Reply to comment

I tend to lean strongly towards the brain=behavior side of things and I also tend to agree with Emily Dickinson's poem. After all if it weren't for the brain, I don't think that there would be any way for us to comprehend the world around us. The brain lets us take in images and put a name or a feeling to them. It is our only way to understand things and to form our ideas about things. Thus it seems to follow that the brain also is the main factor behind who we are as individuals. While I don't have an issue with the idea that there is a soul, at the same time I find it very hard to reconcile the fact that an intangible part of us could be in charge of who we are. We are, afterall,  who we are because of how we perceive the world and then react to it.

This, however, raises a question in my mind. Where is the line separating the brain from making us who we are and the brain just acting as a controlling operator of our body. For instance, when a person suffers severe brain injuries and is in a vegatative state are they no longer themselves? In other words is there a point in the brain that makes us who we are and without that point are we just machines carrying out bodily functions? Another question is how do we know when this part of the brain is gone? I tend to lean towards the idea that there are parts of the brain that are in charge of making us who we are and if they are gone we are no longer us. In other words I believe that it is possible to lose the essence of who we are, while still being alive. But how are we to know for sure?