Janie:

I think conflating mind and brain is an instance of supreme arrogance, or at least overweening assertiveness about a little-understood phenomenon.

I mentioned earlier the simple observation that most people can move pictures around and view them near of far away from the body. So obviously there is no 1:1 correllation in mapping.

This whole "brain is thought" shtick is, to my mind, a peculiar blind alley, sort of like the Galen model of circulation by tides and humours. It was persuasive enough to be totally accepted for centuries, until someone bothered to look.

If there is a single instance of thought occurring after brain-death (and according to Kubler Ross and others in her field, there is) then the model is flawed.

If there is a single instance of a "brain" containing data which has no legitimate business being in it, such as knowledge of language to which it was never exposed, or memopries from a lifetime in which the brain did not exist, the model is flawed; and there are many such instances reported in the studies that have been done on alternative models.

If there is a single verifiable instance of a being moving out of a body, then it (the notion of brain=mind) is immediately compromised.
Research into OOB experiences will bring up many reported, a few of which are not controvertible.

I prefer to think of the mind as the content, without screwing up the question by insisting on an uunprovable assertion about structure. But then, my interest has always been in function, what minds do and how they can do it better.

A