What you say is true, if part of the brain is removed or damaged this effects the body in adverse ways. That is because the brain is only an interface between the mind and body. So if the interface is damaged then the body will not function properly.
This is not theory it is good science. Thousands of people die in the ER of hospitals every year. Their heart stops, then 11-15 seconds after that the brain stops functioning. Sometimes the doctors can resuscitate the patient. Some of these patients have been clinically dead for a few minutes up to an hour. Some are considered dead and will be taken to the morgue, then like Dannion Brinkley they come back to life before they reach the morgue. Pam Reynolds was clinically dead for an hour during a experimental surgery. Now what is important is that these people who die and come back to life never really died. They floated out of their bodies and watched the whole process taking place to revive them. This account they give is validated by the doctors in attendance. This is called a veridical near death experience. Those who are blind can see and describe their surroundings. Many doctors are now doing research on this and it can be found in accredited medical journals. Dr Bruce Grayson of the University of Virginia is one of the researchers among dozens of others here and abroad.
I know the skeptics have attacked this research but have provided no rational explanation for the fact experiences can see and hear while their bodies are clinically dead.
There is a great deal of good evidence for those who wish to read. What it amounts to is we live on after the death of our bodies.
I’ve seen you post this before. Can you please post a citation? A cite to your own site or blog that lists a number of different case studies would be fine.
Why does damage to the brain affect the mind?
Consider Phineas Gage, who due to a mining accident, lost a good portion of his brain, but recovered (physically). While he could function normally from a superficial standpoint, people said “Gage lived, but he’s not Gage any more.” They were talking about his personality.
If our personality is based on our brain rather than our mind, that makes the brain less of a mere interface, and more of a fundamental aspect of mind, doesn’t it?
Gage is just one example. There are a number of mental problems that are directly attributable to physical causes, and they don’t seem like interface malfunctions, since they affect the core of what we consider “mind”: personality, attitudes, behavior; not just perception and motor functions. For example, cerebral palsy is clearly an interface problem. The afflicted person may seem to be mentally imparied, but cursory examination can show that not to be the case. If the brain is merely an interface, why do malfuctions of this interface affect core aspects?
Damage to the brain does not effect the mind. It just affects the mind’s ability to control the body through the interface of the brain. Of course all damage to the brain or degenerative illness of the body will effect the actions of the body. Behavior will be changed as well as memory, knowledge, personality, etc. Now if these physical functions could be restored then the person would go back to being normal.
A radio or television is an interface between the broadcast and you. As long as they are functioning properly you can understand the shows presented, but if the radio or television is damaged then the broadcast may be garbled or seem strange even though there is nothing wrong with the broadcast only the receiver. It is that way with the brain.
It is known that people with severe dementia, can’t even recognize their relatives will sometimes appear completely normal, especially shortly before death. I will show a link that might help.
This is a large field of study now so there is much more.
I already gave examples where this definitely isn’t the case. People with certain brain injuries can very clearly say how they feel in their mind is different due to their brain injuries.
This is a good argument that those mental things are dependent on and created by the brain. Thanks.
Right, but if it’s a two-way communication (e.g., ham radio) and it’s malfunctioning, you can clearly tell the difference between the radio failing versus the guy at the other end not making sense, using redundancy and other means to pull the information out of the noise. That’s exactly my point above. We generally can tell interface failures from fundamental failures, and many brain diseases show every aspect of fundamental failures, not interface failures.
That link isn’t much help, as it’s just a collection of anecdotes. There are great collections of anecdotes to substantiate a lot of claims, like astrology, numerology, ghosts, and aliens. You said there’s good science; I’d like to see that.
I think Bruce nailed it well. But if you are not interested it is OK, just doesn’t make it false or anecdotal. It is good science and will continue to be good science. Who knows maybe some day you will experience it personally.
Do you know what “anecdote” means? Bruce told stories, and neither the fact that he has a doctorate or that you believe his stories make those stories Science. Do you have cites that show people coming out of severe dementia and speaking clearly right before dying?