I think Locke was waxing poetic more than anything else, being more philosophical than scientific and of course handicapped by the scientific, anatomical, physiological, and psychological knowledge of his time. Modern science teaches us that the 'conscious thinking thing', conscious se;f, or mind is located in the brain. Of course we can als... ummm excuse me a minute... OK Now if... nope, man I'm sorry got somekind of pain in my abdomen. Ow, it's almost as if my liver is turning on me. I'll have to get back to you.

No metaphysical problem is more vigorously discussed by the present day psychologists than that of mind and body. Most of us assume that all thinking takes place in the brain. It is only since a few decades that psychologists are treating body and mind as one unit called psycho-somatic system. This led to the development of new subjects like Psycho-biology and Psycho-neuro-immunology. Modern medicine has recognized the brain-spine system as one unit, but it does not assign thinking functions to any part of the spine. It is now known that even when a considerable amount of brain is removed through surgery, a person can still have reasonable mental abilities and can lead a near normal life. Modern research found that one region in brain can perform several tasks and so can compensate for the loss of damage of another region. On the contrary, surgical removal of some 'safe' parts from womb of women is known to cause problems of mind like dementia. Then, what are the components of mind and where are they located? Indians put their hand on the chest when they say "I am saying this from the depths of my Manas". Manas (rational mind) is a common word used in India, and no one shows his head when he uses that word. The Europeans have an esoteric tradition that mind exists independently of the physical brain, and thoughts become known to a person through the brain [1]. During the 1970s, neurologists became increasingly dissatisfied with the epiphenomenalism [2] theories of mind and brain. More scientists came to suspect that mind and brain were different in a kind and could interact. [1] The Hutchinson Encyclopedia, The topic on "mind", Computer CD Version, 2002. [2] Donald Watson, A Dictionary of Mind and Spirit, Andre Deutsch Ltd., London, 1991. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861608850 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epiphenomenalism http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=epiphenomenalism http://www.ismbook.com/epiphenomenalism.html http://www.emergentmind.org/rivas-vandongen.htm http://profvsprasad.blog.com/

I agree with John Locke. I am, broadly speaking, a functionalist. From Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind): "[Functionalism's] core idea is that mental states (beliefs, desires, being in pain, etc.) are constituted solely by their functional role — that is, their causal relations to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral outputs. Since mental states are identified by a functional role, they are said to be multiply realizable; in other words, they are able to be manifested in various systems, even perhaps computers, so long as the system performs the appropriate functions." The conscious self is multiply realizable. We already know that the particular atoms and molecules are not significant - our bodies' cells (including the brain's) get entirely replaced, gradually, over time. We never identify ourselves with the old cells, but with who we are - our functional signature, if you will. With more understanding about how the brain works, and superior computing power, we may one day be able to think from within a computer. Or, alternatively, we be able to "transplant" our minds to newly cloned brains. Nothing that we know in the sciences prevents either possibility. However, if John Locke meant that the conscious self can exist without ANY body or substance, that I disagree with, because the mind, like a software program, needs to be realized in a medium, like a brain.

Of course I agree with John Locke. But only talking about earthly bodies because there are also spiritual bodies.

I agree. When you die you still can see, think and communicate.

No. There is no credible scientific evidence to support it. We can however correlate specific activity in the brain to specific cognitive activities because we can see the metabolic activity associated with being conscious using advanced imaging technologies such as fMRI. If you are given an anesthetic you lose consciousness regardless of your mental state. There are specific regions of the brain that if eliminated will eliminate or alter the subjective experience of consciousness.

A lot of whack jobs claims all kinds of idiocy. Are you going to believe them all?