Reply to comment

I think it's interesting to think that maybe our brains do account for our behavior... that we are, who we are, mainly, if not solely, because of our brains. If our brains are the processing centers of our perception of the world around us, then it seems logical that they must shape how we observe and respond to the world, making us who we are.  I think that some parts of behavior are almost universal, defining us (the best we can) as being alive, and that it's important to figure out what exactly our behavior is that we're trying to account for, and even what we want to want to believe- whether we want to believe the brain does in fact equal behavior, or whether it does not- if there's a pattern, some life experience, in common between the people that believe one way, or the other.
 
In Why We Believe What We Believe (by Andrew Newberg & Mark Waldman), they discuss how our brains are equipped, from birth, to do sorts of things, like to be able to absorb and learn language, and the ability to learn/ perform math.  If that is the case, that our brains are equipped to do these tasks, then the question is raised as to how our outside influences effect who we are by the different ways our brains choose to percieve them, but that still seems to suggest that the brain equals behavior, overall.  Some could account for this by saying that aside from the tasks we're born with the ability to do, that maybe the rest that develops is the soul- I prefer to believe the other story, that the differences are due to perception- that because of how our chemicals and properties in the brain are arranged, that makes who we are.  I think it's hard to draw a line between what some would call the "soul" and what others would call the brain- I think, more or less, they may be accounting for the same thing- the same effect, the same mystery in a way- and if that is the case, how much of a difference does a name make? Do we choose one or the other to make ourselves feel better- more relieved that something could perhaps be scientifically accounted for- for the meantime anyway, until the story changes, or more special, that there could be this great mystery in the world?

I think every environmental and social influence, has to be taken in through the brain, and processed in such a way as to gain a response, and store the experience in its own way for later consideration.  I think we are, who we are, because of the way we respond and react, because of the behavior in which we are characteristic of, due to the way we've processed the world.  I think it's possibly more meaningful- more of a romantic notion- to think of a person as having both these physical brain responses, and a soul.  At the same time, I think that our brains can account for this notion of a soul, in a less romantic, but maybe, more logical kind of way.  I do like the idea of having a soul- of having something not physical, not visible, and not measurable- it makes life seem more rare, and maybe more special, but I think that the brain could account for all characteristics attributed to the notion of the soul.  I think it's a human desire to want to make more out of life- to want to have mysteries that could possibly never be solved.  I like the idea that, if the brain could equal behavior and by that make us who we are, that we have the ability to isolate parts of the brain, figuring out what does what, and in that.. breaking us down as humans piece by piece.  It's sounds sort of like figuring out humanity, in a way.. and that probably does take away from the mystery of life, maybe making it less exciting, and more predictable, since perhaps one day a scan could tell us a personality, but, I think there's a comfort in that. I think that since we can never know a truth- that stories keep needing to be made "less wrong" and altered a little bit each time, that we'll never be able to solve any mystery, only get closer.. to being less wrong.. that we have something so huge, so involved in all of our lives, to figure out..and I think that's pretty interesting.