View Full Version : Operational definitions of "mindbrain" and "brainmind" so it can be studied.


mildadhd
08-30-13, 04:35 PM
I am learning about this information.

This article is meant as a guide for the discussion but not limited to.

Please feel free to add any information/studies to this thread that would help understand an operational definition of MindBrain/BrianMind.


Affective consciousness in animals: perspectives on dimensional and primary process emotion approaches

Jaak Panksepp*


Behaviourists have long neglected experiential states in animals because of inadequate experimental approaches. As Tinbergen (1951) highlighted in his classic Study of Instinct (1951, p. 4): ‘Because subjective phenomena cannot be observed objectively in animals, it is idle to claim or deny their existence’. Mendl et al. (2010)—henceforth MBP—offer a robust dimensional strategy for analysing affect-related behavioural functions in animals using novel variations of rigorous behavioural learning approaches. MBP cautiously avoid ontological ambiguities by highlighting that such states ‘may or may not be experienced consciously’. However, if we consider brain stimulation evidence (vide infra), the evocation of diverse reward and punishment effects directly from the brain strongly indicates that such states are experienced by animals.


Rather than debating whether dimensional or basic emotion approaches are better research strategies, MBP wisely advocate a compromise position (for relevant recent discussions, see Zachar & Ellis (2010) and Mendl et al. (2010)). Largely missing from past debates is the explicit recognition that this difficult field of inquiry should not be framed as a zero-sum game. As an advocate for neuroscientific research on shared primary-process affective processes in all mammals (Panksepp 1998, 2005), the need for multi-level approaches seems self evident if information derived from animal models is to have any impact on understanding how affective experiences arise from human brain activities, which is among the most resistant mysteries of MindBrain organization. (Note, I use MindBrain to highlight the complete interpenetration of experience with brain functions, and sometimes reverse the usage to BrainMind, with no change of meaning, but hopefully better contextual emphasis.)



See full article (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1696/2905)

Dizfriz
08-30-13, 06:36 PM
Peripheral,

Interesting article. Since this is not my field, I have a few questions and thoughts that perhaps you could clarify.

First I wish he had defined MPB better. I am not quite sure what he is talking about. Can you explain what the term means? I need to know to understand the article.

Second: I did not see an operational definition of mind or mindbrain in the article. Perhaps I missed it and if so could you point it out?

I did note in the last paragraph where he states:
the existence of diverse emotional-affective networks in animal brains is empirically definitive.This does not sound like he is generating any definition of mind away from the brain.

Anyway, could you give your thoughts on the article and what it means? This is your article so I am interested in your impressions and really need them to be able to carry on a conversation plus I cannot do a good read until I understand what he means by MBP.

Looking forward to your response,

Dizfriz,

Lunacie
08-30-13, 07:10 PM
Dizfriz, it looks like "Mendl et al, henceforth MBP" refers to a group of
researchers listed in the footnotes:



Mendl M.,
Burman O. H. P.,
Paul E. S.
2010 An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2895–2904.

Now I'll check out the link, and see why this about animal mind/brain when
the question in the other thread was about human mind/brain.

mildadhd
08-30-13, 07:22 PM
Mendl + Burman + Paul = MBP


An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood.

Mendl M, Burman OH, Paul ES.

Abstract
A better understanding of animal emotion is an important goal in disciplines ranging from neuroscience to animal welfare science. The conscious experience of emotion cannot be assessed directly, but neural, behavioural and physiological indicators of emotion can be measured. Researchers have used these measures to characterize how animals respond to situations assumed to induce discrete emotional states (e.g. fear). While advancing our understanding of specific emotions, this discrete emotion approach lacks an overarching framework that can incorporate and integrate the wide range of possible emotional states. Dimensional approaches that conceptualize emotions in terms of universal core affective characteristics (e.g. valence (positivity versus negativity) and arousal) can provide such a framework. Here, we bring together discrete and dimensional approaches to: (i) offer a structure for integrating different discrete emotions that provides a functional perspective on the adaptive value of emotional states, (ii) suggest how long-term mood states arise from short-term discrete emotions, how they also influence these discrete emotions through a bi-directional relationship and how they may function to guide decision-making, and (iii) generate novel hypothesis-driven measures of animal emotion and mood.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685706/

mildadhd
08-30-13, 07:25 PM
Thanks Lunacie,

for posting what MBP is for Dizfriz.

I wasn't repetitive on purpose, I didn't see your reply, before I posted my last reply.


Now I'll check out the link, and see why this about animal mind/brain when
the question in the other thread was about human mind/brain. (Lunacie)

Humans are mammals.


Abundant evidence now indicates that raw affects are ‘ancestral memories’—genetically provided tools for living—that arise, at a primary process level, from homologous lower brain functions in all mammals. (-Panksepp)


Lots more to discuss.


Peripheral

Dizfriz
08-30-13, 08:05 PM
Dizfriz, it looks like "Mendl et al, henceforth MBP" refers to a group of
researchers listed in the footnotes:
Now I'll check out the link, and see why this about animal mind/brain when
the question in the other thread was about human mind/brain.
Thanks both of you, I somehow had missed that. Getting a little tired I suspect.

Dizfriz.

mildadhd
08-30-13, 08:14 PM
Thanks both of you, I somehow had missed that. Getting a little tired I suspect.

Dizfriz.

Me to, I will be back another time to continue the discussion.


Peripheral

SB_UK
08-31-13, 04:11 AM
Why isn't it obvious that the major difference between human beings and animals is our separation from the material world as our model of reality ?

The animal lives in the material world - where, incidentally - this is the domain of empirical science.

Human beings live in a 'place' which has the material world as a component only.

So - if we take fears for the future (dominant cause of psych. stress to man ie will I have enough money to pay for a mortgage etc?) - they do not represent material world concerns
- because they're not (yet) events of the material world.

-*-

If we take a child - the child tends towards the animal model of reality (that the material world is all there is)
- the important part of proper education is to be able to pull back the curtain on the material world and see that what is perceived as real - is just an impressively evolutionarily constructed charade.

SB_UK
08-31-13, 04:16 AM
How do you study the mind ?

Talk.

Determine logical consistency of any ideas produced ?

Logical consistency is the measure of mind.

Double think is a measure of incompleteness of mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Being able to express 2 absolutely contradictory ideas (without being able to see the contradiction) is the measure of a mind which just isn't held together.

A completed mind would be aware, and would not express contradictory ideas - when completed -- by default.

SB_UK
08-31-13, 04:41 AM
The core problem with studying the brain - is that it's largely based on solving disease and not just plain 'for the sake of' (which wouldn't garner funding).

'For the sake of' research into the brain is all well and good - but there's usually a rationalization for research which has disease state as basis.

The basic idea that is being dominantly expressed here, and which isn't right - is that brain breaks mind.
Where the key idea should be that mind breaks brain.

How mind breaks brain - is fairly well established - occurring via the stress circuits of the neuro- (SNS) and also the HPA axis (and cortisol).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucocorticoid
present in almost every vertebrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate) animal cell.

So - resistance to cortisol has the capacity to disrupt the processes of almost every vertebrate cell.

-*-

And so - for the most part (to gather funding) - studies into brain are being funded by false logic which places disorders of the brain as being materially located as opposed to virtually (the mind) defined.

And that's all there is to it - is there any point in studying the brain from the perspective of common human disease ?

No - because in exactly the same way that we can't alter our genes, biome or nerves by artificial intervention eg genetic engineering, bacterial transfer or brain surgery in an elegant manner -
- we can alter our genes, biome and nerves by natural intervention through appealing to the mind - and generating a world in which we can operate in, in which physiological AND psychological homeostasis is enforced
- and thereby resulting in downstream alignments (promoting health) of eg gene expression, internal bacterial community and nervous connection formation.

SB_UK
08-31-13, 04:48 AM
Exactly as Namazu implies in his title to this thread.

The scientific community has it backwards.

They're pushing brainmind when it's actually mindbrain -- at least from the perspective of common (and quite likely also) rare disease.

The way that evolution works - is that current emergent properties (and not previous emergent properties) are the ones which we should be considering.

Previous emergent properties to evolve - have had to be 'set' - eg there is no further scope for the quark to decide it wants to change its nature
- it's now set in stone as of the generation of chemistry from physics.

And so rests the logic of generation of mind from body or memomics from genomics.

Previous layers need not be considered - we're all about generating a moral mind towards social species formation and absolutely nothing to do with showing that poor people have bad genes - making them 'responsible' through lack of moral character for their own miserable lives.

That form of logic which has courted genetics from the outset is completely rejected by the abstraction layer model of evolution.

When we've moved past a layer -- that previous layer is complete.

SB_UK
08-31-13, 04:59 AM
generating a world in which we can operate in, in which physiological AND psychological homeostasis is enforced


Lifetime guarantee of food and shelter to all through contribution of personal effort is all that's required.

No delegation of responsibility.

Dizfriz
08-31-13, 08:00 AM
Peripheral

It is morning now and I hope I am thinking a little better.

Thanks to you and Lunacie for the clarification on MPB. The article makes sense now.

The article seems to be mostly about issues involved in studies of emotion (affect) in laboratory animals and how they can relate to human ones. I agree that this may be a good way of gaining better understanding of human emotion and I enjoyed it as well as the other article you referenced on the subject.

What are your thoughts on the article? What about it made you choose it to post? How does it relate to the concept of mind?

When I read the article my reaction was OK, interesting but that was about it. It was to me an academic article discussing working with lab animals to develop models for human emotions. It is not something I have kept up with but it makes good sense and I learned something about an area that I have not read much on.

When I was reading it, I kept asking, what was the purpose for singling out this article and how can I relate it to the discussion?

It is this point that could lead to a good exchange. So I go back to the questions involving being interested in your thoughts.


Dizfriz

Lunacie
08-31-13, 09:31 AM
Dizfriz got up earlier than I did. I was also going to ask you to connect the
dots between the linked article and the definitions of mind and brain, Peri.

mildadhd
08-31-13, 02:04 PM
What is Basic about Basic Emotions? Lasting Lessons from Affective Neuroscience
Jaak Panksepp⇓


Abstract

A cross-species affective neuroscience strategy for understanding the primary-process (basic) emotions is defended. The need for analyzing the brain and mind in terms of evolutionary stratification of functions into at least primary (instinctual), secondary (learned), and tertiary (thought-related) processes is advanced. When viewed in this context, the contentious battles between basic-emotion theorists and dimensional-constructivist approaches can be seen to be largely nonsubstantial differences among investigators working at different levels of analysis.

http://emr.sagepub.com/content/3/4/387.abstract



Peripheral

mildadhd
08-31-13, 02:18 PM
(1:11)..we have these emotional feelings and the emotional feelings are very large bodily and brain responses to the world.

And they are..tell animals what is important for survival, inside the brain.

So it is not just outside sensory, it is not the internal receptors of your body.

They are the needs of the brain, such as someone taking valuable resources form you, and you get angry.

That anger is a very basic response, it is the same as if a animal wants you for a meal, and you have to run away, and your scared.

That is built into the brain.

So Affective Neuroscience is the scientific discipline, that tries to understand the emotional feelings of the brain, and how many are there, how are they organized anatomically inside the brain, what are the neurochemistry's.

And why is this important, is because these are the types of things that we are actually built around.

The emotions have very deep value systems in the brain, and when they become imbalanced people have emotional problems.

There is psychiatric problems, to much fear, to much anger, you cannot feel the pleasure of life, you have depression.

So, if we are going to make progress, in treating people, that have emotional imbalances, we have to develop new medicines that re-balance these emotional systems.

So the aim of Affective Neuroscience, is to go to the very foundation of mind.

Mind means experience, subjective experience.

Mind at a fundamentally level, means some kind of volition, the system wants to do something and the emotional systems want to do something.

They want to hit, they want to run away, they want to caress, like mother and child, they want to cry, they want to laugh.

And we finally are at a moment in intellectual history, of our species , where we can finally understand these, biologically as apposed to just verbally describing them.

That is what Affective Neuroscience is. (-Prof Jaak Panksepp.)

quote from "Feelings" Thread Post #1 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1527511#post1527511)

mildadhd
08-31-13, 02:32 PM
(Note, I use MindBrain to highlight the complete interpenetration of experience with brain functions, and sometimes reverse the usage to BrainMind, with no change of meaning, but hopefully better contextual emphasis.) -Panksepp

From OP link (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1696/2905)



Peripheral

Dizfriz
08-31-13, 02:35 PM
Peripheral,

You need to explain why you feel the quotes are relevant. What is it about them that connects to the subject at hand. What are your thoughts? As Lunacie put it, connect the dots.

The quotes are nice but the idea is to discuss the concepts.

Dizfriz

mildadhd
08-31-13, 03:46 PM
In the beginning, I to had trouble determining exactly what Prof Panksepp meant by MBP, aswell.

In my minds experience, I had at least 3 options to pick from..

1)Mind Brain Phenomenon

2)Mendl M, Burman OH, Paul ES.

3)Myelin Basic Protein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin_basic_protein), which I knew nothing about but found interesting.


After reading the article over a couple of times, I decided to go with the first letter in each of the 3 researcher's last initial.


Peripheral

mildadhd
08-31-13, 05:39 PM
Everyone,

(this was my last post (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1530314&postcount=5) in reply to the discussion yesterday, before everyone went to beddy bye)

For clarity, does everyone agree that all humans are mammals, and that all mammals have the same emotions at a primary process level?


Peripheral

Dizfriz
08-31-13, 06:18 PM
Everyone,

(this was my last post (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1530314&postcount=5) in reply to the discussion yesterday, before everyone went to beddy bye)

For clarity, does everyone agree that all humans are mammals, I think that is pretty much self evident.

and that all mammals have the same emotions at a primary process level? Perhaps similar or at least similar enough for research purposes but I am not sure about them being the same. I would consider them more to be homologous than anything else.

From the article Although primary ‘rewards’ and ‘punishments’ have typically been defined as ‘objects’ of the world, both obviously achieve their psychological power by arousing brain-affective networks, which are homologous at the primary process level in all mammals.What I am saying is that the simpler more direct emotions seen in animals are from similar structures in the brain but differ quite a bit in the human brain. The animal brain operates with basic emotions where the human is much more complex and multidimensional manner.

The point that I got from the article is that research on the simpler homologous structure and affect state in the animal model can help give insight into the human condition.

Again, what are your thoughts on the article and its linkage to the brain mind issue?

Dizfriz

mildadhd
08-31-13, 07:10 PM
Overall size and organization of the limbic system do not change significantly during the course of mammalian evolution, indicating this system's involvement with basic instinctive behaviors common to all species of mammals.


Kapit/Macey/Meisami, Physiology Coloring Book, "Brain Structure & General Functions", Nervous System, P 83.





Peripheral

mildadhd
08-31-13, 07:13 PM
All mammals have very similar instinctive behaviors and emotional systems at a primary processes level.

Dizfriz,

I am trying to explain dot # 1.

These subjects I have been starting to discuss are in the article in the OP.

All vertabrates share very similar 3 primitive primary emotional systems, FEAR, ANGER, SEEKING

All mammals share very similar 7 primary emotional systems , (starting with the first 3 primitive), FEAR, ANGER, SEEKING, LUST, MATERNAL CARE, GRIEF, and PLAY


The first 3 primitive primary emotion system originate in the lower brain,

the last 4 are found in the lower and middle brain,

and originate out of the first 3 emotional systems of the lower brain.

I don't know what you know and what other people know, so it is hard for me to know where to start, so I am starting from the beginning,

and follow the evolutionary layers of the operation from the ground up, first.

Emotions are lower in the brain.

Lower emotional systems development, preceed, higher executive systems development in evolutionary order of operation at birth.



Opinions?

mildadhd
08-31-13, 07:26 PM
Example:

We have emotions at birth, we don't have the ability to self regulate at birth.

Primary processes (primary emotions)(instict),preceeds, secondary processes (learned)(adaptive) at birth.

I am nervous I am going to make a mistake, anything not quoted is my interpretation.




Peripheral

mildadhd
08-31-13, 07:55 PM
The anencephalic infant-

In the human infant, brain stem capacities are more mature than those of the higher forebrain regions.

The role of the brain stem in behavior and body functions may be shown by observing the motor and behavioral abilities of anencephalic ("no brain") infants, born without a forebrain.

Such infants usually do not survive for long, but during their short lives, they are capable of many behaviors.

They can find the nipple and suckle milk, smile, frown, cry and make other infants sounds, and move the head and limbs in a manner similar to normal newborns.



Kapit/Macey/Meisami, Physiology Coloring Book, "Brain Structure & General Functions", Nervous System, P 83.




Perpheral

mildadhd
08-31-13, 08:11 PM
Perhaps similar or at least similar enough for research purposes but I am not sure about them being the same. I would consider them more to be homologous than anything else. (-Dizfriz)


The lower subcortical instinctive emotional systems are very similar in all mammals including humans.

(More evidence upon request).




Definition of HOMOLOGOUS

1
a : having the same relative position, value, or structure: as (1) : exhibiting biological homology (2) : having the same or allelic genes with genetic loci usually arranged in the same order <homologous chromosomes>
b : belonging to or consisting of a chemical series whose successive members have a regular difference in composition especially of one methylene group
2
: derived from or developed in response to organisms of the same species

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homologous

Dizfriz
09-01-13, 11:03 AM
Peripial,

I don't quite know where you are going with this but I will try to follow but it would be, I think, more useful to get your thoughts explaining what you think and why you chose those quotes.

Right now, it is kind of a guessing game on my part trying to figure out what you are getting at so I can't really address it in any relevant manner.

Dizfriz

mildadhd
09-01-13, 11:46 AM
What I am saying is that the simpler more direct emotions seen in animals are from similar structures in the brain but differ quite a bit in the human brain. The animal brain operates with basic emotions where the human is much more complex and multidimensional manner. (-Dizfriz)



I think we disagree?

All mammals have the same emotions at the primary level, including humans.

This is very important to everything else I want to present.

So until I figure out if we are in disagreement.

I can't go on with other information.

All mammals have the same emotions.

The differences in complexity and multidimensions between mammals occur as we go higher up in the brain.

But I am talking about the very foundation of the Mind and Brain at the moment.(Dot #1)

There is an evolutionary order to the brain.

We can't discuss dot #2 (secondary processes) or Dot #3 (tertiary processes),

until we agree on an understanding of dot #1. (primary processes)(7 primary emotional systems mentioned in the OP link (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1696/2905))

..Abundant evidence exists for seven distinct Darwinian emotional systems as revealed by behaviours evoked by electrical and chemical stimulation of homologous subcortical regions of all mammalian brains studied: namely, SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, maternal CARE, separation distress PANIC/GRIEF and physical PLAY (capitalized, to highlight their basic nature—i.e. primary processes are defined by brain circuit locations and characteristics and are not equivalent to conceptual, multi-leveled MindBrain wholes typically labelled by vernacular terms).." (-Panksepp)


Primary processes need to be discussed on a biological level, because they are preverbal.


I think we need to explore our differences of opinions about what emotions all mammals have on a primary processes level?

I am saying, all mammals have the same emotions on the primary processes level.

I am not sure if you agree or not?

Let me know and I will find some research to back up my opinion, if you disagree?


I really appreciate your interest.

Peripheral

Dizfriz
09-01-13, 12:28 PM
In the other thread, I was discussing the concept of mind as it relates to ADHD. SB asserts that ADHD is a mind based disorder and not a brain based one or as least as best I can understand him.

The functions and anatomy of the brain, as I said, is not my field. I took a grad level neuro course years ago and have not kept up with brain anatomy since then. As a result, my knowledge in this area is both superficial and out of date.

It is probably because of this that I am not following you in this discussion and probably am not the best person to engage in any kind of in depth conversation on the subject. I will have to content myself with reading what you post in the thread but letting others reply since I cannot see myself contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.

Take care,


Dizfriz

mildadhd
09-01-13, 01:40 PM
In the other thread, I was discussing the concept of mind as it relates to ADHD. SB asserts that ADHD is a mind based disorder and not a brain based one or as least as best I can understand him.

The functions and anatomy of the brain, as I said, is not my field. I took a grad level neuro course years ago and have not kept up with brain anatomy since then. As a result, my knowledge in this area is both superficial and out of date.

It is probably because of this that I am not following you in this discussion and probably am not the best person to engage in any kind of in depth conversation on the subject. I will have to content myself with reading what you post in the thread but letting others reply since I cannot see myself contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.

Take care,


Dizfriz


In this thread so far, I have determined that to understand how experiences affect the brain, and/or, how the brain affect experiences ?

I need to understand the order of the evolutionary layers of the brain and how they develop.

To reach the goal of this thread: to understand the operational Mindbrain/BrainMind in an scientific evidence based manner.


I think Professor Panksepp gives an excellent definition of Mind in Post #16 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1530595&postcount=16) in this thread

So the aim of Affective Neuroscience, is to go to the very foundation of mind.

Mind means experience, subjective experience.

Mind at a fundamentally level, means some kind of volition, the system wants to do something and the emotional systems want to do something.

They want to hit, they want to run away, they want to caress, like mother and child, they want to cry, they want to laugh. (-Panksepp)




But I am not ready to try to verbally describe the concept of "MindBrain/BrainMind" in my own words yet, til I understand better how the human brain is shaped by experiences.

Lower brain emotional systems are shaped by experiences as well.

But those topics come later in the discussion involving secondary and tertiary processes.

I will look for more information, to better to understand the primary processes, first.


Thanks for your interest.


Peripheral

meadd823
09-09-13, 01:53 AM
eh I am so tired I forgot which of these source went to what threads = I'll plop one here


A Revolution in Mental Health (http://chronicle.com/article/A-Revolution-in-Mental-Health/141379/)


Back in his Gainesville office, we looked up at his photo of William James in the Amazon. Lang has been feuding with James, and much of the rest of psychology, for most of his career. Psychology began as the study of the mind, and it's hard to give the mind up, he said. Genomics, brain circuits, and animal models alone won't fill that void. A vast yawning gap of uncertainty fills it. That won't go away.

"It's very hard to get away from the idea that I wake up in the morning and I'm the master of my fate, the captain of my soul, and I do things because I want to do them," Lang said. "And of course, you know, the hope that we will ultimately understand consciousness, that it will be in some terms that we can discuss scientifically."

Until then, he said, let's give the brain a shot.

dvdnvwls
09-09-13, 02:17 AM
In this thread so far, I have determined that to understand how experiences affect the brain, and/or, how the brain affect experiences ?

I need to understand the order of the evolutionary layers of the brain and how they develop.

To reach the goal of this thread: to understand the operational Mindbrain/BrainMind in an scientific evidence based manner.

I think the goal of this thread may have drifted away from what was necessary in the other thread where it originated: to get to an operational definition of "mind" (NOT brainmind or mindbrain, just "mind" - and NOT understanding or studying, but "operational definition"). Achieving that goal would probably involve finding at least one major peer-reviewed publication that actually had the phrase "Operational definition of 'mind'" in it. If a researcher is looking for or talking about something else, even something closely related, he is highly unlikely to accidentally stumble into a useful operational definition of mind.

It's too easy to assume that we know what "mind" is. It's also too easy to assume that we can't know any better than we already do.

If you pay for a cup of coffee and the waiter brings you a porcelain doll instead, and tells you that the doll represents a person and people pick coffee and the doll is porcelain and coffee cups are porcelain and so this is actually even better than what you asked for, you would have to admire the ingenuity and the intelligence - you might even be glad you paid for such an interesting experience - but you still wouldn't have gotten a cup of coffee.

Lunacie
09-09-13, 11:08 AM
Interesting idea. So I did a web search for "operational definition of mind."

Found a few things, most of which were so convoluted that I had trouble
understanding them. The best definition for me was the online dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mind
.

Amtram
09-09-13, 12:22 PM
People who suffer injuries to their brain undergo radical changes of personality and behavior - their minds become completely different from the way they were before. If the mind were separate from the brain, this simply wouldn't happen.

dvdnvwls
09-09-13, 12:30 PM
People who suffer injuries to their brain undergo radical changes of personality and behavior - their minds become completely different from the way they were before. If the mind were separate from the brain, this simply wouldn't happen.
Excellent point. Doesn't help lead to a usable definition, except in the most rudimentary way. If we few ADHDers sit here on the web trying to formulate from scratch an operational definition of "mind", the project is essentially doomed, at least over any practical length of time.

Lunacie
09-09-13, 12:37 PM
People who suffer injuries to their brain undergo radical changes of personality and behavior - their minds become completely different from the way they were before. If the mind were separate from the brain, this simply wouldn't happen.

To go a step further to the mind/body connection, some people who receive
transplanted organs also undergo changes of personality and behavior.
Although the changes are probably not as radical.

Amtram
09-09-13, 12:57 PM
First documented case of brain damage causing massive personality change: Phineas Gage (http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/07/06/the-incredible-case-of-phineas/). Just in case anyone hasn't heard of this already.

dvdnvwls
09-09-13, 02:52 PM
Yes, both excellent examples, both important, and both leading firmly away from the topic at hand.

dvdnvwls
09-09-13, 03:00 PM
Here's someone who is, whether on the right track or the wrong track, at least on a track:

http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/HP_muller1.html

I will volunteer to write to him with my mailing address and receive his paper, but this would be the only psychology-related research I would possess; if another of you is already more involved in the field, which is most likely, then it might be more useful for you to have it than me.

SB_UK
09-20-13, 04:52 PM
ooops! wrong thread.