Is your brain really necessary?

The ongoing fuss about Terri Schiavo has reminded me of a very interesting snippet I found on the web a couple of years ago. I'm not going to take sides over Terri, I don't know what is going on in her mind, and I have no intention of opposing either of the two sides in the struggle. I give this link as it casts a light on the very interesting matter of the function of our brains. The idea that thought is just a movement of electricity in the brain, and that memory is a matter of neurons acting as on/off switches as in a computer chip, is not at all convincing to me and has anyway fallen out of favour recently.

If you have not already clicked the link, I will give you an added incentive to do so: for some people, the brain seems not be necessary. Those people can function well, even sometimes more than well, without it. As all students of logic must know, if event B happens even once without event A, then A is not always necessary for B.

For those who are willing to re-think their "knowledge" (unfortunately, not many so-called scientists) this fact encourages us to come up with a whole different idea of what the mind is and how it functions. Such new ideas are very much needed. The idea that has found most favour with me is that expounded in "The Disappearance of the Universe", by Gary Renard (and other books, too). It's a very readable book and contains a lot of clarifications. Rupert Sheldrake, too, has made laudable efforts, with different results.