Thought Results in Physical Changes

Neurology is almost entirely quackery.

Oh but it does.
We only anthropomorphize that thoughts are tied to neural impulses,
because the brain is situated behind the eye, and between the ears,
precisely where we picture the center of our perceptions.

Rupert Sheldrake for instance claims that the brain's only function
is to cool the blood, and that the spine is the connection between
body and spirit. He claims that he has witnessed numerous
autopsies of fully functional people that did not even have anything
more than fluid inside their cranium.

(read his "The Science Delusion")

The idea that the "brain" holds thought, has been bandied around
for endless centuries, with an infinite variety of theories, claiming
all sorts of various jargon-based sophistry.

But can you even isolate a single experiment that you can do yourself
that can prove the brain is more vital than the spine?

nah.

But I can prove that neurology is crap-artistry in 1 word:

marijuana

xxxxxxxxx

what a slippery slope of ideas you fall down
a is tied to b
therefore
a exists as b
therefore
a necessitates b

your argument has zero logic to it
it only exists as the original claims reworded

if i can imagine a perfect circle
then their must be a perfect circle in the "brain"

but there just ain't such a thing at all

i can think in terms of 5d space if i put my mind to it
thus there must be 5d space in the "brain"

but there ain't that neither

so thoughts are clearly more than mere 3d brains (or spines or bodies)

Juggle, Jumble, and Jump off a Cliff

Dreams are not mental.  They contradict any functional mental processes, because there is no connectivity between time, space, and conformity to cause and effect.  Therefore, they are merely irrational physical discharges from the brain of incomplete thoughts, of which we have many.  They are leftovers thrown into the dump.

The fact is the phrase

"A thought is tied to neural processes"

is broken. Not because it's impossible for a thought to be that neural, but for another reason:

What makes you be sure that a thought is tied to neurons, not to something else?

Let's take the other take:

P1. A thought results in a thought or thoughts (assumed)
P2. A thought has its beginning and its end (assumed)
P3. Anything that has beginning or end has parts (assumed)
P4. A thought has parts (instantiated P2, P3)
P5. Anything that has parts is complex (assumed)
P6. A thought is complex (ins. P4, P5)
P7. It's possible that if there's no one who can understand a certain thought, there is no thought (assumed)
P8. If there's no thought, there is some other stuff, than a thought has (assumed)
P9. It's possible that something that isn't a thought has the other stuff, than a thought (syllogism P8, P9)
P10. Having a stuff is either to be made by this stuff, or to produce this stuff, or both (assumed)
P11. A thought is as being made by some stuff, so produces it (disjunction P10, P1)
P12. It's possible that a thought is a complex mechanism (assumed by P6, P11)
P13. It's possible that a thought is a recursive mechanism (assumed by P1, P12)
P14. Neurons exist due to the energy of the body (fact)
P15. Neurons cannot sustain their own work (inference from P14)
P16. Any recursive mechanism are able to sustain their own work iff its the recursive function is enough powerful to long itself (math fact; as "fractals")
P17. A thought is able to sustain its own work (inference from P1, P13, P16)
P18. It's possible for a thought to exist without neurons (inference from all above).

Not exactly, it's not.

You can say that the damage of the neuron system causes some or may some effect on thinking, and that's all. You can say it widely claiming that the neurons and thoughts are one and the same, it's a contra law claim.