Connection between brain and mind

[Jack]

What is the connection between brain and mind?Seems like science people thinks that mind is brain or mind is in brain,do you agree?If not,then what is brain and what does it do?Do brain and mind work together?

I remember a topic which was similar to this,but although i searched for it on this forum i couldn't find with using "search" feature(i tried +mind +brain)

[Mark Lapierre]

Close. From a scientific point of view your brain is the squishy thing inside your skull. Your mind is the mental activity taking place within your brain.

[Jack]

I think i posted the question a bit wrong.

Science people thinks like brain is same with mind or mind is the mental activity in brain like Mark Lapierre said.

Do you agree to this?Is brain really same as mind or mind is the mental activity in brain?I mean what do you spiritual people think?What is the connection between mind and brain?(from a spiritual view)

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Jack

I think i posted the question a bit wrong.

Science people thinks like brain is same with mind or mind is the mental activity in brain like Mark Lapierre said.

Do you agree to this?Is brain really same as mind or mind is the mental activity in brain?I mean what do you spiritual people think?What is the connection between mind and brain?(from a spiritual view)

Mind & brain, hmmm... I think of the mind/body connection that is talked about a lot, that your mind can effect your body and does. How you think effects your health.

Neuroscience studies what the brain is and doesn't actually say the mind is the result of the matter inside of the head. In other words, they study the processes of the brain of things like this area of neurons light up first as the planing of moving one's arm, and then the cerebellum coordinates the signals to the spinal cord nerves to make the muscles contract or relax. But what they study does not answer what made the planing neurons light up. Well, some are relfexes and they have decomposed those. But the non-reflexsive actions would be the mind doing that, our spirit or awareness that starts the brain's functions to do that moving the body action. Some brain functions are learned behaviour responses (actually a lot of them) and we don't have to think about that. All we do is decide what it is and the brain does the lighting up and such to carry out what we decided to do. Like we decide to stand up and the brain starts up the "stand up" program that we worked on when we first were trying to stand up.

The mind is that part of us that can not be decomposed out of looking at the physical brain. That mind part is our spirit and we tend to forget that somewhat in habitual thoughts. Since the brain can generate lots of thoughts that we have gotten used to thinking and those thoughts are not our mind, just patterns that we put in our brain to help us deal with the 3d world.

Brain is all the matter inside your head, neurons and chemicals runing around. Mind is the thoughts and awareness - that is the spiritual part of us, I like to think. Out brain may actually be some kind of receiver of spirit and sensor for the spirit to perceive the 3d world through our body/brain. Like we are walking attenaes that jump and such to the will of the spirit but also has lots of storing of patterns available so we don't have to do everything from scratch.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

But what they study does not answer what made the planing neurons light up. Well, some are relfexes and they have decomposed those. But the non-reflexsive actions would be the mind doing that, our spirit or awareness that starts the brain's functions to do that moving the body action.

There are fields which combine neuroscience and psychology to study exactly that, how brain activity relates to thoughts, attitudes, behaviour, etc. Keep in mind (ha!) that it's a relatively 'young' field. Compared to something like physics or philosophy, neuroscience hasn't been around for long. So naturally there are still a lot of gaps which it hasn't got to, yet.

On the topic of spirit, when people began studying the brain scientifically, they thought that 'animal spirits' traveled up and down nerves in the body and throughout the brain. They believed that these spirits were what carried instructions from brain to muscles, for example. These day we call them electrical and chemical signals, but the principle is similar.

So our evolving understanding is in part due to the kind of analogies we have available to us. I think the same applies to the spiritual perspective. Since it is not a scientific perspective, the available analogies are not required to agree with observations. This means that spiritual ideas may be valid, but there's no way to be sure.

[evelynlim]

I came across this video by Jose Silva, the founder of The Silva Method of Mind Control, defining the different terms on the brain and mind. You can view the video on my blog post by clicking here ==> Mind is the Faculty of Human Intelligence.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Close. From a scientific point of view your brain is the squishy thing inside your skull. Your mind is the mental activity taking place within your brain.

Ah, Mark. It's not so simple.

Professor Peter Fenwick has done quite a bit of research on this, in the context of near-death experiences. He has grown increasingly convinced, over the years, that consciousness can exist and operate independently of the brain.

One reason why he thinks so is that some NDE persons have given clear, concise descriptions of their NDE, even though the NDE occurred at a time when their brainwave activity, as measured on sophisticatd medical equipment, was down to a perfect zero (that is, they were practically brain-dead).

Fenwick is of the view that their brains were so dead that they should not have been able even to hallucinate (assuming that NDEs are hallucinations) and even if they were able to hallucinate, they should not subsequently have been able to recollect any part of their hallucinations (because the memory functions of their physical brain should have been 100% impaired).

This leads Fenwick to his conclusion that consciousness can exist independently of the human brain. That is, the NDE patient is able to experience what he experiences, because he has some kind of consciousness; it is a very full, complete kind of consciousness, because the experience is detailed and lucid; and all this happens while his brain is down to zero electrical activity (ie it completely stopped functioning) ---> consciousness can exist & operate independently of the brain.

To put it another way - mind is not an activity which necessarily takes place within your brain. Your brain can shut down completely, but your mind (or spirit?) can still:

float free of your body; see what's happening in the hospital ward / accident site; check out your surroundings; go elsewhere; perceive white lights at the ends of dark tunnels; feel emotions; review your entire life in a flash; meet deceased relatives; talk to assorted entities (holding rather extensive discussions, in some cases),

and then "re-enter" your body (with the brain still dead), and later, upon revival, have excellent recall of the NDE experience (although the brain's memory functions should have stopped completely during the relevant time).

[Mark Lapierre]

Right. Correction: The current widely accepted point of view (within the scientific community) is that your brain is the squishy thing inside your skull. Your mind is the mental activity taking place within your brain.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

There are fields which combine neuroscience and psychology to study exactly that, how brain activity relates to thoughts, attitudes, behaviour, etc. Keep in mind (ha!) that it's a relatively 'young' field. Compared to something like physics or philosophy, neuroscience hasn't been around for long. So naturally there are still a lot of gaps which it hasn't got to, yet.

It is interesting, for sure! There is a lot of the brain activity that is learned behaviours and kind of weighted decisions that can be observered with that new functional MRI stuff. I saw this last night on TV, on the NGC National Geographic Channel TV Schedule - Explorer: Explorer: Science of Evil [TV-14 DSLV Ratings N/A] Explorer: Science of Evil. In one part, they had subjects in the fMRI machine and put them through a scenario and the the fMRI would show parts of the brain firing, the frontal lobes and the more emotional parts of the brain going off. Logic versus emotion, kind of, and some subjects would "decide" emotionally (that part would overide the logic) and then others would have a stronger logic and have a different statement of what they would do in the scenario. The scenario was "if you were hiding in a village under seige with your infant that was crying, would you kill the infant to save the village?" I know, dreadfull scenario, but I think that has happened in history a lot.

Anyway, the brain is a mechanism that responds to the environment, right? And I do start to wonder what is the response? Is it all learned reflexes? Even out purist thoughts or, what I saw exist, our divine or non-habitual thoughts - are they also just leaned reflexes in thoughts?

I still like to think (where do I think?) there's a part of us that is not of the brain matter, that the brain matter is more like a result of the part of us (spiritual part) that is aware. I wonder how the psychologists see how we decide or have original thoughts? Our mind, or reasoning or evaluating or choices come from somewhere. But is it all just a bunch of learned behaviour, stimulus/response? But then, what made the weighted decision making go a certain way? That's were our will to reinforce something or not is our awareness or spirit kind of directing our brain, molding it to go a certain way.

On the topic of spirit, when people began studying the brain scientifically, they thought that 'animal spirits' traveled up and down nerves in the body and throughout the brain. They believed that these spirits were what carried instructions from brain to muscles, for example. These day we call them electrical and chemical signals, but the principle is similar.

So our evolving understanding is in part due to the kind of analogies we have available to us. I think the same applies to the spiritual perspective. Since it is not a scientific perspective, the available analogies are not required to agree with observations. This means that spiritual ideas may be valid, but there's no way to be sure.

They also though the heart was the seat of our soul or consciousness for a long time, that the brain was almost not needed. That the brian was what tempered or kept the soul from being too wild.

All this is questioning if the brain, the matter and all those nerouns connected to each other, is what initiates experience or maybe just a medium for experience.

[Brutha]

Fenwick is of the view that their brains were so dead that they should not have been able even to hallucinate (assuming that NDEs are hallucinations) and even if they were able to hallucinate, they should not subsequently have been able to recollect any part of their hallucinations (because the memory functions of their physical brain should have been 100% impaired).

The can hallucinate afterwards that they had certain experiences.
It's quite easy to create false memory's in people (easy to get into a trance and full of narcotics) like this.

At the moment I don't think that we have proof in either way.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The can hallucinate afterwards that they had certain experiences.
It's quite easy to create false memory's in people (easy to get into a trance and full of narcotics) like this.

At the moment I don't think that we have proof in either way.

There are certain key differences between NDEs and drug-induced hallucinations which are fairly well-documented.

One of them is that drug-induced hallucinations are poorly remembered; they are something like dreams. They were vivid at the time they were occurring; after you come out of it, memory of the details fade rapidly.

NDEs, however, are extremely well-remembered; patients not only recall them, but recall them in great detail, and recall them more or less permanently.

However, I acknowledge your point about more evidence being needed. In the current ongoing phase of Fenwick's research, he has had the walls of some hospital emergency wards painted with large, striking, distinctive, unusual pictures in bold pictures.

The idea is that unconscious patients (eg those who have just had a bad accident or massive heart attack) are regularly wheeled into these wards in a hurry, for emergency treatment. Surgery etc is done, and then the unconscious patient is wheeled out while still unconscious.

If any of these patients survives and subsequently reports having an NDE, he will be questioned as to the details of the experience.

If the patient says, "Oh, I floated out of my body and I was obviously in some kind of hospital area. However, it was really weird! I saw red hippotamuses and blue aeroplanes painted on the hospital walls" -

and the walls were indeed painted like that, then this is evidence that the patient's consciousness managed to perceive its physical surroudings, even though his brain was dead at the time and his eyes were closed.

I am waiting for the result of fenwick's research. However it could be a long wait because;

(a) the patient doesn't always survive
(b) NDEs are rare occurrences
(c) not all NDErs perceive their physical surroundings (some go straight to the dark tunnel with the white light at the end)

[Brutha]

There are certain key differences between NDEs and drug-induced hallucinations which are fairly well-documented.

I'm not speaking about hallucinations but about false memories.

It also clear that you will recall a memory of a NDE multiple times after having it created once. People will ask you about it and you speak about it, which increases the strength of the memory.
The patients will also think about that experience which futher increases the memory.

I have personally a memory of awaking from a coma, where I have the false memory of speaking to the doctor (and being heard). There are other memory in that context that I still remember but that neither fit in a "spiritual" nor a "standart scientific" world view, and are almost definitle false.
But I certainly was unable to speak at that time, because of artificial breathing.

You also have to take into account that some patients will already have seen the hospital walls before they entered the hospital in their critical condition.

Especially when the hospital walls are strangly painted it is also possible that another person who was there told the person about those walls.

So you would need a trained hypotherapist who checks a random sample of the population around the hospital for those memory and see whether that percentage is higher or lower than the percentage of people who remember NDE which physical surroundings.

You would also need at least audio tapes (better video tapes) that cover the time from entering the hospital to the end of speaking with that Fenwick .
That tapes would have to other scientist to double check that Fenwick didn't create false memory through his questioning or the patients got told about the wall painting between meeting with Fenwick and his operation.

[Lallymac]

Originally Posted by Jack

I think i posted the question a bit wrong.

Science people thinks like brain is same with mind or mind is the mental activity in brain like Mark Lapierre said.

Do you agree to this?Is brain really same as mind or mind is the mental activity in brain?I mean what do you spiritual people think?What is the connection between mind and brain?(from a spiritual view)

No, I don't believe at all that the brain and mind are the same thing. If they were it wouldn't be possible to be me. My mind is certainly not restricted to my physicality and never has been. I see the brain as the hardware and the mind, the software. Some people's mind's are only able to process data by direct feed (their own personal experience). Others like mine seem to be able to tap into the cosmic internet and be aware of some events before they happen, know things they've never been taught, sometimes words fall out of my mouth, in conversations, that I didn't know I knew (precognition).

It has been most disconcerting for most of my life because for the most part I'm just a normal Mum cheering my kids on the sports field. Once I plucked up enough courage to explore my ability further, I found that I'm not alone. In fact I've met many normal people who are like me and there have always been people with the same or similar abilities throughout history. There are millions of books written about it. We could wait until science discovers it's possible but the world was round for a long time before science realized.

Lallymac

[Acting Like Godot]

You are quite right, Brutha. The methodology must be tight. Peter Fenwick, however, is no Masaru Emoto - the reason why he managed to get the hsopital to even cooperate in such an experiment is that he has absolutely impeccable academic credentials and professional reputation.

Anyway, a few links I just dug up:

Peter Fenwick: Biography & Resources
Lateline - 30/10/2000: Near death research . Australian Broadcasting Corp
Dr. Peter Fenwick, M.D.: Science and Spirituality

Thought you might find them interesting.

[Old Soul]

Mind is the thoughts and awareness - that is the spiritual part of us, I like to think. Out brain may actually be some kind of receiver of spirit and sensor for the spirit to perceive the 3d world through our body/brain. Like we are walking attenaes that jump and such to the will of the spirit but also has lots of storing of patterns available so we don't have to do everything from scratch.

I read the book entitled "The Sociopath Next Door", and according to what this book suggests is that there are certain people who are unable to "empathise" period, and without this ability to do this, the conscience does not work, actions and good deeds are learned behaviors , which makes these people seem normal, because of the leraned behavior, but in a nut shell the ability to empathise with others is what seperates a normal brain from sociopathic brains I guess in a way you could say that they are missing a compass ... for lack of better words

and i think they studied the brain of a sociopath scientifaclly and under certain tests , these brains did react differently through MRI's