Without a brain it would probably be a lot harder to put any subjective experience to words.

But lets say we remove your heart, what would that to to your mind?

Well yes, if you're up for some semantic nitpicking In practice, a lot of neuroscientists study the brain, and with that the mind.

But yes, if you want you can draw a line somewhere...

@pitubo: your mind would die since your brain doesn't get any blood. If you install some sort of heart-lung machine nothing much would happen.

This discussion has gotten very philosophical, i dont think that classic neuroscience is so much a debate about what role the brain has in US (I) existing or being part of everything else in a macro sense. this is an interesting take on consciousness from a biological perspective: Interview with Stuart Hameroff of QuantumConciousness.org if you arent into reading all that here is a TEDx Talk

How many quotes can a quotation quote if a quotation could quote quotes?

Quantum consciousness
Has anyone ever shown how quantum effects play a role in neural processing?

I don't feel like distinguishing a difference between the brain and the mind is 'semantic nitpicking'. Even young children know there is a difference.

I'm not, as you are, even sure that the mind is a product of the brain. Quantum Mechanics has us thinking that consciousness comes before matter, and therefore that the mind comes before the brain. This is also the storyline of most every religion, mysticism, and occult.

But, for argument's sake, let's say the mind is a product of the brain...

Neuroscientists don't study the mind simply as a matter of redundancy to studying the brain. The fields are different; neurology, pyschology, psychiatry.

Neuroscientists aren't focused on how people deal with feelings, or what the innerverse of the mind can unlock. They are focused on which synapses fire, which receptors are activated, etc.

The vast expanses of the mind are no where near being intelligibly interpreted by anything we have created thus far.

The line that is clearly distinguishing the brain and mind is a topic of major importance and should be discussed frequently to aid in self-realization, which this world severely lacks.

Well you're right, they don't describe the same concept. But this was all in response to your question whether neuroscientists study the mind, and in that sense there's no difference between what happens in the brain and the concept of a mind.


Can you point me to scientific papers (that is, written by people who actualy know what quantum mechanics is) that say that consciousness comes before matter? Until then, I don't think this is anything more than wishful thinking.


There's a lot of overlap between those fields. Research in one field has implications for the other fields, and theories of one field get researched by the other fields. I don't think it's that strange to say that neuroscientists study the mind, and I think there's quite a bunch of people with neuroscientific education that would just as happily admit that they study the mind.


The brain is a nervous system, and as such, is studied by neurologists. Do you think people who deal with feelings don't do this with their brains? I'm sure my brain deals with feelings, at least!


The sciences that study the brain and mind can't explain anything (at least not in ways certain laypeople would accept/understand), but other than that, I don't see how this is relevant.


I definitely agree, self-realization is important and could help a lot of people.

Every living person has a brain and a mind, so I don't think lack of perspective is an issue.

But alas, I think it's clear what the difference in our views is, now. I simply have a slightly less narrow idea of neuroscience than you do.

And apparently, less narrow than Neuroscience does.

I borrowed my idea of Neuroscience from its own definition, remember.

And with that

This thread Will return to the original topic and the petty bickering Will cease.

Agree to disagree and move on.

Wikipedia:
Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] Traditionally, neuroscience has been seen as a branch of biology. However, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine and allied disciplines, philosophy, physics, and psychology. It also exerts influence on other fields, such as neuroeducation[2] and neurolaw. The term neurobiology is usually used interchangeably with the term neuroscience, although the former refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system, whereas the latter refers to the entire science of the nervous system.

Merriam-Webster medical dictionary:
Main Entry: neu·ro·sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˌn(y)u̇r-ō-ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
: a branch (as neurophysiology) of science that deals with the anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, or molecular biology of nerves and nervous tissue and especially their relation to behavior and learning

I don't remember neuroscience having "it's own definition", what you give is your interpretation of the word, which is not the same as the accepted definition of the term. But whatever, it's semantic nitpicking again...

Btw, Henry Stapp doesn't convince me. His interpretation of wave function collapse;
The "Dirac process" gives the answer to our question. Nature replies, and, as far as we can tell, the answer is totally random. Once Nature has replied, we have learned something: we have increased our knowledge. This is a change in the state of the universe, which directly corresponds to a change in the state of our brain. Technically, there occurs a reduction of the wave function compatible with the fact that has been learned.
seems to mix up things a bit. Yes, the answer is totally random, that's the whole point of wave function collapse, but if the wave function collapses, why does this happen only at the time a conscious observer learns about the measurement? Let's say a quantum experiment is done, and the result is printed. Why does the wave function not collapse when the printer puts ink on the paper? Why does it collapse only when somebody reads the paper and integrates this information in his brain/mind/memory?

Both the Copenhagen and the many worlds interpretations make much more sense.

Wikipedia also has this nice list btw. It even lists 'cognitive neuroscience'. What you're talking about seems to be strictly neurophysiology.

Oops, you have to excuse me for that. Hadn't read it...