Just think a general discussion of the connection between the brain and mind, or subjective experiences of consciousness, would be interesting. Some maintain that consciousness purely IS the physical and chemical processes in the brain. This is the theory underlying mainstream psychiatry today. It's saying, the mental state IS the chemical levels. Therefore to fix 'problems' in an individual's mental state, you correct the chemical imbalance. But what if the mind isn't just the brain? What if neuro-chemical changes in the brain are a response to the fluctuations of the mind, rather than the cause? The mind could somehow exist in an immaterial, non-physical, fashion, and the brain is sort of a physical beacon for it, where the brain is just acting in a way that corresponds to the mind. Now this can potentially enter into the realm of 'spirituality,' including ideas of reincarnation, or rebirth. If the mind is non-physical by nature, you can see how it could be 'hosted' by another brain, and this would be the cycle of rebirth. One more thing about the psychiatric aspect I mentioned earlier. If it is true that the brain responds to the mind, rather than the mind being a product of the chemical levels in the brain, then you can see how psychiatric medication could be potentially harmful. If the brain is responding to the mind, it means that the chemical reactions taking place are necessary reactions to keep the brain balanced with the mind. It's like the brain expresses the mind. The mind is trying to express something through the brain, but the psychiatric medication doesn't allow the brain to send that chemical message. You can see how this could cause problems, could potentially try to express in a more extreme manner, for example. This would explain people taking anti-depressants and then killing themselves, and such things.
You want a concise summation of the brain-mind dichotomoy... the object and subject duality? Here's a very helpful quote from Leibniz. "One is obliged to admit that perception (subjectivity) and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception (subjectivity). Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception (subjectivity)."