What does the fact that the body still responds to input once the spinal cord is severed say about the "Brain is behavior" Theory?

If the spinal cord is severed at the neck, the hand will still respond to a feather on it, even if it is not felt by the brain. Along with this specific premise, the argument that the brain (which encompasses the entire Central Nervous System)is indeed behavior. Since the spinal cord in the thoracic cavity of the body can act in certain ways without the input of the lobes of the brain inside the skull, clearly the head is not needed to move the left hand to scratch the right when the spinal cord is severed.

However, I have a difficult time conceptualizing the actions with respect to the neuron activity within the nervous system. I accept that the four lobes of the brain are not needed for every movement that the body makes. However, the biology of the nervous system when it reacts to the input of a feather on the hand confuses me. Am I to assume that the sensory neurons on the back of my hand receive the input of the feather, travels along the axon that runs from my hand to my spinal cord, runs down the axon to my other hand, and tells it to scratch where the feather landed. Furthermore, while all of this is going on, the eyes see nothing and the brain does not tell the hand to scratch?

When I discussed this with Professor Grobstein, it all made perfect sense, now I am confused again. Do the electrical impulses running along the axons have the ability to force muscles to contract and extend without the use of the brain? Does the spinal cord posses "brain-like" qualities to allow this to happen? What are the "brain-loke" qualities that let the brain make the scratching decisions instead of the spinal cord? Do the other senses (sight, smell, hearing, tasting) go away when the spinal cord is severed, just as the lower part of the body loses significant mobility and sensory capability? Or are some parts of the brain inherently most important in the realm of senses? Basically, I am curious as to whether the touch sensation is more or less developed than other senses.

Confused by ...? Or simply surprised? Yes, spinal cord has "brain-like" qualities. Signals enter it on sensory neurons, are processed by interneurons, and leave it as organized patterns of activity in motoneurons (like using one limb to scratch where feather landed on other). Spinal cord loses "sight, smell, hearing, tasting" because those signals arrive on sensory nerves that enter brain, can't be communicated to spinal cord. Touch not "better developed" but simply a set of sensory signals that directly enter spinal cord. That help? PG