Suwands H. J. Sugunasiri; The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/suwand1.htm
He first notes that the idea that the heart (hdraya) is the seat of consciousness is an idea that is only seen in the Pali commentaries and the works of Buddhaghosa. He also notes that this is a view seen in the Upanishads.
Sugunasiri then attempts to reconstruct the view of the Buddha in the Pali Nikayas. He notes that Narada thera's position on this is:
He further notes that:It was [the] cardiac theory [the view that the heart is the seat of consciousness] that prevailed in the Buddha's time.... The Buddha could have adopted this popular theory, but He did not commit Himself.
Sugunasiri then argues that "the Buddha did indeed identify 'the seat of consciousness' without calling it such". He cites the Mahanidana sutta (vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupa.m), and notes how the body is conditioned by consciousness and vice versa. He also quotes the The Mahapadana Sutta which speaks to the same reciprocal relationship: "this consciousness turns back again from the sentient body. It goes no further. To this extent one may be born, grow old, die and be reborn, namely [to the extent that] consciousness exists through the condition of sentient body, a sentient body through the condition of consciousness".Such an absence may also suggest that the Buddha was specifically seeking to avoid answering a 'wrong' question of the type "What would the hair color of an offspring of a barren woman be?"--knowing fully well that any answer given would be wrong! Thus, for example, talking about a 'seat' could suggest (a) a permanence or tangibility where none exits, or (b) a linear causality that contradicts the reality of relationality (reciprocal, circular, and multicausal) as contained in the pa.ticcasamuppaada, a fundamental pillar of his teaching.
I would note this is quite in line with modern views on "embodied cognition", popularized by figures such as Francisco Varela (famously known for his role in the mind and life dialogues with the Dalai Lama)As the evidence above indicates, the view in the Nikaayas is that the mind, instead of being localized in a single organ, is, rather, nonlocalized, that is, spread throughout, or is coterminous with, the whole of naamaruupa.
This is of course, in opposition to theories which see the mind as mere computation happening in the brain."By using the term embodied we mean to highlight two points: first that cognition depends upon the kinds of experience that come from having a body with various sensorimotor capacities, and second, that these individual sensorimotor capacities are themselves embedded in a more encompassing biological, psychological and cultural context."
— Eleanor Rosch, Evan Thompson, Francisco J. Varela: The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience pages 172–173
We cannot of course, forget about other bodily mentation, such as that which happens in the stomach's "second brain", which has a large amount of neural tissue. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ond-brain/
Truly then, any view which sees the mind as being just "what the brain does" is clearly opposed to the latest neuroscientific finding and the Buddhadhamma.
The mind is not the brain.