say that I think that the mind (defined as mental cognition - any act of thinking) and the brain are one and the same - I am a materialist (or physicalist, same difference).

In reaching this conclusion, I am therefore rejecting the notion of a soul, all forms of dualism, and I also reject the notion of qualia. I really want to respond to Korritke's post (very interesting - great post!) but first I think I'll stake my claim for materialism.

Dualism (the notion of mind being seperate from the brain) is very inviting, and I used to subscribe to it, but I think it is ultimately flawed. Just about every contemporary philosopher rejects it, it's most famous proponent Descartes has been ruthlessly picked apart, and the whole fields of psychiatry, medicine, cognitive neuroscience depend on dualism being false.

There is a huge correlation between the mind and the brain, and whole fields of research are dedicated to this. For one to argue for the seperation of mind and brain, these issues emerge:

1. If the mind is not physical, what is it made of?
2. If the mind is not physical, how does it seemingly have a causal effect upon the physical?
3. If the mind is not physical, why do we end with our death? Why are we 'anchored' to our bodies? Could we not be capable of swapping minds with another's body? Could our minds not survive our physical death?

I think that the first point is the most damaging to Dualism (again, the theory that mind is not identical with matter.) If the mind is not physical, what can it be? The definition of 'physical' is all matter contained in the universe. If the mind is thought to be some form of 'energy' it would still be physical. To be a seperate substance to all known physical matter is indeed challenging, although this is mainly a question of semantics, and it does not exactly counteract the argument of mind being seperate to the brain.

The second point is very much related to the first. In dualism, if the mind is nonphysical, how can it have an effect upon physical matter? To have a causal effect on physical matter, it would have to be physical itself. In everyday life we see a huge correlation between the brain and the mind. Take alcohol for example - we drink a beer and the alcohol in our blood affects the synapses in our brain and results in us becoming intoxicated. Our mental cognition is hampered - our decision-making, reaction time etc. All these things are 'the mind' and they are seemingly affected in a causal way by a physical chemical process in the brain. But this is just one example - think of drinking coffee, taking an asprin for a headache, taking LSD or any such substance.

The third point is pretty much self-explanatory. If our mind is seperate from our matter - our bodies, our brains - then what anchors our minds to us? Would it not be possible for two people to 'swap' minds?

But Korittke makes a very different argument. I'll adress that in a second post for better clarity. It's probably going to be a rather long post.

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.

Originally Posted by Matt5678

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.

Then go forth and find me a conscious brain dead person...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Then go forth and find me a conscious brain dead person...

the tempt was too great
ive posted this many times, im sure people who have read my threads on the subject think i sound like an old broken record using this again
there are several cases like this. i like using this case the most because i think it comes closest to an actual scientific experiment. and i think it has a lot of significance.


so once again..
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book,
Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of a near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.

Sorry about the multiple post, but this one is dedicated solely to Korittke's intresting post.

Firstly, I reject the notion of qualia. I'll discuss that later.

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.

I haven't studied casuality very much, but I have heard that someone (was it Kant?) provided a good argument against it. But casuality is a good working hypothesis, I guess. So I'll agree with assuming that casuality exists.
So in your argument above, you are arguing that the brain and the phenomenal mind (the mind as qualia) are related simply through correlation, but not causality? (I hope I'm understanding you right.)

I think that this argument is flawed. If we assume that changes in brain-state, as influenced by physical causality are then mirrored in the mind-state by the universal process, couldn't it then be said that the physical world does have a causal influence on the mind-state? Take the following situation for example:

1. An apple exists on the table in front of me. (physical state)
2. The light reflecting from the apple is detected by my retinae, which in turn send electrical signals to the visual cortex of my brain. (physical state affecting brain state causally)
3. My brain-state of 'seeing apple' is correlated by an informationally identical mind state as the result of the unknown universal process. For ease of discussion, I'll call the unknown universal process the Mirror-Process (I hope you don't disagree.)

So, to sum up what I think you're getting at, the physical state 'apple' causally produces the brain-state 'apple' which in turn produces the mental (qualia) state 'apple', but the mental state and the brain state are not causally linked. Is that right? It is simply a sort of 'mirror process' of correlation...

Why I think this is flawed is this:
If the mind state is informationally identical to the brain state, I assume that if we were to put a banana on the table, our mind state would change to 'banana'. I don't see how this is not a causal relationship, accepting that causality exists. By changing my brain state from 'apple' to 'banana', I am also changing my mind state from 'apple' to 'banana' in light of both states being informationally identical. I could not have the brain state 'apple' and the mind state 'banana'. This is causality - you stated that it occurred because of a 'universal process' - ie. there is some sort of mechanism that is making the mind state and the brain state correlate identically.

I find the idea of a correlation by an unknown process for no reason to be strange. I don't see why such an phenomena should be postulated. Furthermore, let's take a affectual example:

1. I have the mental state 'pick up apple.'
2. The 'mirror process' occurs (uknown universal process).
3. I have the brain state (informationally identical to the mental state) of 'pick up apple'
4. My brain sends the required electrical messages to my arm and, via a causal relation, I:
5. pick up the apple.

Now, there are a few objections to this. Firstly, the problem of causality, as I mentioned before: if I have the mind-state 'pick up apple' which is assumed to be a non-physical 'qualia' process, and I ultimately pick up the apple, which is a physical process, then aren't the two causally linked? This then produces the problem of how a nonphysical state can cause a physical state. I understand that your point is that the mental state and the brain state are not causally related but simply correlated in a mirror-like fashion, but that brings me to my next point. If the brain state and mental state are informationally identical and mirrored in a correlated way, then the brain state produces all that is required to pick up the apple: the brain state of 'pick up apple.' There is no need for a mental 'qualia' state at all - the brain could have done all the work by itself.

So, we have a dilemma. Either:

The brain-state is determined by the mental state, as in the case of picking up the apple. This would be a causal process.
Or,
The brain-state is not determined by the mental qualia state, simply being a mirrored correlate. There is then no need for a qualia state - the brain state can do all the work by itself.

This is really a question of which level of states we assume to be the originator of a 'decision-making process'. When I reach for the apple, does this originate at a qualia-level or a brain-level? If the former, then it can be called a 'causal process' and if the latter, there is no need for qualia at all.

From what you've said about qualia states being unable to access each other, I think you are implying the latter - that the qualia-mind level is a 'projection' if you will of what is going on in the brain level.

I think qualia and other such phenomenalistic notions of consciousness are philosophical illusions. I do think that consciousness can be fully explained through a reductive, scientific approach, whereby qualia are not present at all.

I assume that you've read Nagel's paper What is it like to be a bat? ? He argues that whatever attempts we have at scientifically and reductively explaining consciouness, we will never succeed because of the 'qualia' of what it is like to be a bat...

I disagree with this, and I've written a large essay on it just recently, but I guess I'll discuss it later, my eyes are about to fall out of my head

Hope I didn't misinterpret you! This should be a good debate!

Stop making so fucking huge posts, Roller.

Originally Posted by Matt5678

so once again..
Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book,
Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of a near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.

Her brain can still function to a certain extent, and the NDE experience is just the physical responses from the brain. It is dead, and goes into a panick like mode, where it does all kinds of things, to stay alive. That atleast how I understand it.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Her brain can still function to a certain extent, and the NDE experience is just the physical responses from the brain. It is dead, and goes into a panick like mode, where it does all kinds of things, to stay alive. That atleast how I understand it.

that is a very rational and plausible theory. but i think there are two big things wrong with it.

one problem....... three clinical tests commonly determine brain death. First, a standard electroencephalogram, or EEG, measures brain-wave activity. A "flat" EEG denotes non-function of the cerebral cortex - the outer shell of the cerebrum. Second, auditory evoked potentials, similar to those [clicks] elicited by the ear speakers in Pam's surgery, measure brain-stem viability. Absence of these potentials indicates non-function of the brain stem. And third, documentation of no blood flow to the brain is a marker for a generalized absence of brain function. But during "standstill", Pam's brain was found "dead" by all three clinical tests and she still had an NDE with a clear lucid thought process. so i think if it was a hallucination brought on by anoxia it would have shown up on the EEG and the doctors would have immediately identified it.

second problem is how she identified what was going on around her accurately during her time in stand still. during this surgery the front her head was concealed. so i think its impossible that she somehow drifted in for a split second and saw what was going on. she could describe what doctor was standing where, which instrument was being used and the exact words the doctors were exchanging. this was later verified. by definition, since it really happened, it cant be a hallucination

there are other parts to Pam’s NDE than just the OBE. She described the usual but beautiful stories of most NDE’ers. seeing people made out of light. Seeing dead loved ones and having a close conversation religious figures. But the scientists who study them focus most on the OBE because that is where is can be verified or debunked.

Thanks for reading