I think that is just referring to the idea of the head being above / more important than other parts. It is like how God created Eve from Adam's side to show they were initially equal (before the curse). I guess that's the only example you have and it doesn't clearly refer to mental processes. If it did it means Christ is like the brain of the church but it means he is the boss.
Why would head be "the boss" if the heart is the most important thing? You seem to shift the context to normalize your hypothesis here, but that's besides the more advanced point that I'll attempt to make. I'm not sure that I'll be able to get through to you given the reductionist nature of your approach to reality, but I'll give it a try.
First, let's re-calibrate against what I'm arguing for, and that wouldn't be the literal approach to Biblical narrative. If we take academic approach, then whatever stories were written down, these were written down by political philosophers of the priestly class, and these were written down for the purpose of formalizing these ideals by communicating "concrete forms" that such ideals could be understood as.
Likewise, you have to understand that you can't judge the systematic and specialized cultural knowledge on the bases of philosophical literature. For example, if all that survived from Pre-Victorian era were Kant's writings, then you would have a very incomplete handle on scientific views of the past. The past is much more complex than Kant's writings.
So, while you do have Aristotle's view on brain, you also have Hippocratic one, and he wasn't alone in thinking that. So, there were always a wide variety of competing schools of thought that sparked and died, and some were embedded and propagated into cultural linguistics a method of speaking conceptual reality as opposed to actual one.
So just like today, if you ask an average person about quantum physics based on nominal linguistic descriptions that they've heard, they will likely tell you a vastly different story than the one quantum physicists are telling.
But, what you seem to expect is this nominal equivalence.... not only in original formulation of these ideas in context of agrarian culture, but you also seem to expect the "idiomatic continuum" , because that's how you end up judging whether philosophical ideals of that culture are viable for us today.
Hence, you absurdly expect the linguistic metaphors of that culture to conform to scientific reality that we have today... when even in our culture that's not the case.
And that's why I find such approach utterly absurd. You take the seat at the "irrational teacher's desk" where you conclude that conceptual meaning of any given paper of the student is wrong because they paint factually-incorrect analogies. So, moral concepts embedded in a story about a talking cats gets an F
And yes, I understand that there are bunch of kids there who are running around thinking that cats can talk, but that's a phase that all of us go through if we use illustrative metaphors to explain concepts. And we actually never stop doing that, since we end up reifying a whole score of concepts.
So, there's multiple levels of "true", and you have chosen to focus on one of the most primitive ones.
