Mind-brain (split from I ask recognition from physicalists of at least 1 non-physical dimension where concepts, the inner voice, inner imagery and dreams 'reside'

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, DanMP said:

No, the heads were discarded, as I wrote. And the "memory storage" may be just a thicker skin, allowing the new heads, with such a body, to feel less pain and learn quicker to go over the rough surface.

 

Get your point, but that is not what the researchers doing the study concluded. Why would "thicker skin" suddenly appear. possible, but quite unlikely.

59 minutes ago, DanMP said:

If the mind is the result of brain activity, as I said, yes, the brain must be online/conscious in order to think straight, but if the mind originates from outside the brain, as you said, it should continue thinking rationally, regardless of what the brain is doing. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

The brain, in your hypothesis, is just providing "made-up data" (dreams while sleeping or hallucinations when intoxicated) instead of normal feed (from eyes, ears, etc.), but the "outside mind" should continue thinking straight and discern what is normal or abnormal feed. We recognize a dream as a dream only after we wake up, so the mind is only from brain activity, not from some separated "place".

Just try to think about something while trying to sleep. You can't continue too long. You should be able to do it, if

 

First, mind through brain is one hypothesis, not necessarily mine. Mind needs brain to think and do every day stuff. What mind looks like without a brain is not really known as it is always being processed by the brain. However, some say that when the brain is quieted, through meditation, drugs or NDE's, something happens that might be an inkling of mind without brain looks like. Highly-highly contentious though. And yes, some drugs do quiet the mind. Brain, being a physical entity, needs a break sometimes and goes to sleep, leaving mind in the lurch.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

No, the mind is from the brain. The body only provides information.

Well, if the references that I provided in one of my posts are even half correct, we might have to entertain the notion of upgrading the bodie's effect on brain and mind.

[DrmDoc]

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Amputation causes a whole cascade of effects: depression, anxiety, self-esteem issues, distorted body image, change in personality, cognition impairment, change in body schema. Most are probably actuated by the brain, but how would we know if it was not, in some small sense, also coming from the body?  How could we disentangle the two?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where it gets interesting is for organ transplants,  

 “Personality changes may occur following organ transplants: In some case, organ recipients report personality changes that parallel the personality of their donor; Some organ recipients “remember” events from their donor’s life. Cellular memories stored outside the brain may transfer information from organ donors to recipients."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-leading-edge/202402/do-organ-transplants-cause-personality-change-in-recipients#:~:text=In%20some%20cases%2C%20organ%20recipients,from%20organ%20donors%20to%20recipients.

“When excluding changes in physical attributes, 89.3% of all transplant recipients reported experiencing a personality change after receiving their organ transplant.”

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3943/5/1/2#:~:text=Among%20heart%20transplant%20recipients%20who,four%20or%20more%20personality%20changes

Another article presenting types of personality changes

Physical Attributes* 19 (95.7) 13 (54.2) 32 (68.1)	Temperament 14 (60.9) 12 (50.0) 26 (55.3)	Emotions (happy, sad, etc.) 12 (52.2) 14 (58.3) 26 (55.3)
Food 11 (47.8) 8 (33.3) 19 (40.4)	Participating or Watching Sports 7 (30.4) 2 (8.3) 9 (19.1	Physical Activities 6 (26.1) 7 (29.2) 13 (27.7)
Personal Identity 4 (17.4) 4 (16.7) 8 (17.0)	Movies/TV 3 (13.0) 1 (4.2) 4 (8.5)	Religious/spiritual Beliefs 3 (13.0) 3 (12.5) 6 (12.8)
Sexual Preferences 3 (13.0) 1 (4.2) 4 (8.5)	Memories 2 (8.7) 5 (20.8) 7 (14.9)	Music 2 (8.7) 3 (12.5) 5 (10.6)
Art 0 (0) 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1)	Colors 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)	Electronic Devices 0 (0) 2 (8.3) 2 (4.2)
Political views 0 (0) 1 (4.2) 1 (2.1	ANY (excluding Physical Attributes) 21 (91.3) 21 (87.5) 42 (89.3

file:///C:/Users/Dad/Downloads/preprints202309.1894.v1%202.pdf

“Changes in heart transplant recipients that parallel the personalities of their donors”

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/HeartorBrain2_Pearsall-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_2002-20-191-206.pdf

A theory about it!

"Can an Organ Transplant Change A Recipient's Personality? Cell Memory Theory Affirms "Yes"" 

https://www.medicaldaily.com/can-organ-transplant-change-recipients-personality-cell-memory-theory-affirms-yes-247498

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 And it gets really interesting is in dissociative identity disorder where the brain actually changes the body.

"The different identities, referred to as alters, may exhibit differences in speech, manerism, attitudes, thoughts and gender orientation. The alter may even present physical differences, such as allergies, right-or-left handedness or the need for eyeglass prescriptions. These differences between alters are often quite striking".

https://namimi.org/mental-illness/dissociative-disorder/didfactsheet#:~:text=The%20different%20identities%2C%20referred%20to,the%20need%20for%20eyeglass%20prescriptions.

"These include the abrupt appearance and disappearance of rashes, welts, scars and other tissue wounds; switches in handwriting and handedness;" .

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/28/science/probing-the-enigma-of-multiple-personality.html

“Multiple personality disorder has been associated with marked psychophysiologic alterations ever since careful clinical observations have been made on this perplexing disorder. Physical symptoms known to be associated with multiple personality include headaches, conversion symptoms, changes in voice, seizure-like activity, unexplained pain or insensitivity to pain, alterations in handedness or handwriting style, palpitations, alterations in respiration, gastrointestinal disturbances including bulimia and anorexia, menstrual irregularities, sexual dysfunction, and dermatological conditions including unusual allergic responses and differential responses to medication. Early scientific studies on the galvanic skin response in multiple personality disorder were conducted by Prince in the erly twentieth century. Since 1970 there has been a resurgence of interest in multiple personality disorder including sophisticated studies of physical symptoms, brain-wave activity, visual evoked potential, regional cerebral blood fWw, visual refraction, muscle activity, cardiac and respiratory activity, galvanic skin response, and the switch process. In addition to describing these studies, the etiology of multiple personality disorder and future directions in research will be discussed.”

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36679938.pdf

“Visual function in multiple personality disorder”

“Background: Multiple personality disorder (MPD) is characterized by the existence of two or more personality states that recurrently exchange control over the behavior of the individual. Numerous reports indicate physiological differences, including significant differences in ocular and visual function, across alter personality states in MPD.”

“Results: Physiologic differences across alter personality states in MPD include differences in dominant handedness, response to the same medication, allergic sensitivities, autonomic and endocrine function, EEG, VEP, and regional cerebral blood flow. Differences in visual function include variability in visual acuity, refraction, oculomotor status, visual field, color vision, corneal curvature, pupil size, and intraocular pressure in the various personality states of MPD subjects as compared to single personality controls.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8888853/#:~:text=Results%3A%20Physiologic%20differences%20across%20alter,and%20regional%20cerebral%20blood%20flow.

“Individuals with dissociative identity disorder (DID) have been known to show varied skills and talents as they change from one dissociative state to another. For example, case reports have described people who have changed their handedness or have spoken foreign languages during their dissociative states.” 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766827/#:~:text=Individuals%20with%20dissociative%20identity%20disorder,languages%20during%20their%20dissociative%20states.

If this evidence-observations are correct, how does this fit in a mind from brain model?

 

I understand the point you're attempting to convey with all of this, which is that these are all at least some psychological evidence that parts of the mind may exist elsewhere in the body and, by extension, part of mind may exist external to the body.  It's true that trauma changes the mind our brain creates, but the psychological effects of trauma isn't truly evidence that mind has lost pieces of itself with that truama--it's not evidence that parts of the mind exist in the parts of the body lost or exposed to trauma.

The psychological effects of truama simply shows how easily brain's responses are influenced by truama, which is how easily the mind our brain constructs may be influenced by the data it receives through its sensory array.  For example, congenital blindness doesn't suggest that parts of the mind are lost to what some are unable to see nor does it suggest that parts of the mind reside in our eyes.  What blindness shows is how the lack of access to visual sensory data affects the mind our brain is able to construct--the parts of the brain associated with our responses to visual sensory do not respond or function as efficiently without that sensory data.  In another example, the lost of a hand doesn't suggest that a piece of the mind is lost with that hand.  The mind our brain constructs through the lost of a limb merely suggests our brain's reaction to the lost of access to the sensory data that limb has or could have provided.

Psychological effects, to be clear, are not evidence that pieces of the mind reside elsewhere no more than the depression some experience on rainy days suggests that pieces of the mind reside in sunlight or is blotted out by that rain.  The changes in our mental state are merely evidence of the fragility of the balance between the afferent influences on brain functions and our brain's efferent responses to those influences. 

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

But, It may be a magician's hat with many surprises in it!☺️

That may be true, but the real magic is in the mind of the magician who head that hat likely sits upon.

Edited March 26 by DrmDoc

[DanMP]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Get your point, but that is not what the researchers doing the study concluded.

True.

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why would "thicker skin" suddenly appear

Not suddenly. The worms had to go over the rough patch many times, before their head was cut. It is like walking on rough surfaces without shoes few weeks. In the beginning it hurts, but in time the skin grow thicker and/or the nerves in the skin become less sensitive, so you feel less disconfort. In my opinion this may be the real explanation. It can be tested by not discarding the heads, because all the heads would have new, sensitive, bodies. Probably the heads that remember going over rough surfaces would be quicker to do it than the other heads, but not quicker than their former bodies.

 

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Well, if the references that I provided in one of my posts are even half correct, we might have to entertain the notion of upgrading the bodie's effect on brain and mind.

Yes, there are numerous effects, including triggered/conveyed through chemicals from ordinary cells (or even bacteria) within the body, but still, that doesn't mean that the body participates in the act of thinking.

As a sidenote, there were reported new cravings after transplanting organs. A vegan would crave for meat after their heart is replaced with the heart of a meat eater. But this is not mind/soul memory, it is cells releasing new (for the vegan) chemicals in the bloodstream. At most, the cells may have some kind of memory.

[Luc Turpin]

8 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I understand the point you're attempting to convey with all of this, which is that these are all at least some psychological evidence that parts of the mind may exist elsewhere in the body and, by extension, part of mind may exist external to the body.  It's true that trauma changes the mind our brain creates, but the psychological effects of trauma isn't truly evidence that mind has lost pieces of itself with that truama--it's not evidence that parts of the mind exist in the parts of the body lost or exposed to trauma.

The psychological effects of truama simply shows how easily brain's responses are influenced by truama, which is how easily the mind our brain constructs may be influenced by the data it receives through its sensory array.  For example, congenital blindness doesn't suggest that parts of the mind are lost to what some are unable to see nor does it suggest that parts of the mind reside in our eyes.  What blindness shows is how the lack of access to visual sensory data affects the mind our brain is able to construct--the parts of the brain associated with our responses to visual sensory do not respond or function as efficiently without that sensory data.  In another example, the lost of a hand doesn't suggest that a piece of the mind is lost with that hand.  The mind our brain constructs through the lost of a limb merely suggests our brain's reaction to the lost of access to the sensory data that limb has or could have provided.

Psychological effects, to be clear, are not evidence that pieces of the mind reside elsewhere no more than the depression some experience on rainy days suggests that pieces of the mind reside in sunlight or is blotted out by that rain.  The changes in our mental state are merely evidence of the fragility of the balance between the afferent influences on brain functions and our brain's efferent responses to those influences. 

That may be true, but the real magic is in the mind of the magician who head that hat likely sits upon.

First, there is nothing in my last post to you that tends towards showing mind residing outside of brains; only that the body may play a more prominent role in mind than anticipated.

Second, let's be honest here; based on the strict definition and application of the mind from brain only model, who would seriously have expected that an organ transplant would lead to memory transfer and major personality changes? Or that a multiple personality disorder would bring about such dramatic physical transformations! I am sure that some of you were surprised, even perplexed by this. At the very least, this needs to be acknowledged. Acknowledgement is also warranted for other material posted by me that were both unexpected findings and inconclusive of mind from brain. How can the possibility that organs have and pass on memories or other findings previously provided in this thread fit in tightly and neatly with a mind from brain only model? Do remember that memory to cells was also the conclusion in the flatworm experiments provided earlier. And that electrical fields affect body shapes! This also unexpected.

I am not making any point here; the observations are! Without forgotten-new observations, there would be no need for contemplating other venues for mind.

Congenital blindness does not entail mind loss, but brain transformation, as would be expected from either a mind from brain or mind through brain model. 

If one considers for a moment both possibilities that cells hold memory and that memory is held in a holographic state as suggested by Paul Peitsch and his dissection experiment, then a missed hand would diminish, but not eliminate memories. So, the change would be so subtle as for it to pass unnoticed. Even, major body parts being absent would not diminish substantively as the principal actor in all of this remains the brain.

As for mind itself, some of what is indicated above for memory might apply, but it is probably dictated more by the principle that a small amount of simple cells brings about a simple mind while a large amount of complex cells brings about a complex mind. Do be reminded that humans are amalgamations of cells and that the delineation between brain and the rest of the body is ours in the making. Finaly for this, the notion of simple and complex minds, if such is the case, would apply jointly to mind from brain and mind through brain.

As for sunshine and rain, they are not part of the physical system of brain having a depression. In this circumstance, they would then not count as valid examples for discussion.

"Psychological effects are not evidence that pieces of the mind reside elsewhere", but, conversely, it does not preclude it either. Notwithstanding, memories in the body and major personality changes following organ transplant might hint at it while physical transformation from a mental disorder suggests a much tighter coupling than anticipated of mind, brain and body.

The magic resides in the brain, but a magician’s hat is needed at the very least to pull a rabbit out of it.

I am not a lone wolf owling at the moon. As show from studies posted, others have joined the chorus.

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

Not suddenly. The worms had to go over the rough patch many times, before their head was cut. It is like walking on rough surfaces without shoes few weeks. In the beginning it hurts, but in time the skin grow thicker and/or the nerves in the skin become less sensitive, so you feel less disconfort. In my opinion this may be the real explanation. It can be tested by not discarding the heads, because all the heads would have new, sensitive, bodies. Probably the heads that remember going over rough surfaces would be quicker to do it than the other heads, but not quicker than their former bodies.

You are speculating that they had to go at it many times before learning and that they grew thick skin. Again, possible, but highly doubtful.

The part of the head was conserved, grew a tail and remembered the task.

You are also speculating about heads sections remembering faster than tail sections. In the study, there is no mention of either thick skin or faster recall.

If they controlled for this, I do not know.

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

Yes, there are numerous effects, including triggered/conveyed through chemicals from ordinary cells (or even bacteria) within the body, but still, that doesn't mean that the body participates in the act of thinking.

Please read my last response to DrmDoc

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

it is cells releasing new (for the vegan) chemicals in the bloodstream. At most, the cells may have some kind of memory.

In of itself, this is a very bold statement that you are making about cells remembering. It would change a lot about the mind brain conncection, and biology.

[DrmDoc]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

First, there is nothing in my last post to you that tends towards showing mind residing outside of brains; only that the body may play a more prominent role in mind than anticipated.

Yes, and I have offered my perspective of the role of the body as a sensory array for engaging life experiences that basically support the metabolic/homostatic imperative of the brain and brain function. 

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Second, let's be honest here; based on the strict definition and application of the mind from brain only model, who would seriously have expected that an organ transplant would lead to memory transfer and major personality changes? Or that a multiple personality disorder would bring about such dramatic physical transformations! I am sure that some of you were surprised, even perplexed by this. At the very least, this needs to be acknowledged. Acknowledgement is also warranted for other material posted by me that were both unexpected findings and inconclusive of mind from brain. How can the possibility that organs have and pass on memories or other findings previously provided in this thread fit in tightly and neatly with a mind from brain only model? Do remember that memory to cells was also the conclusion in the flatworm experiments provided earlier. And that electrical fields affect body shapes! This also unexpected.

I'd perfer not to have my focus and discussions diverted by a tangent maze of multiple citations.  So my focus has regarded what I believed to be the point you were trying to convey with all of your citations.   When you provide citations focusing on "memory transfer and major personality changes" after transplants, it's quite clear your position isn't just about the prominent role of the body in the formation of mind.  You are clearly providing support for our consideration of "mind-through-brain," which is counter to the more proven and provable position of "mind-from-brain."

If you're promoting consideration of mind-through-brain evidence, that idea infers the emergence of mind or indeed a piece of mind from a location external to the brain.  After considering the whole of the citations you've provided, I see that they are flawed.  Firstly, self-reported and anecdotal reports or observations of memory transfers and personality changes after organ transplants are not solid science. No where in any of these types of citations have I found discussion of how prior knowledge of the donor or of the donor's lifestyle might have influenced the organ recipient's thoughts and behaviors.  For example, one citation mentioned a recipient's aquired taste for beer after receiving the organ of a donor who died in a motorcycle accident.  As a scientist, I'd ask, "How much did the donor recipient know about the donor before and after their transplant?"  I'd ask, "What impact did that knowledge have on the psychology of the recipient?" As a scientist, there should have been a baseline assessment of the recipient's life and personality prior to receiving any knowledge of the recipient.  It may be that the recipient's prior knowledge of bikers influence the psychological impact of receiving an organ from a biker.  This is akin to people who experience head trauma and awaken one day speaking a different language or with a foreign accent--the inference is that the trauma these people experience unlock some unconscious store of life experience associated with that foreign language or accent.

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Congenital blindness does not entail mind loss, but brain transformation, as would be expected from either a mind from brain or mind through brain model. 

Indeed it does, like an atrophied muscle through non-use.  However, this type of brain transformation doesn't fit the mind-through-brain model.  Again, that idea appears to suggest that mind has to come from somewhere external to the brain--that mind has to be input to the brain before mind can be created and expressed by the brain.

Edited March 26 by DrmDoc

[Luc Turpin]

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Yes, and I have offered my perspective of the role of the body as a sensory array for engaging life experiences that basically support the metabolic/homostatic imperative of the brain and brain function. 

I'd perfer not to have my focus and discussions diverted by a tangent maze of multiple citations.  So my focus has regarded what I believed to be the point you were trying to convey with all of your citations.   When you provide citations focusing on "memory transfer and major personality changes" after transplants, it's quite clear your position isn't just about the prominent role of the body in the formation of mind.  You are clearly providing support for our consideration of "mind-through-brain," which is counter to the more proven and provable position of "mind-from-brain."

If you're promoting consideration of mind-through-brain evidence, that idea infers the emergence of mind or indeed a piece of mind from a location external to the brain.  After considering the whole of the citations you've provided, I see that they are flawed.  Firstly, self-reported and anecdotal reports or observations of memory transfers and personality changes after organ transplants are not solid science. No where in any of these types of citations have I found discussion of how prior knowledge of the donor or of the donor's lifestyle might have influenced the organ recipient's thoughts and behaviors.  For example, one citation mentioned a recipient's aquired taste for beer after receiving the organ of a donor who died in a motorcycle accident.  As a scientist, I'd ask, "How much did the donor recipient know about the donor before and after their transplant?"  I'd ask, "What impact did that knowledge have on the psychology of the recipient?" As a scientist, there should have been a baseline assessment of the recipient's life and personality prior to receiving any knowledge of the recipient.  It may be that the recipient's prior knowledge of bikers influence the psychological impact of receiving an organ from a biker.  This is akin to people who experience head trauma and awaken one day speaking a different language or with a foreign accent--the inference is that the trauma these people experience unlock some unconscious store of life experience associated with that foreign language or accent.

Note: The use of the term “let’s be honest” in my previous post was intended to the few who are reading this thread and greeting my every word with possible contempt. I do not believe that you are doing so. You are just not in agreement with me.

A mind through brain model is not required to explain memories from organ transplants nor physical transformations due to multiple personality disorders. What is required is a modification of the mind from brain only model to a mind from brain and body model. However, what would constitute an indication of mind through brain is your suggestion that a head trauma patient coming out of a coma would begin speaking a foreign language unknown to him before the trauma. I do not believe this to be possible, but would nonetheless constitute probable evidence of mind being processed through the brain, if it was so.

Citations were not provided as a diversionary tactic, but as demonstration that something may be wrong with our current understanding of mind. Some of the evidence provided is anecdotal while some is not. Conversely, studying this subject matter is not easy to do so. It is also not on the radar scopes of most institutions financing research. To that effect, the burden of proof does not lie with only one, or a few, but the entirety of it all. It is highly doubtful that all of it is wrong. This also goes for other citations given throughout this thread as well as in the preceding “mind” thread.

What is at issue here is that citations and argumentation do not entirely concur with a “perspective of the role of the body as a sensory array for engaging life experiences that basically support the metabolic/homeostatic imperative of the brain and brain function.” This is the topic that we should be debating at this point in time, not if mind through brain can even be possible.

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

However, this type of brain transformation doesn't fit the mind-through-brain model.  

Digressing here, but how so?

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

First, there is nothing in my last post to you that tends towards showing mind residing outside of brains; only that the body may play a more prominent role in mind than anticipated.

The mind is in a box that is mobile, it has the correct sensors to navigate its environment by default, bc if it doesn't it won't get too far...😉

[DanMP]

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The part of the head was conserved, grew a tail and remembered the task.

Please provide a link to the text you are referring. I can't find it.

 

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

... there is no mention of either thick skin or faster recall.

If they controlled for this, I do not know.

Well, they should control them before asserting that the body "remembers".

 

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

In of itself, this is a very bold statement that you are making about cells remembering. It would change a lot about the mind brain conncection, and biology.

I didn't say that cells are remembering, as in remembering thoughts and experiences. What I meant is closer to the kind of "memory" that the immune system has/utilizes in order to recognize viruses/bacteria.

 

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

who would seriously have expected that an organ transplant would lead to memory transfer and major personality changes?

There is no real memory/mind transfer. The changes, if real (scientifically documented) and not influenced by the recipient having information about the donor's life, may be triggered by the new DNA (I hope that you don't consider the DNA as a storage mechanism for thoughts, ideas or any kind of mind activity from the ancestors 😀 and also that you are aware that, through DNA, you are inheriting many things capable to affect your personality/behavior).

Edited March 27 by DanMP

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The mind is in a box that is mobile, it has the correct sensors to navigate its environment by default, bc if it doesn't it won't get too far...😉

Imagine that it did and that we would have to go fetch it everytime it ran away!

My-my, me being silly again 😊

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Please provide a link to the text you are referring. I can't find it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

There is no real memory/mind transfer. The changes, if real (scientifically documented) and not influenced by the recipient having information about the donor's life, may be triggered by the new DNA (I hope that you don't consider the DNA as a storage mechanism for thoughts, ideas or any kind of mind activity from the ancestors 😀 and also that you are aware that, through DNA, you are inheriting many things capable to affect your personality/behavior).

Scientists researching the field believe that there is memory transfer. It could probably be the same kind as in the flatworm memory transfer experiment.

Yes, I know abut DNA

[DrmDoc]

11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

A mind through brain model is not required to explain memories from organ transplants nor physical transformations due to multiple personality disorders. What is required is a modification of the mind from brain only model to a mind from brain and body model. However, what would constitute an indication of mind through brain is your suggestion that a head trauma patient coming out of a coma would begin speaking a foreign language unknown to him before the trauma. I do not believe this to be possible, but would nonetheless constitute probable evidence of mind being processed through the brain, if it was so.

It's admittedly difficult to understand your perspective of the idea of mind-through-brain, which you've offerred for our consideration and discussion.  The wording of this idea suggest that the brain is merely a conduit for the mind, which is secondary to something else.  I also understand the of perception of mind-from-brain as suggesting mind originates from no other factor other than the brain.  I believe your counter to that perception has been the idea of mind as a partnership between brain and body. If true, I agree that mind originates from a partnerships between brain and body.  However, I don't believe we agree on the nature of that partnership.

Foreign Accent Syndrome is a speech disorder that can occur as a result of brain trauma.  People with this disorder speak with accent perceived as not native to their own.  Other than an individual with savant syndrome, there's indeed no record of spontaneous acquisition of a foreign language due to brain trauma--a tangent that required my correction.

In support of the idea of mind-through-brain, you've offerred citations suggesting memory transfers through transplants.  These types of citations appear to support the idea of brain being a "conduit" for memories residing in the transplanted origin. My perspective of these types of citations is that they merely reflect the brain's responses to the transplant with something already present in the mind of the transplant's recipient through that recipient's prior knowledge or life experiences.

Mind-from-brain, in my view, does indeed involve a partnership between brain and body.  Without body--without a means to sense and engage life experience--our brain is incapable of producing a mind.  Mind is our brain's cognitive response to stimuli and there is no mind without a brain's capacity to experience stimuli--our body is our brain's vehicle for experiencing stimuli.    

 

Edited March 27 by DrmDoc

[Luc Turpin]

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

It's admittedly difficult to understand your perspective of the idea of mind-through-brain, which you've offerred for our consideration and discussion.  The wording of this idea suggest that the brain is merely a conduit for the mind, which is secondary to something else.  I also understand the of perception of mind-from-brain as suggesting mind originates from no other factor other than the brain.  I believe your counter to that perception has been the idea of mind as a partnership between brain and body. If true, I agree that mind originates from a partnerships between brain and body.  However, I don't believe we agree on the nature of that partnership.

Foreign Accent Syndrome is a speech disorder that can occur as a result of brain trauma.  People with this disorder speak with accent perceived as not native to their own.  Other than an individual with savant syndrome, there's indeed no record of spontaneous acquisition of a foreign language due to brain trauma--a tangent that required my correction.

In support of the idea of mind-through-brain, you've offerred citations suggesting memory transfers through transplants.  These types of citations appear to support the idea of brain being a "conduit" for memories residing in the transplanted origin. My perspective of these types of citations is that they merely reflect the brain's responses to the transplant with something already present in the mind of the transplant's recipient through that recipient's prior knowledge or life experiences.

Mind-from-brain, in my view, does indeed involve a partnership between brain and body.  Without body--without a means to sense and engage life experience--our brain is incapable of producing a mind.  Mind is our brain's cognitive response to stimuli and there is no mind without a brain's capacity to experience stimuli--our body is our brain's vehicle for experiencing stimuli.    

 

My main contention in our discussion remains that evidence-observations do not match up with our current understanding of how mind works. More on this later.

As for "categories' being used in the discussion, here is a simplification that may help in understanding:

• Mind from brain: Mind is the exclusive domain of the brain with body providing energy, stimuli and senses to the brain
• Mind from brain and body: Brain plays the predominant role in mind while body provides energy, stimuli and senses, but also aids in memory, emotion, cognition etc. 
• Mind through brain: The brain and body become conduits for mind residing outside of the body and brain. The mind is the signal and the brain is the television set.

I have used these categories in our discussion, because I believe that they help a bit in comprehension. But do be reminded that they are mine and arbitrary in nature. Hence my opening statement that the main topic of discussion is about data not matching up to evidence rather than mind-brain categorisation.

I hope this helps a little, and indeed I believe as well that we don't agree on the nature of the partnership. I think that your position is more in line with the mind from body model, while mine is more in line with the mind from brain and body model.

In light of this being a discussion broader than categorisation, here are two links to newer findings that I would like you to comment on:

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url

Evidence early, but emerging, that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders.url

So, are we not moving a bit the needle here in determining that it is not only about synapses and molecules, but maybe also about waves and frequencies?

Or am I the one stuck in the past still thinking that the neuro-science field is even now only contemplating molecules and synapses?

Note: These are but only two of many examples of studies finding out that waves and frequencies affect the brain. Or, more broadly, that the brain does not work as expected.

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url Evidence early, but emerging, that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders.url

[Luc Turpin]

Correction: 

• Mind from brain and body: Brain plays the predominant role in mind while body provides energy, stimuli and senses, but also actively participates in memory, emotion, cognition etc. 

They might even create their own memories, emotions, cognition which are amalgameted with those produced by the brain to form the whole.

[DanMP]

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

My-my, me being silly again 😊

23 hours ago, DanMP said:

Please provide a link to the text you are referring. I can't find it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/

I didn't find any highlighted text. Maybe you don't know how to do it, so a quotation from the article would be fine. I'm expecting one. To make it easier, your claim was:

On 3/26/2024 at 7:41 PM, Luc Turpin said:

The part of the head was conserved, grew a tail and remembered the task.

If you provided the whole article as your reply to what I asked, you probably missed that I already read the article and even offered links to highlighted text in it. After that, I wrote that I can't find the text you are referring ...

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

here are two links to newer findings that I would like you to comment on:

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url

Evidence early, but emerging, that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders.url

No links, sorry. Maybe it's something wrong with my browser?

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind through brain: The brain and body become conduits for mind residing outside of the body and brain. The mind is the signal and the brain is the television set.

In this hypothesis/theory(?), where is the process of thinking located, where and how the memory is stored, how the brain+body and the mind communicate and what proofs are offered to justify/sustain everything is claimed?

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

• ... but also actively participates in memory, emotion, cognition etc. 

They might even create their own memories, emotions, cognition which are amalgameted with those produced by the brain to form the whole.

What evidence can you offer to support these claims?

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url

I managed to find and read it, and I'm inclined towards the second option:

Quote

brain waves [...] simply occur as a byproduct of neural activity that was already happening

 

Edited March 28 by DanMP

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I think that your position is more in line with the mind from body model, while mine is more in line with the mind from brain and body model.

"That death dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball".

The brain adapts to whatever body it has, if we could cut the head off and keep the brain alive it would adapt to that too.

 

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"That death dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball".

It's "deaf". The brain has a hard time adapting to death.

[Luc Turpin]

6 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I didn't find any highlighted text. Maybe you don't know how to do it, so a quotation from the article would be fine. I'm expecting one. To make it easier, your claim was:

My mistake, he did discard the head part, but the point remains that the tail part grew a head and remembered the task, so where was memory stored before a new head was regenerated. The head part of the worm would have remembered the task, because heads store memory.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

No links, sorry. Maybe it's something wrong with my browser?

Are you clicking on the links and nothing happens or are you cliking, they open and you expect highlighted text? If its the former, please click on the boxes provided below the post for access and if is the latter, I have not highlighted anything, because it is a quick read.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

In this hypothesis/theory(?), where is the process of thinking located, where and how the memory is stored, how the brain+body and the mind communicate and what proofs are offered to justify everything is claimed?

There are clear indications that thinking and memory storage happens in the brain. However, I would venture only at this point that collective consciousness proponents would say otherwise or indicate that it is both as mind and brain form a whole. Like brain appearing to form a whole with the body, except that in the case of mind outside of brain, its a physical entity forming a whole with a non-physical one. A radio without a signal. The only observations hinting at it for me are episodes when a malfunctioning brain is able to spit out any kind of thinking when that should not be the case. Notwithstanding, I believe that there is no proof per say that this hypothesis is even worth bearing in mind. I offered it for discussion, because it is one of many being considered. Again, my position is not that we should be pursuing this or any other model, but that there is something wrong with our current picture of how mind works in the brain. I will get more info on the mind through brain hypothesis and get back to you. 

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

It's "deaf". The brain has a hard time adapting to death.

Din't catch that one and good one sayiing that the brain has a hard time adapting to death

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"That death dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball".

The brain adapts to whatever body it has, if we could cut the head off and keep the brain alive it would adapt to that too.

 

Wow! The Who! Like that one!

And body and cells appear to adapt to circumstance to stay alive and do the business that they have to do!

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

"That death dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball".

The brain adapts to whatever body it has, if we could cut the head off and keep the brain alive it would adapt to that too.

 

And remember that the pinball wizard was "in a quiet vibration land"; so maybe it is also the case for mind!

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

What evidence can you offer to support these claims?

Missed this one!

1. For memory, I offer the flatworm experiment and organ transplant references.
2. For emotion, I offer the microbiome and two way conversation via the vagus nerve.

          "We know that in animals the gut microbiome can affect emotional behaviour via the vagus nerve."

           https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2022/05/stimulating-the-gut-brain-nerve-can-influence-emotion

           "This narrative review summarizes key aspects of vagus nerve function as a main player in the microbiota-gut-brain  axis in depression"

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666915323001464

    3.For cognition, speculation with a touch of research on cells and thinking.

         "Do cells think"

"A microorganism has to adapt to changing environmental conditions in order to survive. Cells could follow one of two basic strategies to address such environmental fluctuations. On the one hand, cells could anticipate a fluctuating environment by spontaneously generating a phenotypically diverse population of cells, with each subpopulation exhibiting different capacities to flourish in the different conditions. Alternatively, cells could sense changes in the surrounding conditions - such as temperature, nutritional availability or the presence of other individuals - and modify their behavior to provide an appropriate response to that information. As we describe, examples of both strategies abound among different microorganisms. Moreover, successful application of either strategy requires a level of memory and information processing that has not been normally associated with single cells, suggesting that such organisms do in fact have the capacity to 'think'."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17530173/

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's "deaf". The brain has a hard time adapting to death.

"Told you I was ill." - Spike 

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

And remember that the pinball wizard was "in a quiet vibration land"; so maybe it is also the case for mind!

It was a case of the brain adapting to the body it's given, without the deaf death thing, so no it's not a support for your position. 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It was a case of the brain adapting to the body it's given, without the deaf death thing, so no it's not a support for your position. 

Just kidding; lyrics not evidence; It was too easy to pass!

Is it random molecules masquerading as "thinking"?

Authors give the impression that is does not seem so!

https://scitechdaily.com/breaking-the-brain-muscle-barrier-scientists-discover-hidden-neural-network-like-abilities-of-self-assembling-molecules/

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Is it random molecules masquerading as "thinking"?

Authors give the impression that is does not seem so!

https://scitechdaily.com/breaking-the-brain-muscle-barrier-scientists-discover-hidden-neural-network-like-abilities-of-self-assembling-molecules/

This should have been a stand alone post, not attached to Dim post!

[DanMP]

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

the point remains that the tail part grew a head and remembered the task

This was the researcher interpretation, but the fact was:

Quote

worms regenerated from tails that had lived in rough dishes learned to go for the food more quickly

and this may be also related to less sensitive bodies, as I wrote before, or some kind of Pavlovian conditioning (the cells in the body may recognize the liver "smell" and start to "salivate", prompting the new brain to search food).

My point is that the heads shouldn't be discarded. It may be important to see how quickly the heads, with their new body, would learn to go for the food. Also, more investigations are needed about the body skin thickness/sensitivity and about the changes in body fluids chemical content when the liver is added in the worm proximity.

 

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Are you clicking on the links and nothing happens

Yes, but I copy-pasted the blue text and found the article with the brain waves. By the way, I see those waves as similar to domino pieces "waves".

 

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The only observations hinting at it for me are episodes when a malfunctioning brain is able to spit out any kind of thinking when that should not be the case. Notwithstanding, I believe that there is no proof per say that this hypothesis is even worth bearing in mind. I offered it for discussion, because it is one of many being considered. Again, my position is not that we should be pursuing this or any other model, but that there is something wrong with our current picture of how mind works in the brain.

Yes, it is good to discuss, in order to see the weak points and select the best option.

About "our current picture of how mind works in the brain", I don't agree that it is wrong, but I do think that there are many things to investigate and elucidate.

 

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

For emotion, I offer the microbiome and two way conversation via the vagus nerve.

There are influences, yes, but we don't think with the microbiome. A pill we swallow may influence our emotions, but the pill itself is not involved in our thinking process, nor the maker of the pill. The cells in our body may secrete chemicals that would influence our mind, but they are not involved in the process of thinking.

 

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

... cells could sense changes in the surrounding conditions - such as temperature, nutritional availability or the presence of other individuals - and modify their behavior to provide an appropriate response to that information. ...

Moreover, successful application of either strategy requires a level of memory and information processing that has not been normally associated with single cells, suggesting that such organisms do in fact have the capacity to 'think'."

I agree with the first part, but not really with the cell "capacity to think". Does the immune system think? Does a virus think? Maybe that's why they wrote 'think' ...

 

[DrmDoc]

On 3/28/2024 at 7:33 AM, Luc Turpin said:

My main contention in our discussion remains that evidence-observations do not match up with our current understanding of how mind works. More on this later.

As for "categories' being used in the discussion, here is a simplification that may help in understanding:

• Mind from brain: Mind is the exclusive domain of the brain with body providing energy, stimuli and senses to the brain
• Mind from brain and body: Brain plays the predominant role in mind while body provides energy, stimuli and senses, but also aids in memory, emotion, cognition etc. 
• Mind through brain: The brain and body become conduits for mind residing outside of the body and brain. The mind is the signal and the brain is the television set.

I have used these categories in our discussion, because I believe that they help a bit in comprehension. But do be reminded that they are mine and arbitrary in nature. Hence my opening statement that the main topic of discussion is about data not matching up to evidence rather than mind-brain categorisation.

I hope this helps a little, and indeed I believe as well that we don't agree on the nature of the partnership. I think that your position is more in line with the mind from body model, while mine is more in line with the mind from brain and body model.

In light of this being a discussion broader than categorisation, here are two links to newer findings that I would like you to comment on:

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url

Evidence early, but emerging, that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders.url

So, are we not moving a bit the needle here in determining that it is not only about synapses and molecules, but maybe also about waves and frequencies?

Or am I the one stuck in the past still thinking that the neuro-science field is even now only contemplating molecules and synapses?

Note: These are but only two of many examples of studies finding out that waves and frequencies affect the brain. Or, more broadly, that the brain does not work as expected.

Brain waves found to travel in one direction when memories are made and the opposite when recalled.url 93 B · 2 downloads Evidence early, but emerging, that gamma rhythm stimulation can treat neurological disorders.url 106 B · 0 downloads

If I now understand correctly, this discussion for you is broader than our separate views on the various theories about how mind originates.  For you, if I understand, our discussion is also about how the evidence either supports or invalidates those theories.  Although I believe there's sufficient evidence supporting a consensus for mind emergence, you believe differring interpretations of the evidence belie that consensus.

Again, if I understand correctly, you perceive my perspective as aligned with mind-from-brain with body merely its vessel and sensory array.  As you've offerred, your perspective is aligned with mind-from-brain and body with body as an "active participant" in memory, emotion, and cognition.  In support of your position, you've offerred various citations suggesting that memory, emotion, and cognition may reside elsewhere in the body.  If true, let's begin with memory.

This idea of memory transference from cells, bio-matrices, or organs to the brain suggest the transference of these aspects learned experiences from the body external and subordinant to the brain.  I don't readily accept evidence of any claim by the title of a paper or by the conclusions of its author.  It has been my experience that all papers are in someway biased by the predisposition, objectives, and/or poor science of their authors. So when I explore claims of memory transference from aspects of the body subordinant to the brain, I'm the devil's advocate--I look for flaws and ask myself if these are sufficient to invalidate a claim.

Admittedly, I have a predisposed bias to citations and rarely review them in their entirety.  But I've prevoiusly read several papers on memory transference with organ transplants and have found them all insufficient for baseline evaluations of transplant recipients.  I found their author's investigations should have included a thorough psychological assessment of their subject's history and suggestibility, which would explain their behaviors subsequent to the transplant. 

Regarding the notion of cell memory transference or "Do cells think", I agree that there is a type of memory transference between cells, but not between cellular matrices and the brain.  The memory transference I speak of is described by what happens between cells to adapt to pathogens.  To answer whether cells think, one must ask whether cells engage behaviors contrary to their instinctive nature--whether cell behaviors suggest a brain-equivalent thought process. 

Your perspective on brain-body interplay also offerred emotion and cognition as a body contribution to the mind our brain constructs.  Emotion is an efferent response and exclusive domian of brain function.  The emotional influence of our brain's subsystems does not describe a package (emotion) delivered to the brain, but instead describe our brain's reaction to that package--which is precisely the same with cognition.

More recently, you've offerred citations suggesting the potential influence of wave forces external to the brain.  It's true, wave forces such as those generated by strong magnetic fields have been shown to have a direct affect on brain function.  This, perhaps, would be the only evidence of support for a wave field external to the brain that has an affect on the mind the brain creates--but this is about resphaping, adjusting or, possibly, ameliorate what's already there in the brain rather than implanting something external to the brain. 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

 

18 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

 

I will be slower this weekend at responding as this is a weekend of festivities for family and friends

[Luc Turpin]

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

This was the researcher interpretation, but the fact was:

Notwithstanding, the results point toward memory being preserved in the body. 

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

and this may be also related to less sensitive bodies, as I wrote before, or some kind of Pavlovian conditioning (the cells in the body may recognize the liver "smell" and start to "salivate", prompting the new brain to search food).

My point is that the heads shouldn't be discarded. It may be important to see how quickly the heads, with their new body, would learn to go for the food. Also, more investigations are needed about the body skin thickness/sensitivity and about the changes in body fluids chemical content when the liver is added in the worm proximity.

I understand what you are implying; only the study authors could answer your question.  I doubt that going through the “rough-terrain” would be sufficient to grow tougher skin, but it remains a possibility.

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

Yes, but I copy-pasted the blue text and found the article with the brain waves. By the way, I see those waves as similar to domino pieces "waves".

Did not understand the link that you wish to make between waves generated in the brain and the “domino effect”!

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

About "our current picture of how mind works in the brain", I don't agree that it is wrong, but I do think that there are many things to investigate and elucidate.

I beg to differ.

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

There are influences, yes, but we don't think with the microbiome. A pill we swallow may influence our emotions, but the pill itself is not involved in our thinking process, nor the maker of the pill. The cells in our body may secrete chemicals that would influence our mind, but they are not involved in the process of thinking.

As I have already stated, the brain has the principal role while body actively participates in memory, emotion, cognition. For emotions and the gut microbiota, that relationship is more tightly linked than anticipated. “The brain can impact the gut and the gut can impact the brain”. Its influence is also much more considerable than anticipated. The brain may very well create the emotion, but the microbiota regulates it. “The gut microbiota can modulate anxiety-and depressive-like behaviors”. “Gut microbiota regulates mouse behaviors through glucocorticoid receptor pathway genes in the hippocampus”.  “….the microbiota is necessary for normal stress responsivity, anxiety-like behaviors, sociability and cognition”. Also, the “microbiota maintains central nervous system homeostasis by regulating immune function and blood brain barrier integrity”. It also “influences neurotransmitter, synaptic, and neurotrophic signalling systems and neurogenesis". I reiterate, the gut microbiota plays a prominent role in emotion. So much so that at times one wonder’s whom is doing what to whom. And that is the microbiota alone; imagine then what role the whole body plays on memory, emotion and cognition.

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

I agree with the first part, but not really with the cell "capacity to think". Does the immune system think? Does a virus think? Maybe that's why they wrote 'think' ...

It's the author's perogative to say that cells have the "capacity to think". As for the immune system, I would say that it is at least a very complex system in of it's itself and is very good at what it does. As for virus, you would be surprised at what they can do!

[Luc Turpin]

18 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

If I now understand correctly, this discussion for you is broader than our separate views on the various theories about how mind originates.  For you, if I understand, our discussion is also about how the evidence either supports or invalidates those theories.  Although I believe there's sufficient evidence supporting a consensus for mind emergence, you believe differring interpretations of the evidence belie that consensus.

Again, if I understand correctly, you perceive my perspective as aligned with mind-from-brain with body merely its vessel and sensory array.  As you've offerred, your perspective is aligned with mind-from-brain and body with body as an "active participant" in memory, emotion, and cognition.  In support of your position, you've offerred various citations suggesting that memory, emotion, and cognition may reside elsewhere in the body.  If true, let's begin with memory.

This idea of memory transference from cells, bio-matrices, or organs to the brain suggest the transference of these aspects learned experiences from the body external and subordinant to the brain.  I don't readily accept evidence of any claim by the title of a paper or by the conclusions of its author.  It has been my experience that all papers are in someway biased by the predisposition, objectives, and/or poor science of their authors. So when I explore claims of memory transference from aspects of the body subordinant to the brain, I'm the devil's advocate--I look for flaws and ask myself if these are sufficient to invalidate a claim.

Admittedly, I have a predisposed bias to citations and rarely review them in their entirety.  But I've prevoiusly read several papers on memory transference with organ transplants and have found them all insufficient for baseline evaluations of transplant recipients.  I found their author's investigations should have included a thorough psychological assessment of their subject's history and suggestibility, which would explain their behaviors subsequent to the transplant. 

Regarding the notion of cell memory transference or "Do cells think", I agree that there is a type of memory transference between cells, but not between cellular matrices and the brain.  The memory transference I speak of is described by what happens between cells to adapt to pathogens.  To answer whether cells think, one must ask whether cells engage behaviors contrary to their instinctive nature--whether cell behaviors suggest a brain-equivalent thought process. 

Your perspective on brain-body interplay also offerred emotion and cognition as a body contribution to the mind our brain constructs.  Emotion is an efferent response and exclusive domian of brain function.  The emotional influence of our brain's subsystems does not describe a package (emotion) delivered to the brain, but instead describe our brain's reaction to that package--which is precisely the same with cognition.

More recently, you've offerred citations suggesting the potential influence of wave forces external to the brain.  It's true, wave forces such as those generated by strong magnetic fields have been shown to have a direct affect on brain function.  This, perhaps, would be the only evidence of support for a wave field external to the brain that has an affect on the mind the brain creates--but this is about resphaping, adjusting or, possibly, ameliorate what's already there in the brain rather than implanting something external to the brain. 

This is what I think!

If most of the evidence is taken into consideration on mind and brain then these statements are mostly correct.

•  “The perspective of the role of the body as a sensory array for engaging life experiences that basically support the metabolic/homeostatic imperative of the brain and brain function.”
•  “Through homeostasis, mind emerges as an efferent response to afferent stimuli.  Even more, mind is evinced by and is exclusive to behavioral expressions that suggest a thought process. “
•   “What could possibly be more to the foundation of mind than the engine and energy that powers the brain functions generating the mind.  Mind, to be clear, doesn't exist without brain function and brain function does not occur without the energy driving that function.”
•   “Relative to the body, the science informs me that the body is merely a vehicle that facilitates the brain's survival imperative.” 

If all of the evidence is taken into consideration on mind and brain (including old-ignored and newer) than these same statements need to be revisited or statements added to those.

We do not know what consciousness is, let alone how it works.

We do not know how the brain really thinks beyond synapses and chemicals.

Also, the body does more than we think it does and nature thinks more than we think it does.

That is what I think!

I have presented arguments, information and evidence to that effect in past posts and will continue to do so in future ones.

correction: We do not know how the brain really thinks beyond synapses and molecules.

[dimreepr]

39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We do not know what consciousness is, let alone how it works.

We do not know how the brain really thinks beyond synapses and chemicals.

Your being confused by the language of science, we do not know, doesn't = we don't understand anything about it.

What we don't understand is the fundamentals of why it work's, but that's not an invitation to just speculate; it's an invitation to put in the hard work and gather all the information needed to contradict the 'we (I don't include myself)' who do understand, beyond the basics you can find on the tinternet.

I can see that you are determined to believe what you post, which is fine; fill your boot's, just remember Nietzches word's and come back to us with some trusted evidence.