Are minds identical to brains

Introduction

The question about the philosophical connection between the mind and the brain requires additional probing of the relationship between the two elements. Scientific research on consciousness reveals that there the mind is identical to the brain. However, the dualism concept indicates a similarity between the mind and the brain. In this aspect, the brain relates more to the physical world, while the mind is non-physical. In this paper, I argue that the mind is not identical to the brain due to the different interactions between the human body’s physical and conscious elements. In other words, the functional roles of the two show inter-dependence between the brain and the mind. However, the differences in the brain’s biological functioning and consciousness disapprove of the idea that the two elements are identical to each other. Therefore, this paper concludes by accepting separateness between the mind and the brain

The Identical Nature of the Minds and Brains

The mind is different from the brain because of the differences in biological and psychological functioning. The mind is responsible for people’s feelings and thoughts. It is also the determinant of reason, intellect, and consciousness, which are combinations of perceptions, emotions, and imaginations (Pandya 1). The mind’s roles align with Baker’s narrative that human abilities relate to the ability to think, see oneself as a subject, and have a more prosperous inner life (371). On the other hand, the brain is the organ that contributes to pleasures, pains, grief, and other bodily reactions. Through it, individuals see, hear, and separate the positive from the adverse events. Therefore, the brain is a more powerful organ that contributes to mental experiences. A study by Demertzi, Liew, and Ledoux indicated that consciousness is detachable from the physical body hence the need for an innate stance on the lack of identity between the mind and the brain (7). In this case, the interaction between the two does not make them identical since the latter is a physical element. In other words, an individual’s mind is a part of the physical component of the brain. The complex network theory provides insights into the differences between the mind and the brain. It describes the latter as a system that can be decomposed into different parts. Ideally, the brain has the molecular and neural elements that form the physical and biological aspects of cognition (Bassett and Gazzaniga 2). The physical nature of the brain means that psychological attributes cannot be related to it.

The mind makes processes such as remembering and decision making because they are concepts of knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. In other words, the mind relates more to consciousness and other processes that have behavioral grounds (Arievitch 7). As such, individuals’ thinking and decision-making do not align with the functional aspects of the brain. Therefore, the brain cannot be used to explain the mind because the mental functions do not belong to the physiological component of the brain (Arievitch 7). Instead, they relate more to individuals’ activities in their environment. The narrative by Arievitch suggests that the substance of the mind refers to a person’s actions while the brain has inborn structures that mainly align with biological functions (7). As such, studying the brain provides little insight into the nature of the mind.

The brain does not determine psychological processes. It is not constitutive of the mind since it deals with physiological aspects. In this case, the brain belongs to the casual relationships between science and nature, while the mind focuses more on the realm of reasons, thoughts, and decisions. The mind makes a person a rational agent based on psychological transformations that do not happen in the brain. The brain does not think, perceive, or decide; hence, it cannot determine people’s attitudes and the effects on their mental lives (Arievitch 20). Conversely, it is not responsible for what people think due to physical and physiological properties. Observing the workings of the brain can tell little about the human mind, thereby revealing the idea that the two are not identical to each other. Further, the brain does not provide details about human behavior, thinking, and learning. Arievitch argued that the causes of action are not in the brain (9). Instead, they correspond with events in the outside world characterized by cultural and social occurrences.

The brain enables different forms of activities but is not the cause of behavior since it is not identical to human consciousness. As such, the brain processes align with mental exercises and abilities, but in no way their determinants. In other words, the brain is only an organ that supports the different kinds of human activities. Therefore, individuals should view their functions as those that prepare them for various actions and reinforces their ability to cope with changing environmental conditions. In this context, it seems reasonable to conclude that the brain prepares people for innovation, initiation of activities, and responses that shape their thinking and decision-making.

The proponents of the similar nature of the mind and the brain argue that damages to the latter produce disorders in thinking, decision-making, and cognitive processes. In this case, the brain has a role in organizing experiences. In other words, individuals have several parts such that a loss in one could have severe consequences on the mind (Pandya 2). Correspondingly, the chemical processes within the brain also reveal the similarities with the mind. For instance, the effects of substances such as marijuana and caffeine on the brain affect the mind because of the modifications of functions (Pandya 2). Therefore, the patterns of behavior emerge from the patterns of chemicals released in the human brain. Additional evidence on the similar nature of the mind and the brain relates to the idea that one can trace and understand various emotional mechanics.

Similarly, examining the elements of the brain facilitates the detection of physical characteristics and other different qualities of the mind, such as self-awareness and kindness. In this case, the assumption is that the map of the brain can inform about the mind. Such a narrative relates to Kripke’s uncertainty concept, whereby it is not clear that everything necessary is likely to occur (39). Baker’s narrative that an individual’s body is not a separate person from them also alludes to the identical nature of the brain and mind (374). As such, the similar nature of the brain and mind can be rationally believed, without being quite sure. To sum up, arguments supporting the similarity of identity between the brain and mind point out that the neurons and connections in the brain help contain the mind. As such, the brain is the organ of the mind and determines perceptions, behavior, and intelligence. Simultaneously, the extensive networks in the brain provide insights into individuals’ motivation, reasoning, and consciousness, thereby supporting the possibility of the mind and the brain being identical.

Despite the narrative that the brain and mind are identical to each other, the efforts to find an explanation of human behavior, thoughts, and decisions in the brain are still misguided. They do not provide insights into the human mind’s psychological functioning but instead focus on the physical and physiological reactions. In other words, it is possible to understand the functioning of the physical parts of the brain, but it becomes challenging to relate them to behavior and decisions. Ideally, the brain is a constituent part of the nervous system such that it makes little sense to view it as behavior. However, the mind and the brain are dependent on each other since none could function effectively without the other. On the other hand, the brain does not bring about problem-solving. In this case, the brain acts as the component that carries determinants of decisions and behavior, unlike the mind that reinforces individuals’ reactions to their external environment.

Conclusion

The brain and mind are not identical to each other. In this case, consciousness, behavior, decisions, and thoughts do not occur in the brain because of the absence of psychological attributes in the organ. Instead, the mind determines what people do in their environment because of its link to psychological processes. The idea that cognition does not happen inside the brain also reveals the difference between the two elements. In this case, the mind determines what individuals do. Therefore, the brain provides physiological support for the mind. However, the activities cannot explain the mind’s functions since psychological processes do not occur in the brain. They instead happen because of the meaningful interaction with individuals’ settings. As such, it is impossible to find representations of external events or objects under the skull. Simultaneously, the brain and mind are not identical because the former does not think, decide, or behave. Equally, the brain is not responsible for people’s actions, unlike the mind that cares about what individuals do and the outcomes of their deeds.

Works Cited

Arievitch, M, Igor. Beyond the Brain: An Agentive Activity Perspective on Mind, Development, and Learning. Rotterdam/Boston: Sense Publishers, 2017. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325766543_The_Mind_Is_Not_in_the_Brain/link/5b22b7a2458515270fcc14a0/download>.

Baker, Rudder, Lynne. “The Ontological Status of Persons.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research vol. 66, no. 2, 2002, pp. 370-387.

Bassett, S, Danielle, and Michael Gazzaniga. “Understanding Complexity in The Human Brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 15, no. 5, 2011, pp. 200-209. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170818/>.

Demertzi, Athena, et al. “Dualism Persists in the Science of Mind.” Disorders of Consciousness, vol. 1157, 2009, pp. 1-9. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24262312_Dualism_Persists_in_the_Science_of_Mind/link/5a0bc7310f7e9b0cc0259d96/download>.

Kripke, Saul. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980.

Pandya, K, Sunil. “Understanding Brain, Mind and Soul: Contributions from Neurology and Neurosurgery.” Mens Sana Monographs, vol. 9, no. 1, 2011, pp. 129-149. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115284/>.

References

Bassett, S, Danielle, and Michael Gazzaniga. “Understanding complexity in the human brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15.5 (2011): 200-209. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170818/>.

Demertzi, Athena, et al. “Dualism Persists in the Science of Mind.” Disorders of Consciousness 1157 (2009): 1-9. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24262312_Dualism_Persists_in_the_Science_of_Mind/link/5a0bc7310f7e9b0cc0259d96/download>.

Pandya, K, Sunil. “Understanding Brain, Mind and Soul: Contributions from Neurology and Neurosurgery.” Mens Sana Monographs 9.1 (2011): 129-149. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115284/>.