It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Neurons in the gut and heart are afferent and efferent neurons responsible for motor control and relaying sensory input. Those in the central nervous system are interneurons which are very different.
Neurons in the thumb are basically the same as in the heart and gut so any difference between the two are not down to the neurons.
And no, the heart and gut are not capable anything analogous to consciousness; no one really has a “gut feeling” or are they led by their heart in the sense that you suggest. Again, where is the evidence for this?
No, I did not say consciousness was a physical thing.
See above.
What have you given to demonstrate that consciousness is isolated within the brain?
Lesion patients and localization of function in the brain, for the fourth time.
In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
You have completely refused to discuss this; why is consciousness changed by brain damage and not by any other kind of damage except those that also affect the brain (such as a heart attack stopping oxygen getting to the brain)?
Even if you introduce the idea that the brain is an antenna (an unnecessary step)
you are still saying that there is something unique to the brain (you talked about a collection of neurons earlier) that is not shared by other things such as a rock.
But this antenna theory is still not consistent with what is observed, we can observe neurons firing in the brain, we know that causing these neurons to fire results in things such as the expression of a certain emotion. These things are consistent with the idea that the brain produces these functions but not with the idea that it is acting as an antenna.
Originally posted by Romans 10:9
Open a Bible and start reading. I recommend the gospel of John.
Jesus claimed things that no one in his capacity ever claimed, and if he is lying then what of the miracles/experiences that caused his followers to choose death over apostasy?
If he is telling the truth then he is of the utmost importance to all of humanity.
PS. don't run from Christianity because it's so cliche or corny or wore-out. If you have a "draw" to it, you would be wise to let it lead you where it will, using your reason and logic as a map and a light.
The concepts "grasp" or "spit" are not physical things, but the things which the concepts represent are physical interactions. Going by that logic then you already agree with me that consciousness is not a physical thing, but only semantically.
You are going to keep repeating this even though I have addressed it repeatedly so I'm going to ignore it from now on.
You can't tell me that consciousness is localized within the brain when you can't even find it.
What you THINK you experience as consciousness solely within your brain is what is known as SELF-consciousness and it is a feature of being human, but as many times as I've tried to explain the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness you have never responded to that.
Excuse me but you could at least provide the evidence for what YOU are saying!
It's not. Your SELF-consciousness and other higher-level thought processes that require the brain are affected. The awareness afforded to you by your heart, gut and spine, for example, would still be intact
change in consciousness, whether you are aware of it or not.
What evidence do I have for this? Personal experience.
They don't have to be to fire electrical signals across them and process information in a complex way.
If you were more familiar with your own body you would know exactly what types of experiences your heart and gut generate, for example. It is not the same kind of "thinking" your brain does but they are real and legitimate forms of "information processing" nonetheless. It is very much what you would expect for a "gut feeling" in the case of your gut if you would like to explore that, and your heart is more of an emotional/intuitive center but it is also very important to your sensation of being a SELF separate from the rest of the universe. Your heart exhibits the strongest magnetic field in your body and it has been shown to be able to couple with your brain's magnetic field in certain states of mind and create a unique state of awareness in which the brain and heart share information more immediately.
I should point out that the science indicated in the above links is recent science
I can tell you as a fact that insinuating neurons in the heart and gut are for motor coordination only are WRONG simply because of the awareness I have of what my heart or gut are feeling at any given moment of time
You are ASSUMING they have nothing to do with consciousness based on your pre-conceived beliefs that we are still arguing over.
So then for the 4th time I will tell you that is only evidence of the role of the brain in interpreting consciousness, not evidence that consciousness is limited to the brain alone.
Empirically neither of those theories is contradicted by the fact that brain damage causes changes in your experience of consciousness.
(which requires you to FIND IT first and then say THERE IT IS!)
I don't believe for a second that having a heart attack would not affect your consciousness.
You are not demonstrating a scientific way of thinking when you are dismissing things because they are "not necessary" for your own beliefs
Consciousness has NOT been found and isolated within the brain
I'm sure this sounds logical to you but due to repeated personal experiences of mine I know for a fact that this interpretation is wrong.
Neurons do not fire on their own for no reason.
Neither do you feel a certain way because of random chemical reactions that you can't control.
There is a conscious effort behind the intention of your thoughts and there is also conscious control of your emotions. They both come BEFORE the thought or emotion, and scientists cannot tell you what the determining mechanism is in which thought you will think or which emotion you will feel.
Originally posted by Mike_A
I've maintained throughout this thread that it is not a physical thing, it is you who have done that when you say science can't even tell you what it's “made of”. And no it is not reading between the lines to point that this suggests you think it must be made of something; it was clearly not rhetorical.
Nor am I telling you what you believe, just what you are writing.
You are going to keep repeating this even though I have addressed it repeatedly so I'm going to ignore it from now on.
You have ignored it throughout the entire thread.
You can't tell me that consciousness is localized within the brain when you can't even find it.
Again this makes absolutely no sense unless you are treating consciousness as a physical thing.
What you THINK you experience as consciousness solely within your brain is what is known as SELF-consciousness and it is a feature of being human, but as many times as I've tried to explain the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness you have never responded to that.
No that is you redefining the word and I have responded to it, it was at this point you ignored my post and instead to get personal with your “Ah, here we go. You DO already have your mind made up” remark.
Excuse me but you could at least provide the evidence for what YOU are saying!
I've given you it and you have ignored it. Lesion patients and the effect on consciousness that brain damage has.
Here are the two competing theories in our case:
(A) Consciousness is isolated within the brain and is a product of the brain.
(B) The brain is simply an "antenna" that receives consciousness and amplifies and conditions it for human experience.
Empirically neither of those theories is contradicted by the fact that brain damage causes changes in your experience of consciousness.
Therefore, since neither are exluded by your "evidence" that is supposed to prove your case against mine, you have actually proved nothing and both cases are still equally possible while still accepting your medical information.
So the question now is do you see that you still have not proven anything special about your theory over mine, and you have not posted any real EMPIRICAL evidence of consciousness being isolated within the brain (which requires you to FIND IT first and then say THERE IT IS!) or are you going to keep repeating the same thing and continue ignoring what I have told you every single time you have posted it, as if it I'm just wrong and you don't even need to consider what I post?
What awareness? Give me concrete examples.
This is just getting tedious, this sentence shows conclusively that you haven't the faintest idea what consciousness actually is.
What evidence do I have for this? Personal experience.
Great, evidence that conveniently doesn't allow you to actually produce it.
You really don't know what you are talking about, afferent and efferent neurons do not “process information” they can either fire or not fire and at different rates, that is it. Collections of interneurons which are found in the central nervous system actually process information.
Utter nonsense, that's it, it's just … rubbish.
The first article is also mainly bull, but then that's what you get when you source you information on physiological processes from a couple flogging aroma therapy oils!
While the Laceys were doing their research in psychophysiology, a small group of cardiovascular researchers joined with a similar group of neurophysiologists to explore areas of mutual interest. This represented the beginning of the new discipline of neurocardiology, which has since provided critically important insights into the nervous system within the heart and how the brain and heart communicate with each other via the nervous system.
After extensive research, one of the early pioneers in neurocardiology, Dr. J. Andrew Armour, introduced the concept of a functional "heart brain" in 1991. His work revealed that the heart has a complex intrinsic nervous system that is sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "little brain" in its own right. The heart's brain is an intricate network of several types of neurons, neurotransmitters, proteins and support cells like those found in the brain proper. Its elaborate circuitry enables it to act independently of the cranial brain – to learn, remember, and even feel and sense. The recent book Neurocardiology, edited by Dr. Armour and Dr. Jeffrey Ardell, provides a comprehensive overview of the function of the heart's intrinsic nervous system and the role of central and peripheral autonomic neurons in the regulation of cardiac function. The nervous system pathways between the heart and brain are shown in Figure 2.
The heart's nervous system contains around 40,000 neurons, called sensory neurites, which detect circulating hormones and neurochemicals and sense heart rate and pressure information.
Hormonal, chemical, rate and pressure information is translated into neurological impulses by the heart's nervous system and sent from the heart to the brain through several afferent (flowing to the brain) pathways. It is also through these nerve pathways that pain signals and other feeling sensations are sent to the brain.
These afferent nerve pathways enter the brain in an area called the medulla, located in the brain stem. The signals have a regulatory role over many of the autonomic nervous system signals that flow out of the brain to the heart, blood vessels and other glands and organs. However, they also cascade up into the higher centers of the brain, where they may influence perception, decision making and other cognitive processes.
Dr. Armour describes the brain and nervous system as a distributed parallel processing system consisting of separate but interacting groups of neuronal processing centers distributed throughout the body.
The heart has its own intrinsic nervous system that operates and processes information independently of the brain or nervous system. This is what allows a heart transplant to work: Normally, the heart communicates with the brain via nerve fibers running through the vagus nerve and the spinal column. In a heart transplant, these nerve connections do not reconnect for an extended period of time, if at all; however, the transplanted heart is able to function in its new host through the capacity of its intact, intrinsic nervous system.
The intrinsic cardiac nervous system, or heart brain, is made up of complex ganglia, containing afferent (receiving) local circuit (interneurons) and efferent (transmitting) sympathetic and parasympathetic neurons.
You really don't know what you are talking about [insert irony here], afferent and efferent neurons do not “process information” they can either fire or not fire and at different rates, that is it. Collections of interneurons which are found in the central nervous system actually process information.
The intrinsic cardiac nervous system, or heart brain, is made up of complex ganglia, containing afferent (receiving) local circuit (interneurons) and efferent (transmitting) sympathetic and parasympathetic neurons.
Figure 2.
The neural communication pathways between the heart and the brain. The heart’s intrinsic nervous system consists of ganglia, which contain local circuit neurons of several types, and sensory neurites, which are distributed throughout the heart. The intrinsic ganglia process and integrate inflowing information from the extrinsic nervous system and from the sensory neurites within the heart. The extrinsic cardiac ganglia, located in the thoracic cavity, have direct connections to organs such as the lungs and esophagus and are also indirectly connected via the spinal cord to many other organs, including the skin and arteries. The "afferent" (flowing to the brain) parasympathetic information travels from the heart to the brain through the vagus nerve to the medulla, after passing through the nodose ganglion. The sympathetic afferent nerves first connect to the extrinsic cardiac ganglia (also a processing center), then to the dorsal root ganglion and the spinal cord. Once afferent signals reach the medulla, they travel to the subcortical areas (thalamus, amygdala, etc.) and then to the cortical areas.
“why is consciousness changed by brain damage and not by any other kind of damage except those that also affect the brain (such as a heart attack stopping oxygen getting to the brain)?
Of course a heart attack will affect somebodies consciousness but that is precisely because it starves the brain of oxygen.
A Harvard Medical School Study of 1,623 heart attack survivors found that when subjects became angry during emotional conflicts, their risk of subsequent heart attacks was more than double that of those that remained calm.
M. Mittleman et al. Circulation. 1995; 92(7)
Men who complain of high anxiety are up to six times more likely than calmer men to suffer sudden cardiac death.
I. Kawachi et al. Circulation. 1994; 89(5)
A 20-year study of over 1,700 older men conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health found that worry about social conditions, health and personal finances all significantly increased the risk of coronary heart disease.
L. Kubzansky et al. Circulation. 1997; 95(4)
Over one-half of heart disease cases are not explained by the standard risk factors – such as high cholesterol, smoking or sedentary lifestyle.
R. Rosenman. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1993; 28(1)
An international study of 2,829 people between the ages of 55 and 85 found that individuals who reported the highest levels of personal "mastery" – feelings of control over life events – had a nearly 60%lower risk of death compared with those who felt relatively helpless in the face of life ’s challenges.
B. Penninx et al. Am J Epidemiol. 1997; 146(6)
According to a Mayo Clinic study of individuals with heart disease,psychological stress was the strongest predictor of future cardiac events,such as cardiac death, cardiac arrest and heart attacks.
T. Allison et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1995; 70(8)
Three 10-year studies concluded that emotional stress was more predictive of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease than smoking;people who were unable to effectively manage their stress had a 40% higher death rate than non-stressed individuals.
H. Eysenck. Br J Med Psychol. 1988; 61(Pt 1)
A recent study of heart attack survivors showed that patients’ emotional state and relationships in the period after myocardial infarction are as important as the disease severity in determining their prognosis.
S. Thomas et al. Am J Crit Care. 1997; 6(2)
In a study of 5,716 middle-aged people,those with the highest self-regulation abilities were over 50 times more likely to be alive and without chronic disease 15 years later than those with the lowest self-regulation scores.
R. Grossarth-Maticek & H. Eysenck. Person Individ Diff. 1995; 19(6)
Traditionally, the study of communication pathways between the "head" and heart has been approached from a rather one-sided perspective, with scientists focusing primarily on the heart’s responses to the brain’s commands. However, we have now learned that communication between the heart and brain is actually a dynamic, ongoing, two-way dialogue, with each organ continuously influencing the other’s function. Research has shown that the heart communicates to the brain in four major ways: neurologically (through the transmission of nerve impulses), biochemically (via hormones and neurotransmitters), biophysically (through pressure waves) and energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Communication along all these conduits significantly affects the brain’s activity. Moreover, our research shows that messages the heart sends the brain can also affect performance.
The heart communicates with the brain and body in four ways:
* Neurological communication (nervous system)
* Biophysical communication (pulse wave)
* Biochemical communication (hormones)
* Energetic communication (electromagnetic fields)
The studies described in this section probe several of these communication pathways, looking specifically at how the brain responds to patterns generated by the heart during positive emotional states.
The first two studies focus primarily on neurological interactions, demonstrating that the afferent signals the heart sends the brain during positive emotions can alter brain activity in several ways. In the first study, we find that cardiac coherence can drive entrainment between very low frequency brainwaves and heart rhythms, thus further expanding our understanding of the physiological entrainment mode described in the previous section. In the second study, we learn that coherent heart rhythms also lead to increased heart-brain synchronization. The implications of these findings are explored in the third study, which shows that in states of high heart rhythm coherence, individuals demonstrate significant improvements in cognitive performance.
Taken together, the results of these studies demonstrate that intentionally altering one’s emotional state through heart focus modifies afferent neurological input from the heart to the brain.
Figure 12.
The heart’s electromagnetic field--by far the most powerful rhythmic field produced by the human body--not only envelops every cell of the body but also extends out in all directions into the space around us. The cardiac field can be measured several feet away from the body by sensitive devices. Research conducted at IHM suggests that the heart’s field is an important carrier of information.
Thus, the last two studies summarized in this section explore interactions that take place between one person’s heart and another’s brain when two people touch or are in proximity. This research elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. Our data indicate that one person’s heart signal can affect another’s brainwaves, and that heart-brain synchronization can occur between two people when they interact. Finally, it appears that as individuals increase psychophysiological coherence, they become more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals communicated by those around them. Taken together, these results suggest that cardioelectromagnetic communication may be a little-known source of information exchange between people, and that this exchange is influenced by our emotions.
Head-Heart Entrainment: A Preliminary Survey
Rollin McCraty, PhD, William A. Tiller, PhD and Mike Atkinson.
In: Proceedings of the Brain-Mind Applied Neurophysiology EEG Neurofeedback Meeting. Key West, Florida, 1996.
Figure 13.
Illustrates the entrainment that can occur between the HRV and EEG waveforms. The lefthand graphs show the time domain signals for the HRV and the EEG (brainwaves), while the righthand panels show the frequency spectra during the entrained state. Note the large peak at the entrainment frequency (~0.12 Hz) in both the HRV and the EEG while the subject is in the entrained state.
Cardiac Coherence Increases Heart-Brain Synchronization
Influence of afferent cardiovascular input on cognitive performance and alpha activity [Abst.]. Rollin McCraty, PhD and Mike Atkinson.
In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pavlovian Society, Tarrytown, NY, 1999.
Key findings: The brain’s alpha wave activity is synchronized to the cardiac cycle. During states of high heart rhythm coherence, alpha wave synchronization to the heart’s activity significantly increases.
Summary: This investigation explores further how the heart’s activity influences that of the brain. In this pilot study, heartbeat evoked potentials were analyzed in ten individuals. The analysis of heartbeat evoked potentials is a signal processing technique used to identify segments of the EEG (brainwaves) that are correlated to or affected by the heartbeat (Figure 14). In this way, it is possible to determine specific changes in the brain’s electrical activity that are associated with afferent signals from the heart.
The subjects’ EEGs were recorded using electrodes placed along the medial line and the frontal sites. To determine which brainwave frequencies showed cardiac- related activity, the region of the EEG between 50 and 600 milliseconds post R-wave was then subjected to spectrum analysis. As a control, this procedure was repeated but instead of using the ECG as the signal source, an artificial, randomly generated signal with the same mean inter-beat interval and standard deviation as the original ECG was used for the time reference. It was found that the brain’s alpha wave activity (8-12 Hz frequency range) is synchronized to the cardiac cycle. There was significantly more alpha rhythm synchronization when the real ECG was used for the signal source as compared to the control signals. Additionally, analyses revealed that brainwave activity at a lower frequency than alpha is also synchronized to the ECG signal.
In the next phase of the study, we sought to determine if there is a change in the degree of alpha rhythm synchronization to the ECG during periods of increased heart rhythm coherence. In this phase, subjects used the Cut-Thru technique, an emotional refocusing exercise, a means of quieting inner emotional dialogue, instilling a positive emotional state and increasing heart rhythm coherence. Subjects’ heart rhythm coherence and heartbeat evoked potentials were analyzed during a 10-minute baseline period, and again while they practiced the Cut-Thru technique for 10 minutes. There was a significant increase in heart rhythm coherence during the period that subjects used the Cut-Thru technique. Heartbeat evoked potential data showed that in this state of increased heart rhythm coherence, alpha wave synchronization to the cardiac cycle increases significantly (Figure 15).
Figure 14.
Signal averaging is a technique used to trace afferent neural signals from the heart to the brain. The ECG R-wave is used as the timing source for event-related changes in the brain’s activity, and the resulting waveform is called a heartbeat evoked potential. This graph illustrates an example of a heartbeat evoked potential waveform showing alpha activity in the EEG that is synchronized to the cardiac cycle.
In conclusion, this study shows that the brain’s activity is naturally synchronized to that of the heart, and also confirms that intentionally altering one’s emotional state through heart focus modifies afferent neurological input from the heart to the brain. Results indicate that the brain’s electrical activity becomes more synchronized during psychophysiologically coherent states. Implications are that this increased synchronization may alter information processing by the brain during the experience of positive emotions.
Figure 15.
Changes in alpha wave synchronization during high heart rhythm coherence. There was a significant increase in alpha rhythm synchronization to the ECG at most EEG sites during the use of the Cut-Thru intervention (high heart rhythm coherence). * p
No, I know they have nothing to do with consciousness (producing consciousness that is!) because of numerous scientific examples showing that change in brain structure affects consciousness while change in the heart does not. But you have already said you are going to ignore this!
So then for the 4th time I will tell you that is only evidence of the role of the brain in interpreting consciousness, not evidence that consciousness is limited to the brain alone.
Interpretation is consciousness. It is the processes of experiencing ones own mental events in such a manner that one can report on them to others (Baars & Franklin 2003).
Empirically neither of those theories is contradicted by the fact that brain damage causes changes in your experience of consciousness.
I'm not saying that your theory is contradicted by this, I'm saying that this fact strongly suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain.
I am saying that your theory that consciousness is localized in other parts of the body is contradicted by this coupled with the fact that only brain damage results in a change in consciousness.
(which requires you to FIND IT first and then say THERE IT IS!)
Is that rhetorical again or are you really being serious when you say that?
You are not demonstrating a scientific way of thinking when you are dismissing things because they are "not necessary" for your own beliefs
It is nothing to do with my own beliefs, we're talking about explaining a phenomena, you don't do that by jumping beyond what is necessary to do that.
In explaining where consciousness is produced there is no need to go beyond the brain given the observations. If you have reason to do that then articulate it.
Consciousness has NOT been found and isolated within the brain
Another rhetorical statement? :rollseyes:
I'm sure this sounds logical to you but due to repeated personal experiences of mine I know for a fact that this interpretation is wrong.
Yeah, yeah I describe what has been observed in countless EEG readings but your personal experiences mean it's just not true. I can't believe you would even utter the word scientific while coming out with this.
Neurons do not fire on their own for no reason.
No they fire because of the charge present in the fluid both inside and outside of the cell membrane.
Neither do you feel a certain way because of random chemical reactions that you can't control.
No you do so because of internal chemical reactions and the influence of external stimuli. They're not random but they are physical in their basis. We know this to be true because we can observe cause and effect in the brain; i.e. we cause a group of neurones to fire and the subject feels a certain way.
There is a conscious effort behind the intention of your thoughts and there is also conscious control of your emotions. They both come BEFORE the thought or emotion, and scientists cannot tell you what the determining mechanism is in which thought you will think or which emotion you will feel.
That's not totally true but it's irrelevant because, again, the mechanism is not the same as the location, and I am arguing the location.
We don't know exactly how every process works but we can see, as above through cause and effect, that it is happening because of something that the physical brain is doing. An experiment to determine this might go, present a mouse with choice while monitoring the activity of the neurons in its brain. After the mouse has completed its task (made a choice) lesion those areas that show activity and again present the mouse with the choice. If those areas are involved with that activity then the mouse will not be able to make a choice (which is what we see) but if it comes from somewhere other than the brain then that ability should not be impeded.
You could argue this antenna theory but it's up to you to articulate if not demonstrate what evidence or reasoning there is to suggest that this must be the case.
I posted above showing
(1) that your brain has information-processing neurons in it and responds to a number of different kinds of stimuli in that regard (hormonal, EM, pressure wave, etc.),
(2) that it does things independently of the brain and even influences brain functions and the frequency of the alpha brainwave (which is mostly what you "think" with in the first place -- thus being subject to your emotions, which only makes too much sense -- thinking follows emotions for most people, most of the time), and
(3) the heart and its health are intrinsically related to the experience of emotions, as demonstrated by the fact that people who are habitually stressed, depressed, angry, or otherwise in a "bad mood" have heart failures, while people who are in positive moods and have great heart-mind synchronization have less heart failures.
And it should be self-obvious and not even requiring any scientific study that
(4) you experience the sensation of emotions coming almost exclusively from your chest area, right where your heart is. There is nothing to suggest your brain invents this and places the sensation arbitrarily over your chest
Originally posted by Mike_A
you're ignoring most of what I say
and have been nothing but rude and condescending since your third reply to me (no excuse for me to stoop to that level as well and I'm ashamed I did).
Originally posted by emsed1
Consciousness is both separate and biological.
Man is the only creature with self-awareness, free-will and an understanding of the passing of time.
Your purpose here is simple. You exist to learn moral and ethical lessons, experience good and evil, and to love and serve your fellow humans.
Death is an ending only in a biological sense. The consciousness survives with full awareness of personality and memory.
Life is for living! Enjoy it! :-)
Originally posted by Mike_A
I don't see anything that isn't from heartmath.
There's no point in arguing this any more because you are basing everything off sources that just get it wrong
to go through it all would be an exercise in futility.
It would be like trying to disprove the notion that my right testicle has a pleasing baritone, you're just not going to find anything to contradict that, but it doesn't make it true.
But other than that you're placing significance on insignificant things, like the fact that the state of heart has an affect on what you consciously experience, so does the temperature of the hand, but has nothing to do with where this conscious experience is produced.
Elsewhere you're just making things up, like when you said “I want to see empirical studies that conclude heart attacks only affect neurology within the brain” as though I had said said anything of the sort.
And you seem to be under the impression that I have been saying that the brain spontaneously generates arbitrary feelings independent of information it receives from the rest of the body. I am not. Of course what we consciously experience depends on stimuli received from outside of the brain but does not mean that the sensory input is the source of the consciousness as demonstrated by the fact that we can and do receive and process much information unconsciously.
Additionally your also appear to be confusing the ability to process information with consciousness, reflex arcs and fixed action patterns process stimulus information but are not conscientious processes.
And by the way you got your logical fallacy wrong too, an argument ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious; it would not be fallacious for example to point out that someone taking the witness stand is a pathological liar.
Just as it is not fallacious to point out that a person presenting something as a scientific fact actually has no qualification backing these facts up
neither is it fallacious to point out that a body presenting scientific facts has a track record of bad experimental procedures and has a vested interest in advancing particular arguments.
Do you have references to any scientific studies that say your right testicle "has a pleasing baritone"?
But other than that you're placing significance on insignificant things, like the fact that the state of heart has an affect on what you consciously experience, so does the temperature of the hand, but has nothing to do with where this conscious experience is produced.
Prove it. Speaking of making things up, I want to see actual scientific sources for this, too.
Elsewhere you're just making things up, like when you said “I want to see empirical studies that conclude heart attacks only affect neurology within the brain” as though I had said said anything of the sort.
You keep saying a heart attack does not affect consciousness because the experience of being conscious only arises from the brain. You never proved (a) a heart attack does not affect consciousness or (b) that the sensation of consciousness is produced solely by the brain.
I never said sensory input is the source of consciousness.
The fact that your brain processes information unconsciously should send the message to you that simple neurons firing and etc. are NOT the cause of the sensation of conscious awareness.
If your heart processes information with neuron activity, and your brain processes information with neuron activity, why MUST you assume no matter what that when the brain does it, it can somehow create consciousness but when the heart does it, no such thing can occur?
The only track record here is of people skeptical to this information plugging their ears and calling names and making negative insinuations about people instead of the evidence itself.