The Undeniable Bond: How the Brain Powers the Mind

Published on 26 August 2023 at 14:58


In my previous discussions about the mind and the brain, I've grappled with a multitude of ideas, often presenting them in a scattered manner — a little irony there, given our subject matter. However, today, I seek to offer a consolidated and comprehensive perspective on this topic. At the outset, I'll be forthright: I firmly believe that the brain is not only necessary for the mind but also sufficient in itself to account for it. This isn't a mere assertion, but a conclusion drawn from a careful assessment of existing evidence and data. Let's delve deeper into this evidence, and together, unravel the intricate relationship between our brain and mind.


Philosophy of the Mind:

To ensure intellectual transparency from the outset, it's essential to define our terms. The "mind" encompasses the set of cognitive faculties that manifest in consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, language, and memory. "Consciousness" denotes our state of awareness — of our surroundings, our thoughts, and our emotions. While these concepts have philosophical roots, I firmly believe that the realm of the mind and consciousness is best explored through the lens of hard sciences. This stance stems from the compelling empirical evidence showcasing the direct correlation between the brain and the mind, even if philosophical implications abound.


In discussions about the mind, the primary philosophical perspective that resonates with me is psychology. While psychiatry straddles both the tangible and intangible, delving into both mental processes and the physical states of the brain, psychology stands out in its examination of mental behaviors and processes. Admittedly, there exists a rich tapestry of philosophy dedicated to the mind, but much of it doesn't pique my interest. It might come as a surprise, perhaps even bordering on sacrilege for someone who identifies as a philosopher, but there are well-founded reasons behind my stance.


My stance is firmly rooted in the overwhelming data which suggests that the mind's existence is predicated on the brain. For any philosophical conjecture about the mind to hold weight with me, there needs to be compelling evidence that the brain relies on the mind to the same extent that the mind is contingent on the brain. It's imperative to back postulates with tangible data or evidence. As of now, everything I've come across offers no substantive justification for the notion that the mind operates independently of the brain. The frequent appeal to qualia (first person experience) is unsatisfying. Relying on the unknown as a basis for argument is, in essence, an appeal to ignorance. Then, we have proponents of panpsychism, who assert that every entity possesses some form of mental state — a claim that's inherently contradictory, as these mental states presuppose the existence of a mind.


When I refer to the "appeals to the unknown," I'm pinpointing a flawed logic that pervades certain circles: just because our current scientific understanding hasn't fully decoded the enigma of how the mind arises from the physical brain, some leap to the presumption that it never will, or worse, that it's impossible. This intellectual void is then hijacked by what I term the "mind of the gaps" fallacy. In a knee-jerk response to the unknown, proponents assert that the mind must spring from a grander mind—often conveniently dubbed as God. This so-called superior mind is touted as self-evident and intrinsically necessary, sidestepping the demand for justification. While it may seem I'm simplifying, I find this mode of thinking not only reductionist but also intellectually lazy.


In addressing the quandaries of dualism, I'll admit to not extending much charity. My reason? I perceive these arguments as some of the most intellectually complacent solutions to the "hard problem" of consciousness. To hastily posit that minds are the byproduct of a divine entity or some nebulous, disembodied consciousness smacks of absurdity and sophistry. And as for the notion that everything inherently possesses a mental state—this strikes me as perhaps the most lackadaisical evasion in philosophical discourse. For these critiques, I offer no apologies.


Regarding the 'hard problem' of consciousness, let's be crystal clear: it remains unsolved. The mechanism by which the mind arises from the brain remains enigmatic. Yet, our existing knowledge resoundingly indicates the mind's dependence on the brain, and I'll soon lay out the evidence for this. It's crucial to acknowledge that while the precise process of how the mind emerges from the brain eludes us, it's not imperative for our understanding. We needn't pinpoint the exact emergence; our focus should be on understanding the undeniable influence the brain wields over the mind. And in that arena, the evidence is unequivocal: the mind is undeniably tethered to the brain.


One of the few objections with semblance of validity is the 'driver analogy'. This analogy likens the brain to a car's engine, while the mind is compared to its driver. If the engine malfunctions, the car doesn't progress, but the driver remains unaffected. However, this analogy fundamentally falters because it presupposes the existence of a 'driver.' In the age of self-driving cars, the necessity of a driver has been questioned, much like the postulation of a driver-like entity for the brain. Notably, there's an absence of any substantive evidence supporting the notion of an independent mind-like entity for the brain. In stark contrast, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it's the mind which is reliant on the brain. While there's merit in dissecting the driver analogy further in the context of self-driving cars, it may lead us astray from our primary discourse.


While it's often cautioned that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," this mantra fails to hold up in our present context. When the entirety of collected evidence counters a particular postulation, coupled with a stark absence of supporting evidence, it's reasonable to infer that such absence indeed signifies non-existence. There's no "driver" in this scenario; not only is one unnecessary, but no trace of one can be identified. Admittedly, this introduction might come across as extensive and occasionally redundant. However, it's essential to firmly establish these foundational points before diving into the supporting evidence.


Exploring the evidence:

While I've delved into extensive evidence previously, I'll focus on the most salient points here for brevity's sake. Paramount among these is the entirety of psychiatric medicine. Consider medications like Zoloft, which modulate mood, or those addressing anxiety that influence emotional states. The bedrock of psychiatric medicine revolves around how introducing specific chemicals to the body can shift brain states, which in turn, profoundly affect aspects of the mind—ranging from moods and emotions to memory. It's worth emphasizing that conditions like depression and anxiety, undeniably mental in nature, are addressed through tangible, physical interventions. Just as Tylenol alleviates back pain by influencing the body, psychiatric medicines modify brain chemistry to impact mental states.


The role of psychotropic medications in this discourse cannot be overstated; they serve as a clarion testament to the intricate interplay between the brain and the mind. By facilitating targeted chemical reactions in the brain, these drugs not only bring about discernible changes in mental states but also provide a tangible lens into the mechanics of our cognition. Our expansive understanding of these medications and their effects is anchored deeply in the exhaustive exploration of the brain's underlying processes and architectures. This draws a bold line under a fundamental assertion: there's an incontrovertible body of evidence showcasing the profound dominion the brain holds over our mental landscape. We've consistently witnessed, time and again, the transformative impact of chemical and physical adjustments on the mental framework. And yet, in the face of this compelling narrative, there's a striking absence of evidence indicating that the mind, in any measurable way, exerts a reciprocal influence over the brain.


Physical Damage:

One cannot overlook the profound evidentiary significance of brain damage and its consequent effects on the mental realm. Traumatic brain events, like those leading to Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, offer irrefutable testimony. Here, repetitive cranial injuries trigger severe psychological repercussions, reshaping an individual's core personality traits. But this isn't a mere anomaly. Consider the harrowing metamorphosis caused by diseases like syphilis, which plunges its victims into a whirlpool of mania, psychosis, and acute depression—so drastic that the afflicted individual becomes virtually unrecognizable. The catalyst? Physical events. Memory deterioration, another grievous consequence, underscores the visceral link between the tangible and the cognitive. Moreover, degenerative brain conditions, such as Alzheimer's and dementia, deliver their own somber testimonies. The transformation wrought by advanced Alzheimer's is so profound that the individual at its late stages is a stark divergence from the person first diagnosed.


The implications of oxygen deprivation on the brain provide yet another compelling chapter in this narrative. When deprived of oxygen for a mere nine minutes or so, the potential for brain death looms large. This represents an irrevocable cessation of all brain functions, including those that sculpt our personalities. Intriguingly, even when the mind ceases, the brain can still autonomously command essential motor functions, like managing the circulatory system or ensuring the smooth operation of vital organs. However, the reverse isn't true: without an operational brain, the body languishes, unable to sustain itself without mechanical intervention.


This stark asymmetry defies the notion of consciousness merely 'using' the brain as an instrument. Instead, it strongly suggests that consciousness is intricately woven from the very fabric of brain activity. Our scientific endeavors reinforce this: we've successfully charted the brain's responses to various stimuli, illuminating specific regions that activate in tandem with distinct mental occurrences. We've even mapped the anticipatory neural activity linked to decision-making processes, detecting it a staggering 18 seconds before any verbal articulation begins.


The instances presented here merely scratch the surface of a vast reservoir of evidence underscoring the mind's intrinsic dependency on the brain. Across disciplines—neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, pathology of brain diseases, and biology—there's a veritable deluge of information that converges on this conclusion. Unlike the unadorned and unfounded claims like that of panpsychism, which casually postulates that "everything possesses mental states," the evidence marshaled in this discourse transcends superficial correlations. The cases delineated, among countless others, not only lend weight but also provide irrefutable validation to the thesis: the mind is unequivocally tethered to, and shaped by, the intricacies of the brain.



While many champion the notion of mentality as a fundamental cornerstone, to me, it predominantly appears as a series of nebulous appeals to the unknown. They are propped up by the earnest but misguided desire to imbue mentality and consciousness with an innate 'otherness'. But let's, for argument's sake, momentarily adopt the principle of charity. Let's assume that the comprehensive evidence I've presented here, as well as in prior discourses, is insufficient to conclusively establish the mind's subservience to the brain. Even then, the undeniable intricacy and symbiosis between the mind and brain critically undermine the hypothesis of mental primacy. Historical endeavors to authenticate the existence of minds absent their physical counterparts have consistently met with dead ends. From near-death experiences to spectral phenomena—each hypothesis, no matter how compelling on the surface, buckles under scrutiny, remaining unproven and uncorroborated.


The intricate dance between the mind and brain remains one of humanity's most compelling quandaries. Rooted deeply in our intellectual landscape, there's an overwhelming body of evidence underscoring the mind's intrinsic dependency on the brain. This assertion isn't just gleaned from superficial correlations, but from a comprehensive sweep across disciplines like neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, and the study of brain diseases. From the profound changes in personality resulting from brain damage or degeneration to the clear evidence of pharmacological interventions altering mental states, the tangible proof is hard to deny. Yet, certain philosophical stances, motivated perhaps by earnest but misplaced desires, lean into the unknown, positing that mentality and consciousness are foundational, rather than emergent. Even granting such claims their most charitable interpretation, they find themselves on unstable ground, especially when weighed against the vast reservoir of concrete evidence. Every historical endeavor, be it the validation of near-death experiences or spectral phenomena, fails to stand up to rigorous scrutiny. In the face of such robust evidence and nuanced argumentation, one can't help but conclude: the mind, with all its profundities and mysteries, is unequivocally tethered to, shaped by, and emergent from the intricate machinations of the brain. The allure of romanticizing the mind's independence is undeniably enticing, but intellectual honesty demands acknowledgment of its profound dependance on our neural architecture.


This is the exciting part of the entry! We can now take everything we have covered in this entry, and craft a logical argument from the information covered.

Premise 1: Any observable change in the brain leads to a corresponding change in mental states. (Supported by evidence from psychiatric medicine, trauma cases, diseases affecting the brain, etc.)

Premise 2: There is no evidence to suggest the mind operates or exhibits changes independent of the brain. (Highlighted by the absence of evidence for mind influencing brain activity and the dependence of mind-related phenomena on brain functionality.)

Premise 3: Entities that have a causal relationship where changes in one entity (the cause) consistently result in changes in another entity (the effect) indicate that the second entity is dependent upon the first.

Conclusion: Therefore, the mind is dependent upon the brain.


As always, I eagerly anticipate our upcoming conversations. Crafting this entry has been truly invigorating, and I hope it resonates with you as deeply as it did with me!



Salgado-Pineda P, Ferrer M, Calvo N, et al. Brain functional abnormality in drug treated and drug naïve adolescents with borderline personality disorder: Evidence for default mode network dysfunction. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2023;161:40-47. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.03.012

GRAHAM, E. K. et al. A coordinated analysis of the associations among personality traits, cognitive decline, and dementia in older adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, [s. l.], v. 92, 2021. DOI 10.1016/j.jrp.2021.104100. Disponível em: Acesso em: 01 mar. 2023.

Xiao Q, Yi X, Fu Y, et al. Altered brain activity and childhood trauma in Chinese adolescents with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2023;323:435-443. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.003

Davis WE, Becker BC, Dewolfe AS. Categorization of Patients with Personality Disorders and Acute Brain Trauma through Wais Subtest Variations. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1971;27(3):358-360. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197107)27:3<358::AID-JCLP2270270315>3.0.CO;2-E

RATKOVIĆ D, KNEŽEVIĆ V, DICKOV A, MALETIN M, ČOMIĆ M. The Most Common Criminal Offences among Psychoactive Drug Addicts. Medicinski Pregled / Medical Review. 2022;79(5/6):159-165. doi:10.2298/MPNS2206159R

Sumner M, Hwang P. Brain trauma, epilepsy and personality disorder? Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;118(7):e187. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.03.031

Research on Dementia Published by Scientists at Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. Psychology & Psychiatry Journal. November 19, 2011. Accessed June 5, 2020.

Add comment


There are no comments yet.