Is mental process and cerebral process unrelated and independent from each other?

Question

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Have a great day!

Answer 1

They are definitely connected whatever you define them to be.

I do not go with the idea of the mind being the shadow of the brain. I am more inclined to believe that there is something we have not as yet given a name for that causes both, in a similar way that space and time are made from superstrings.


One way of looking at things is to to see celebral as brain and mental as mind. I have discussed mind-body in detail for you before so I will not say too much except that my favoured position is that everything physical is merely a construct and our worlds are all dreams whith aspects shared between dreamers. .It is like a computer game that shares a virtual world, which has no ultimate reality.

Another way is to look at the mental to be the logic of the program and the cerebral to be the fine coding that achieves the result.

Answer 2

To me, Mental processes and cerebral processes are separate processes that work in concert with each other.

Cerebral processes suggest a more biological nature. The physical functioning of the brain. While mental processes relate to the information and thoughts that are handled through the cerebral. The smooth functioning of the cerebral processes can facilitate a more fluid functioning of the mental.

Answer 3

The brain is an electromagnetic generator. The EM field it produces, much like that around a common power line, is the actual mind. That is why the enormous amount of thought and information we each possess can be contained by such a small organ as the cerebrum. The scientists who are studying this call it the "Holographic Universe". They are not independent, they work together.

Answer 4

There's a bit of linguistic confusion here...the cerebral process relates to the workings of the brain, the mental process also relates to the workings of the brain. We tend to separate the mind from the brain, but in reality the mind is the name we give to the working of the brain.

Answer 5

I would say that physicalism (doctrine that says everything is rooted into something physical) is wrong, but it still is the most acceptable doctrine that describes the nature of mind.

I think a_psychologist gave a good response, but there is just one mistake.
a_psychologist said called physicalism, structuralism, but this isn't true. Structuralism is another philosophical doctrine that says that branch of thought in humanities subjects have some of structure that can be explained and observed.

Now let's talk about whether body is causally important to min.
Descartes was dead wrong when he thought that mind can be independent from body and mind is immortal. Just think about how our mental state becomes when we are on different types of drugs.
So our thoughts are certainly dependent on workings of brain.

So if this is the case, where mental events become causally 'unimportant', why is it that I say that physicalism is wrong?

I would say that physicalism is wrong because it cannot account for various properties of sensory experience we as human beings have, that is called "qualia".
Qualia is experienced in first ontology, meaning it can only be confirmed to exist by myself only, so it cannot be rejected on the ground that things seem all physical.

In conclusion, physicalism is almost correct. It is far more correct that substance dualism Descartes adhere to, but it does not provide the complete picture.

-- edit --
In regards to what brother_dave001, neurologists have successfully demonstrated near death experiences that are often cited as experiencing God.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1685311.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4898726.stm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7

brother_dave001 also said,
<>

How presumptuous of him to utter our such sentence without even understanding the progress neurologists, psychologists and computer scientists have made. This kind of utterance has been around ever since the first computer was developed, and dismissed development of computers as infantile and irrelevant. Look at computers now and what the are capable of.

Answer 6

Excellent question.

I think your term mental means mind; cerebral means the physical brain.

No physical brain can be the source of spirit-mind processes of (listed low to high in importance) -- intuition, understanding, courage, knowledge, counsel, worship, wisdom. These seven adjutant mind spirits are a gift from the Holy Spirit here representing the Infinite Spirit on Paradise.

These spirit-mind endowments are restricted and dependent upon brain capacity. Think of the Human brain of two hemispheres as two antennas picking up these seven adjutant mind spirit circuits. A bigger antenna gets stronger signals from our spirit-mind circuits. In addition to mind, other super-physical realities of a Human are (lower to highest) soul and Spirit and Personality. The God-given freewill (I am Volition) of a Human Personality controls even God's pure Spirit within as to the degree of Spirit following and Spirit Union, as evolving soul, being allowed.

In a few more years, wise scientists and philosophers will abandon all purely mechanistic brain-mind theories; as all attempts at creating "artificial intelligence" or "AI" will remain a total failure.

Peace and progress,
Brother Dave, a Jesusonian Christian Truthist
http://www.PureChristians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
Come and share !

Answer 7

Is there a difference between the two? Or are you referring to the mind's thoughts and the cerebral part of the brain maintaining the body's involuntary functions?

Answer 8

Essentially, I feel that you are asking whether what we think of as mind, (the bit of us which is conscious and aware) and what we think of as brain function are connected or separate? If I am wrong in thinking this, forgive me. This is THE question which has psychologists and philosophers in a turmoil.

The real question is; can what we think of as 'mind' be explained as merely a consequence of brain function? Can the electro-chemical activity of the brain produce our mind, - our consciousness, - the part of us which is aware that we are aware?

There are some psychologists who say yes! - This theory is called structuralism. However, although they say yes, - they cannot prove it!

I say that 'mind' has to be a consequence of something extra; - maybe something of which we are yet unaware. Some people might call this extra something a 'soul.' I don't know, but thanks for asking such an interesting question.

Answer 9

Success would never be as gratifying without the possibility of failure. If you know when you set out on a venture that it is bound to work out well, where's the challenge? I feel I need to be careful how much I tell you, even though I have nothing but good news to share. Still, though, if you hear it and believe it, where will be your motivation? And, how will you live without the dramatic tension of uncertainty? Don't be too eager to dispel all doubt. A little mystery may yet give rise to a lot of magic.

$V$V$V$V$V$

Answer 10

The latest philosophical position that I am aware of on this issue is that the mind "supervenes" on the brain. You can understand what you like from that term but it seems to be something like the relationship of a shadow to an object.