Talk:Brain

I just found two articles in a row - at random, really! - which made reference to the parts of the brain being responsible for thought: multiple sclerosis and go (board game). Yet I wonder how firmly established are the theories that the brain produces thought. I can't help supposing that researchers may be relying on a philosophy of methodological naturalism, rather than keeping an open mind.

Is it known or merely assumed that human thought is a product of the brain, as opposed to say, the idea that human thought causes activity in the brain?

Likewise, are scientists certain that there is no aspect of the human being which is non-corporeal, or do they admit the possibility (even if they decline to study it) that there is a supernatural aspect to human life, such as an immortal soul and/or life after death?

Now, to be sure, I'm not asking that anybody's religious beliefs be promoted here. I'm just wondering where "state of the art" ends and "fairness to other ideas" begins. I only know of one brain scientist who thinks that there's more to the human mind than the biochemical activity of the brain, i.e., John Eccles. --Ed Poor 22:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Science is about what can be observed and tested. Anyone can speculate about there being more than this, bit its not the domain of science. I wouldn't pretend that we have a coherent understanding of thought; we don't. Imagine a million piece jigsaw in pieces in front of you. You believe that the pieces when fitted together make up a picture, because here and there you've managed to fit a few together and they seem to make part of a picture. You can't be sure you have all the pieces, and its possible that you'll be disappointed with the picture when it's finally put together. But until you've put it all together you don't know that you don't have the answer there; it's the best game in town - well, it's really the only game in town.Gareth Leng 08:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)