[Guest]

do u control your brain or does your control u

[Guest]

hmm. this is a good one

well, you are you brain, and you are the rest of you.

so when your brain tells your hand to pick up something

you are telling your hand to pick up something, and you are the hand, picking up something

the thoughts in your head are thoughts you control, but, according to what I've heard about only being able to access 10% of your brain

I guess it does things we cannot realy control

so the answer, I suppose, would be both

[Guest]

Descartes said "I think, therefore I am"

That was his brain being used by him

Porky pig siad "I'm pink, therefore I'm spam."

So he was using his brain too.

Autonomic reflexes, such as breathing, reacting to pain etc. Which is the brains function, I think it's the medula oblongata at the top of the spine.

Some of us are in control (some use their brains).

Others like sheep follow and are not really thinking, though that's just being lazy...

Or very shrewed (why reinvent the wheel?).

[Guest]

I agree. But the medulla oblongata is just the bridge in between your spinal cord and the brain. Your brain stem controls involuntary functions such as breathing. But without your brain, your spinal cord can still sort of control you. For an example if your brain is removed (for a weird reason) you still have reflexes because some reflexes are controlled by your spinal cord. But your brain is the MAJOR control center.

[itachi-san]

I'm gonna take the next step in this discussion and eliminate some clutter, like our bodies. Let's assume that there is a system that could sustain our brains without any other part of the body attached or present. Now let's assume that this system could interpret our thoughts and display them visually on a monitor. Would we agree that we are still ourselves? If everything about our personality, knowledge, memories is retained then I would say we still exist in this form. Now the question is more simplified ...I think. Is it our brain that is thinking or is it the person that is making the brain do work? My theory, which of course cannot be proven, is that it is our energy, electricity, life, soul, whatever you want to call it, that controls the brain.

[Guest]

I'm gonna take the next step in this discussion and eliminate some clutter, like our bodies. Let's assume that there is a system that could sustain our brains without any other part of the body attached or present. Now let's assume that this system could interpret our thoughts and display them visually on a monitor. Would we agree that we are still ourselves? If everything about our personality, knowledge, memories is retained then I would say we still exist in this form. Now the question is more simplified ...I think. Is it our brain that is thinking or is it the person that is making the brain do work? My theory, which of course cannot be proven, is that it is our energy, electricity, life, soul, whatever you want to call it, that controls the brain.

Interesting. I'm not really sure how that simplifies it though, if the brain is still in the picture (I have this visual image of a brain suspended in air with thousands of wires hooked into it). You still have the same question: Is it something independent of the brain (force, consciousness, soul, whatever) that is triggering the electro-chemical reactions in the brain, or does consciousness arise as a result of those reactions, with nothing independent?

To take it a step further, however ... a frequent theme in sci-fi is to have the consciousness of a human embedded into a computer system, implying that everything that happens within our brain can be broken down into 0's and 1' (information), and that it's theoretically possible to duplicate the connections, triggers, etc., between all the stored information, so that you could be self-aware and functioning in a virtual world, in essence separating "you" from your brain.

The topic obviously has religious implications. A traditional view of an immortal soul would no doubt lead one to believe that the physical brain is essentially acted upon by an external force. I don't believe that, but I do believe that God resurrects people to spirit life (e.g., Jesus), indicating that the life of an individual is not dependent on the physical body, able to exist in another form. But what about in our present form? If you could instantaneously clone me down to the last atom, would the duplicate still be me, complete with my memories? Science has pretty much made clear that everything we think of as "thought" is a function of the brain. Does a person with brain damage or mental retardation actually have a highly intelligent part of them that just can't express itself through the damaged vessel? That doesn't jive with me. I think we are the sum of what's happening in our brain, so I would have to lean towards the idea that our brain controls us, not vice versa.

All conjecture, obviously, but fun speculation nonetheless.

[itachi-san]

Interesting. I'm not really sure how that simplifies it though, if the brain is still in the picture (I have this visual image of a brain suspended in air with thousands of wires hooked into it). You still have the same question: Is it something independent of the brain (force, consciousness, soul, whatever) that is triggering the electro-chemical reactions in the brain, or does consciousness arise as a result of those reactions, with nothing independent?

To take it a step further, however ... a frequent theme in sci-fi is to have the consciousness of a human embedded into a computer system, implying that everything that happens within our brain can be broken down into 0's and 1' (information), and that it's theoretically possible to duplicate the connections, triggers, etc., between all the stored information, so that you could be self-aware and functioning in a virtual world, in essence separating "you" from your brain.

The topic obviously has religious implications. A traditional view of an immortal soul would no doubt lead one to believe that the physical brain is essentially acted upon by an external force. I don't believe that, but I do believe that God resurrects people to spirit life (e.g., Jesus), indicating that the life of an individual is not dependent on the physical body, able to exist in another form. But what about in our present form? If you could instantaneously clone me down to the last atom, would the duplicate still be me, complete with my memories? Science has pretty much made clear that everything we think of as "thought" is a function of the brain. Does a person with brain damage or mental retardation actually have a highly intelligent part of them that just can't express itself through the damaged vessel? That doesn't jive with me. I think we are the sum of what's happening in our brain, so I would have to lean towards the idea that our brain controls us, not vice versa.

All conjecture, obviously, but fun speculation nonetheless.

Going with the computer idea, you are only left with the electricity/energy so how do you then deduce that it's our brain that controls us, if you've just proved/assumed that you can remove the brain from the process?

[Guest]

Going with the computer idea, you are only left with the electricity/energy so how do you then deduce that it's our brain that controls us, if you've just proved/assumed that you can remove the brain from the process?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My second paragraph was taking your idea of separating the brain and extending it further, but I don't really believe that's possible. Even if it is, though, it doesn't change my conclusion. In the third paragraph I described the reasoning that leads me to infer we are controlled by our brains. If "the person" is defined as the sum of what has happened and is happening in his or her brain, as determined by a set of physical, electro-chemical processes, then it would make more sense to me to say that the brain is in control. That you could theoretically take that same set of information and processing capability and put it into a different form (e.g., a cloned brain, a computer, a spirit body, etc.) does not imply that there was ever an independent entity (soul, energy, etc.) in control of the brain's functions, thus ruling out the idea that "you, the person" control your brain.

If, on the other hand, there is a non-physical, independent component to the person (e.g., the traditional "soul"), it would make more sense to say you (now including this non-physical entity) control your brain. If not, then how would that component even be considered a part of you? If it couldn't control your brain, then it couldn't control you, and it would be more like a remora hitching a ride on your body, just waiting to be released at death. Also, in either case, if you did the atomic clone of a human, would only one have this "soul"? Would the brain of the new guy function at all? These questions may be absurd, but I think they highlight the oddity of traditional religious thinking regarding an immortal soul.

[itachi-san]

That you could theoretically take that same set of information and processing capability and put it into a different form (e.g., a cloned brain, a computer, a spirit body, etc.) does not imply that there was ever an independent entity (soul, energy, etc.) in control of the brain's functions, thus ruling out the idea that "you, the person" control your brain.

Well, one could easily say that it does not imply there is not an independent party either.

If, on the other hand, there is a non-physical, independent component to the person (e.g., the traditional "soul"), it would make more sense to say you (now including this non-physical entity) control your brain. If not, then how would that component even be considered a part of you? If it couldn't control your brain, then it couldn't control you, and it would be more like a remora hitching a ride on your body, just waiting to be released at death.

If we were to think of a 'soul' as a parasite, it could still be identified as us and controlling our brain. And then once we die, this parasitic energy leaves us and either clumps together with other energy in some sort of collective identity or enters a new body (maybe a newly formed clone perhaps ) Also, assuming this is what happens for the discussion, it is evident that the energy must go through an extreme transition between bodies which would account for a lack of memories of previous lives. However, if the energy leaves a dead body, joins a collective group of energy and then bits and pieces of that collective form a new identity and this enters a newly formed body, this would account for instincts and evolutionary collective thought.

Also, in either case, if you did the atomic clone of a human, would only one have this "soul"? Would the brain of the new guy function at all? These questions may be absurd, but I think they highlight the oddity of traditional religious thinking regarding an immortal soul.

As you may have deduced, I would not believe that a 'soul' would be shared by clones. It would be different pieces of the collective life energy (whatever that is). Yes, the clone's brain would function (pretty much no matter your stance in this debate is). And I am in no defending a traditional religious soul, but rather my own belief about life, which I am not completely certain of yet and most likely never will. At least, not in this life.

[Guest]

What if you're a zombie. Then your brain will control you.

[Guest]

As you may have deduced, I would not believe that a 'soul' would be shared by clones. It would be different pieces of the collective life energy (whatever that is). Yes, the clone's brain would function (pretty much no matter your stance in this debate is). And I am in no defending a traditional religious soul, but rather my own belief about life, which I am not completely certain of yet and most likely never will. At least, not in this life.

Hmmm, I think the issue is being clouded by not having a clear definition of what 'control' of the brain would involve. If you're talking about a nebulous life force which actuates the brain (i.e., the brain cannot function without it, as an electrical device cannot function without electricity), but which does not have intelligence, then I don't see how you could call it 'control'. Does electricity 'control' the computer? If you're talking about a non-physical entity which possesses the ability to reason, can remember past experiences, and has a distinct identity, then it's obvious that such an independent component, if part of a human, would logically 'control' the brain. What you're suggesting seems to be something in between, and I'm not clear what interaction such a quantity would have with the physical brain.

I have pretty clear reasons for why I believe as I do (i.e., the Bible, and scientific discoveries of brain functionality), so I'm curious what has led you to your idea.

[Guest]

First - boring and gory stuff

Gonna stick my neck out hear - not for experiment. Note - limited knowledge, unlimited interest!

To clarify, we have the usual physical attributes to consider if looked at mechanically. I understand that the brain itself is not able to feel pain directly it interprets pain from nerve stimulation (why do we have a head ache? - It's not a brain ache!). So the brain is another part of the body that has a job to do. Babies born without a complete brain (anencephalic) do not survive but then there are never invasive/aggressive procedures used. Obviously a normal developed body can be kept alive with out brain function - but the body is only receiving nutrients and can also receive stigmatisation too. Putting the body to one side - literally, The brain is also difficult to keep alive if removed from the body (White did this with live brain removal experiments in the 60s adn a Russian (can't remember his name) did too. One or both of them removed a brain from a dog and inserted it into the neck of another and was kept alive for quite some time- again in the 60s. Monkeys heads too where 'kept alive' having been 'humanely' severed and fed nutrients, the animals could move there eyes and mouth and appeared to function but without a body. They were killed/put to sleep as apposed to dying naturaly/unnaturaly....... find these experiments disgusting personally.

So back to topic (almost) anencephalic babies apparently don't survive because they have to little or almost no actual brain, though some could possibly develop cognitive thinking. The brain is more responsible for choices if that is a way to put it, where the autonomic functions and refexes are goverend is at the medula oblongata Between the top of the spine and base of the brain, this is not actuall thinking - Oh i must breath faster cos I'm running. Actually the body tells you what to do - when you need to eat, urinate, sleep etc the brain listens to the advice and passes directions/orders that enable the body to function best. So we still don't have any thinking yet!

Part three - theory!

Thinking/id/self/essence - Now you are getting down to the philosophy of raison d'Etre, and the jourey is still out on that one unless yo choose to follow a belief system that informs you or in other words we are to satisfy, to look to worship etc., an entity - not going on to the belief subject of free will and similar...

Knock yourselves out on what we are as a consciousness/soul... we all like to have our own little spin on the theory of what makes up our soul - do we need the physical body to experience everything or anything, would we be bored if we only had our consciousness/soul. Can we exist in some gass/ether like state or as a mind, not in a god like way but in a non physical way? Then you have to rationalise the possibility of how this existence can work; based on our way of experiencing life (physical), we find it hard to contemplate but I'm sure most people think we are something more than the sum of our physical parts. Have we 'developed' beyond instinct/survival? Do we actually need to prefer a colour, size, shape etc? What purpose does it have?

Would we (not could we, but would we if we could) leave our physical existence. If we had less/no material things and there fore less/nothing to loose; no physical existence that impedes our living and be free from status yet free to imagine (Imagine we are real- like a dream that seems real)... Let’s say you're given a choice to move on from a physical existence to an entity being could you chose it?

Conclusion - Frankly there are a lot of people that are dissatisfied with things that they regard as a material necessity, need to keep up with the Jones' and the gottahaveitnow'com brigade. Impatient society that does not appreciate the beauty of the nature around ones own surroundings, lacking in self control and more thoughtful attitude. Perhaps the time is coming, and we are going to develop less physical and more spiritual with our body of less use our spirit being holy our mind to be satisfied with less physical stimuli.

Actually we are not ready as a species; we are still competitive with each other and nature.

We think we are in the dark therefore we can't see the light! - LIS aka Phil O'Sophy