Guys, I have a question. We believe that language is not in the brain but in the mind. But how do we explain language loss after a stroke? If language is in the mind, then a stroke patient should still be able to speak internally but just not express it. However, no one reports this. So language must somehow be in the brain, right?
The interaction of mind/spirit and physical brain is complex, and there are several views on how it works. Contrary to many popular claims about neurophysiology, this isnāt a question that is particularly suited for experimental testing. The physical brain is involved in implementing the decisions of the mind, so a problem with the physical structure would interfere with that implementation, even in a dualistic view where the mind itself is totally independent of the physical.
3 Likes
Excellent article that Terry posted. I think it does a great job, though may be a little dense with terminology, so if it raises questions, we can explore them.
One question your post raises is that of whether there is any difference between the mind and the brain, or if they are the same. That has implications as to how we can have a persistent mind when our brains have turned to mush and dust. It also has big implications as to the nature of the mind after brain injury or dementia.
And of course, what does it mean to have the mind of Christ?
3 Likes
Hmmmā¦
If the physical brain is deprived of oxygen, i dont see the mind, an abstract notion, not being affected. To me the definition as outlined below is a contradiction.
the brain is responsible for physical functions, while the mind is responsible for abstract thought and emotion and is not bound by the same physical laws as the brain. You May Also Like | What Is The Difference Between Resume And CV?8 Sept 2023
https://www.jagranjosh.com
What Is The Difference Between Brain And Mind?
Anyway, another reference about brain vs mind below
Interesting that the notion of the mind is a biblical oneā¦the bible may not be a science textbook, however its ancient writers were inspired to use some pretty advanced concepts (this being one of them)
Jeremiah 31:33
āThis is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,ā declares the LORD. āI will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
however, from a biblcal perspective, one thing is certain, both die when our days are numbered.
āThe dead know nothingā Ecclesiastis 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.
1 Like
I would counter that by saying that passage in Ecclesiastes is the musings of a secularly oriented man, giving essentially a naturalistic view, whereas we later have a different understanding of life after death with later revelation. Now, how that works from a naturalistic standpoint is above my pay grade.
1 Like
I have met people with brain cancer. Depending on the place where the cancer is, the personality may change little or appear to change much. Also dementia may affect the way how the person acts much. I do not know what is happening within the head but the way the person talks and acts tells much. There are cases where the person becomes a difficult one to deal with, like a completely different person. There are also cases where the opposite happens. One of my relatives was a negative person, often complaining and criticizing others or blaiming them from something bad. When she became affected by dementia, she chanced to a lovely person. Always thankful and helpful, very easy and nice person to those who visited or took care of her.
If the personality changes after brain damage, that makes me ask similar kind of questions than you asked.
Are we physical creatures to the point where the mind and brain are intertwined, rather than separate entities?
How responsible are we for our acts and decisions after brain damage, in front of humans and God?
What happens to the āeternal meā when the brains start to die?
I believe we are souls, rather than have souls. The body is not separate from the other parts of our self, at least not fully separate. I also believe we will have bodily life after resurrection, although the spiritual body is different than our current body. Otherwise, I have more questions than answers.
5 Likes
Iām not really certain how you are differentiating between mind and brain. Is mind something supernatural/magical to you? Now Iām not an expert, or even an armchair expert on this. I donāt really use language of spirit in discussions.
Language is something we learn. It evolves overtime. Like you canāt go back and find the first English speaker. It was little changes overtime in different ways and parts becoming popular and not. The brain is not magical. Memories donāt just float in the air. Cognitive processing can be affected by many things.
So I think itās natural that a stroke could cause some brain damage that results in loss of speech.
1 Like
I do not believe any such thing.
I believe the mind is a living organism (self-organizing dynamic structure) in the medium of language. Therefore language comes before the mind not after; mind before language would be like a body before DNA. And besides we have concrete evidence that the development of language has an evolutionary component, discovering genes which make speech possible. Thus this is largely a biological development.
Correct.
Yes there is considerable influence of Plato/Gnosticism and their belief in a mental soul on Christian thinking which has strayed far from what is in the Bible. I donāt believe in any such thing. I believe in the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor 15 of a bodily resurrection to a spiritual body (and likewise a spiritual mind to go with that). In other words, I am a physicalist with regards to the mind/body problem in philosophy. On the other hand, I reject the common idea of many physicalists that the mind and the brain are one and the same thing. They are quite different but both are physical things - two distinct physical living organisms (but highly interdependent of course).
im just trying to figure how you reconcile the idea that the bible cannon is compiled with writings of ungodly authors presenting doctrines that are anti christian as truth?
The bible overwhelmingly presents theology and doctrines that are internally consistentā¦so the verse in Ecclesiastes (the dead know nothing) is one of those doctrines Christians should be following simply because the bible makes a very direct statement that is self interpretingā¦there is no room for twisting meaning there.
It is called ācontext.ā The writer of Ecclesiastes first writes about how life is futile, you ought to just eat drink and be merry, we are all just dust so what does it matter, etc. until the end when he comes to the conclusion that despite the futility we think we see in life, God is good.
The first part he is speaking from a human perspective, the latter from a divine. Of course, you may reject the New Testament teachings of life after death, and be more like the Sadducees who denied an afterlife, but that is not orthodox Christian belief.
1 Like
Where did this come from? ? ?
You show a great talent for responding to things no one has said!
Such statements do not exist. The meaning may be clear, but the interpretation depends on how that meant was intended ā as a declaration? as pondering? as a human conclusion?
To my surprise, this independence is closer to idealism than dualism.
I participated in a discussion recently, with a group of other philosophy of religion enthusiasts, and found it interesting that everyone agreed the mind really does act in the world. No one in the group would say consciousness is an illusion. Now there may have been some confusion from the physicalist about what they really believed. And the idealist didnāt want to fully accept the mind does interact with the body even if the intention to act occurs or takes place in a pre-quantum sense.
I fully believe the intention to act occurs or takes place on the neurological or chemical side of the sub-atmomic world. But it is nevertheless a great mystery. So I felt like I needed to call myself a dualist.
The idealist also felt compelled to dismiss the way anesthesia mutes consciousness. There are apparently a handful of cases where people experience dreams, but that could be explained by improperly administered anesthesia or false memories.
Dream like experiences are also more common under lighter stages of anesthesia
I grokked it,
General anesthesia typically involves drugs like propofol, sevoflurane, or others that suppress brain activity, often to a level where conscious awarenessāand the kind of narrative dreaming we associate with REM sleepādoesnāt occur. Studies suggest that the brainās ability to generate dreams is heavily disrupted under deep anesthesia because it affects the neural networks involved in memory, perception, and self-awareness. However, some people do report dream-like experiences, especially during lighter stages of anesthesia, such as when theyāre going under (induction) or waking up (emergence).
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.