well, given the fact that a bar was shot through his friggin head, there definitely would be negative effects on his personality. I'd be pissed. LOL! Seriously though, bars through the head are not cool.

But what is it that you are asking? From what I read, you are asking whether or not the physical damage to the brain causes any abnormal changes in a persons behavior?

Well, I am pointing to the idea that memory at least does not reside in any particular part of the brain.

Its a mistaken idea that I see all over the place.

Sure, having a bar through the head would upset even the best of us! But suffering trauma, is not the same as the mind actually being a physical part of the brain.

The metaphor I use to describe the mind-brain connection, is that the brain is like a TV aerial which recieves messages from the soul. If the aerial is damaged, the TV program itself is not damaged, though it may be lost until the aerial is repaired.

No part of the aerial is essential to receiving the message, just the same as (almost?) any part of the brain can be used for any function.

My studies in psychology and philosophy all suggested that whenever a part of mind function is believed to reside in a particular part of the brain, there are cases with a lesion or brain damage in that part of the brain where another part of the brain takes over that function after some time and effort.

So this proves that mind is intrinsically not a physical aspect of the brain, and that our memories are not actually stored in the brain like info is stored on a pc.

Saying the mind is a physical part of the brain is like saying that the characters on your TV screen are actually physically inside the TV.

Someone brought up this guy in my history of modern philosophy class when we were talking about Descartes' mind/body dualism. I don't think this proves that the mind is not a physical part of the brain--after all it seems to be some sort of electro-chemical stimulus response mechanism. I think all it proves is that the brain can adapt after serious head trauma. As someone that has suffered a head injury, I have notice that I become more "normal" over time, but my brain has adapted to compensate for the injury.

Neural plasticity ftw!

The issue is about memory residing in a physical part of the brain.

Theaetetus (damn thats a hard word to spell), the way in which
Phineas lost no memory shows that memory has no precise physical
locality in a part of the brain.

There are also many other brain surgery procedures, and at no point
can memory consistantly be fixed to any part of the brain.

And function neither. Patients with lesions in Wernicke's region,
normally associated with language, just used another part of the
brain to process language from, over time.

This shows that whatever 'it' is that is making such decisions,
may act through the brain, but does not actually physically exist
permanantly within the brain.

In a similar fashion, an artist may lose his painting hand, but then
learns to paint with his other hand. This clearly proves that the
essence of his art does not actually reside in his hand.

Even after intensive electro-shock-therapy, memory does not
consistantly evaporate, showing that memory is not stored as
an electric field either.

Simply getting struck by lightning would have the same effect
as a cassette tape going through a magnetic metal detector.

Even the shock from a standard 240 volt plug is a vastly much stronger
current than the tiny current which resides in the body.

Brain <> mind

Each moment is a unique universe. One momemnt the universe features you with memory 'xyz'. Another moment the new/unique universe features a 'you' with memory 'yz'. Another moment with no memory of 'x' or 'y' or 'z'. Another moment, etc...
It is not that memories come and leave one consistant brain, it is that we are 'featured' every moment, complete, distinct with different and distinct brains (fully 'programed') every moment.
Each moment (and hence, each brain) is quantumly unique and discrete (and complete). We have whatever memory that we have in each particular moment.
Memory does reside in the brain, but, every complete moment featurs a new you with a new brain (fully loaded), thatn 'displays' completely as is.
Another moment, another (brain) 'display'.

This is precisely why I started this thread.
There is no particular part of the brain that memory can be allocated to.
As the example of phineas gage clearly shows,
even with most of his frontal lobes destroyed, he had no memory loss.

From my studies in philosophy of mind, and psychology it was quite clear
that not only is no part of the brain allocated a specific task of memory,
but even function has no particular place in the brain.

Certain areas are associated with function, but after lesions in that area,
the person simply learns to use another part of the brain for that function.

This shows that while the brain is an interface for mind,
it is not actually the source of mind.
Simply asserting otherwise without any evidence is pointless dogmatism.

Whether you can find some specific cells that contain specific memory or not is irrelevent. Eventually you will. The simple fact of the matter is that you never, NEVER find memory without a brain in attendance. A brain is necessary context for memory. Even so called, cellular memory, but thats not what we are talking about, is it? You show me 'memories' outside the context of a brain, and ultimately a perceiver, and I'll discuss your hypothesis further. So far, evidence is all loaded that memories are only found within the context of a brain. If you have valid evidence otherwise, i'd love to examine it.


The 'brain' is not the Source of anything.
I don't know what you mean by 'mind'. Do you mean 'thoughts' and/or memories'?
As far as my experience/understanding goes there is only one Mind/Consciousness (called the 'Ground of All Being' by QM, 'god' by the mystics...).
The 'brain', and it's moment to moment contents, are features of 'Mind' (as perceived by Conscious Perspective). 'Mind' is unmanifested; our little thought excreting memory charged brains are 'manifestations' of 'Mind', One with the perceived universe/Mind. All that exists, is/are Perspective(s) of 'Mind'.


I thought that I offered fair logical support for my comment. Didn't you understand what I wrote?
Before I can give any credence to any assertion of 'thinking/memory mind' sans a brain, I'd have to see some evidence. After all, simply asserting otherwise without any evidence is pointless dogmatism.

There is a world of difference between 'thought' and 'memory' filled brains ('minds'?) and 'Mind'. One exists, for starters..

I would think, Poseidon, that we'd firstly have to verify our reports. Have you looked over any other material, and can you site it? I'd be interested in seeing that.

As for what I have come across, the positioning of the hole in the skull, which is a real thing (it was dug up, and we have it still) shows that most likely the ventralmedial portions of the prefrontal lobes were damaged--that means right and left hemispheres. That'll be basically Broadmann's areas 8, 9, 10, 12, and possibly 11 & 32. These evidently are mostly cognitive areas dealing with largely with 'go-stop'-like functions especially noticed in social settings.

Memory is found to be spread around, like a good 'rep point' giver's 'rep points,' but that is long-term memory. Short-term memory (working memory) is in the hippocampal structures (and maybe some other portions of the limbic system), and must become transfered--so to speak--and stored in other cortical areas.

At the time that that person had lived, and in the areas that he had traveled after he'd left work and wife, there would have been very little means to test for subtle memory loss, so we should steer clear of any conclusions there.

One question please, Poseidon, (and this is an honest quest for information only) how much study have you done in the neurosciences?

I have been studying psychology, post-grad since the late 90's,
as well as philosophy of mind, philosophy of science,
and studied cerebral-frontal lobotomy in great detail, amongst many other subjects, from Penrose to Capra, QM, Jung, Freud, Physics, Maths, Computers, and many many others. Lately just surfing the web, is worth more than the confines of the classroom.
Your question is just a wee bit of an insult.

I am not trying to draw any specific conclusions.

There are countless reports of what people call 'ghosts', IE memories that reside in particular places.

One report is of a person who was walking across a bridge which had attracted many suicides. They felt an incredible urge to throw themselves off it, but fought off the urge. The bridge is called Van Staadens. You can google: van staadens bridge suicide. There are many such places around the world.

I realise that none of this can be easily verified, and I am not trying to prove anything, just examing evidence.

However seeing as though, you, the reader, is reading this, and has a brain, one could just as easily argue, that the moon does not exist, unless there is a brain nearby. Does the moon require brains to exist? Such a line of questioning, actually misses the point.

The point I am trying to make, is quite simply that memory does not reside in a specific physical position in the brain. Many people just don't get this.

Memory does not have to be tied to a specific part of the brain in order for memory to be a product of the physical brain. Emergent features, people.