Reply to comment

Grobstein's question marks, surrounding his body-box, indicate that we don't have much certainty about what exists outside of our own minds; even our own physical bodies are a source of mystery. I can't accept that I have a body with such and such dimensions and then go on to doubt the environment that my body lives in, therefor I think it is fair to say we don't have much certainty about our bodies. Likewise if my brain/mind are sitting inside of my head (with such and such dimensions and relation to the rest of my body).  But, I don't have any certainty about my body so I think it is fair to say we don't have any certainty about the physical properties/workings of our brains. What we are left with is a very immaterial self (NOT unimportant... think about the irony associated with our common use of the word immaterial=insignificant...) about which we can be certain. This self is Descartes cogito that he decided to stick into the brain into what he called the pineal gland. We are doing the exact same thing if we reduce ourselves to a brain inside of a body. 

 Ryan's point about the firing of neurons causing ideas or ideas causing the firing of neurons is excellent. We don't/ probably can't know the answer to that question. 

 JrLewis makes a great point as well about the different ways of addressing the questions we are discussing. Depending on which way you view the world-- take your pick from the list provided or from some other-- you will approach these questions in a particular way and be looking for a particular kind of answer.

In response to the religion comment above:

I don't think every religion necessarily attributes a metaphysical aspect to human beings, although most do. 

But, what is significant about religion is that it acknowledges a metaphysical aspect to reality (the question marks surrounding Paul's body/brain box) I find it hard to deny this aspect of those question marks.   Think about it, nothing comes from nothing: something is ==> something always was. Physical things can change and do not exist necessarily ==> there must be something that is which is not contingent but necessary. And, it cannot be anything like what we experience since we only experience contingent/changing things.  

So, if we are going to talk about what mental health is from a perspective that accepts that we are a brain in a body and that everything we experience is subjective (in and of itself.. nobody argues that our experience of a thing is objective) we will get certain kinds of answers which might be useful and productive.

If we talk about mental health from a perspective which suggests that there must be more to a human than the body and brain and that there is an objective real world out there in which our bodies reside we will get another group of answers which might also be useful and productive. 

 Which story makes most sense to you?