I recently had a discussion with another member about whether the mind and the brain are really separate entities, or whether the mind is simply an emergent property of the brain. Sadly, the debate led us nowhere, for some reason, which is why I've started this thread.
I know that this is traditionally called Mind-Body-Dualism, but I think Mind-Brain-Dualism is the more accurate term.
My view is that the the mind is simply an emergent property of the brain. The two are linked to each other, you can't remove one of them while leaving the other one intact.
The reason why I hold this view is because changes to the brain almost always correlate with changes to the mind. A few examples:
Drugs. Specifically, methamphetamine, more commonly known as crystal. It has been shown that long-time users of methamphetamine suffer from depression years after abstinence. It has also been shown, mainly in animal experiments, that methamphetamine damages serotonin-receptors in the brain. Serotonin, for those who don't know, is commonly regarded as a happiness hormone.
Lobotomies. During a lobotomy, the frontal lobe of the brain is intentionally damaged. This has been shown to make patients apathetic.
The amygdala. The amygdalas are segments of the brain, present in both hemispheres. They are linked to emotional responses, especially fear and anger. It was shown that stimulation of the amygdala correlates with feelings of fear and anger. It has also been shown that transplantation of or damage to the amygdala correlates with a decline in emotional responses, and the incapability to process emotions.
As you can see, changes to the brain correlate with changes to the mind, and they do so in a predictable pattern. Likewise, processes of the mind show up in MRIs and similar imaging techniques. The two are so strongly correlated that the majority neuroscientists agree they are causated, too.
This leaves us with the question of whether the mind influences the brain, or whether the brain causes the mind. At first glance, both options look equally valid. However, on further inspectation, it becomes apparent that the first hypothesis is the weaker one, as it leaves many questions unanswered. For example, why would the mind cause the blood flow in the brain to change? Why does a depressed mind cause damage to serotonin receptors? Why does the mind change when the brain changes? And, last but not least: Why does the mind need the brain at all? It also attributes supernatural properties to the mind, which are unfalsifiable.
In the end, I arrived at the conclusion that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Any thoughts?
You would think most Christians would subscribe to the dualist view, but the funny thing is that the Bible does not have much to say on the subject. The idea simply flows from certain assumptions that many Christians hold. One of those assumptions is that we have free will. Take a look at the link in my sig for a list of strong evidence for the contrary. From this, they assume that free will is made possible because of some immaterial ghost inside which controls the body.
I actually have a different point of view, though I don't know what to call it. I believe that people are made up of three parts: body, soul, and spirit. What the body is is obvious, but most people lump soul and spirit together even though the Bible lists them together as two separate things.
The soul could also be called the mind. It is exactly what you describe. It's the thoughts, emotions, etc., which are all attributable to the brain. It is rather curious that such a thing could exist, however, since we can't exactly put an emotion in a jar and say, "This is happiness." The soul is not a physical thing, but it does rely entirely on the physical brain.
The third part, the spirit, is a little harder to explain. Unlike the soul, the spirit does not require a body to exist. It is essence of what makes us who we are. The best way to describe it might be through example...
We have robots that are able to collect light through a camera and process the resulting information as a picture. This is much like how our eyes collect light, sending electro-chemical signals to the brain, which then processes the information to create a picture. They can even be programmed to respond to the information they pick up, such as following a black line on a piece of paper.
But does a robot experience the sensation of light itself, or does it simply handle the information? Of course, robots do not really see the same way we do. They're merely empty shells. What they lack is the spirit. The spirit is what is required for the next step, to go beyond just processing information and actually experiencing it.
I hope I'm not repeating what has already been said, but I haven't found a lot of people who think this way. Interestingly, though, I've heard from a former Buddhist that some Buddhists believe we are made of these three things. I didn't even have to finish my sentence when describing my ideas to him. He finished it for me.
