@harrington
“[T]he ‘brain’ words you referred to is just talking about the brain processing language information. it suggests nowhere that he[Paul Sulzberger] actually tested the brain’s activity during a language learning session.”
I imagine your are right. Thank you for your comment.
It is said that Paul Sulzberger’s approach to learning languages is revolutionary. Did the “revolution” happen only in Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand? Who was the Lenin of the language learning revolution? Who are the Stalin and Trotsky?
Krashen. J. Marvin Brown.
@Makacenko
“not trying to say anything for the first year” http://www.algworld.com/
Is this J. Marvin Brown’s approach to learning languages?
@tora3
Yes.
The following statement is very interesting.
“The main distinction between the Krashen and Brown initially in their methods was found in what Brown added - the idea that ‘speaking’ in the early stages might damage the student’s ability.” alg history http://www.algworld.com/history.php http://bit.ly/eBx5Hl
“In that sense, the brain motivates itself to learn.” Yes Friedemann, and in that sense the thinking you, the willful you, can make decisions that impact the brain. You can choose to think pleasant thoughts and that affects the brain, or you can choose to think negative thoughts.
All of the genetic and environmental factors that lead you or me to that decision do not interest me. I feel I am in control. That’s all. No one disputes that the mind reflects what is happening in the brain. However, if you read Schwartz’s book you will understand how patients were able to separate themselves from their compulsive behaviour and cure themselves.
I don’t know if the following is true or not, but the word “mind” in the sentence is more natural than the word “brain” in that context.
“[T]here are some things that the unconscious mind just does better - like learn a new language.” http://www.algworld.com/common_myths.php
If there are an anatomical perspective and a functional perspective, the word “brain” has anatomical connotations and the word “mind” and “consciousness” have functional connotations. You cannot cut out your mind from your body, but you can assume the existence of the mind.
“[M]ind is not reducible to the neurophysiology of the organic individual, but is emergent in ‘the dynamic, ongoing social process’ that constitutes human experience . . . .” George Herbert Mead - Wikipedia
Neurologists know a little about the brain. The rest of us know even less.
I imagine Notmee knows more about the brain than I do. I thank you for your comment on behalf of my brain. 
If I am very sad, I might say, “My heart was broken.” Does that mean my brain “broke” my heart? I suppose so, and this “I” signifies the existence of the mind.
Is this a correct question?
Who are “you” if not your brain?
I “is” not the brain but the self.
Jill Bolte Taylor’s stroke of insight http://bit.ly/9fDRss
Her mind was able to analyze what was happening in her body, even though she had damage to her brain. This is a very interesting lecture. You can see a real brain in this video. “She” uses such words as “mind” and “consciousness” to describe the state of functioning of her “brain.” You cannot equate the mind or the self with the brain.
This is such a fascinating video. I watched it some time ago when you first brought it to our attention. The mind-body/body-mind interaction is so interesting, whatever position we take!
There is no mind-body distinction.
Years ago, when I took part in a lot of NLP training we used to talk about the ‘body-mind’ and ‘mind-body’ as two elements within our makeup. That approach was quite useful for us in the business world at the time, explaining how the sum can be greater than its parts. I am still not sure where something like the phantom limb syndrome fits in, but on the other hand, this is once again off-topic. Will I/brain/mind/body never learn?