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 most important question I can ask.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
(cont.)


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.


I should point out that the science indicated in the above links is recent science and the idea that the neurons in the heart and gut are of no consequence except for motor control is becoming increasingly outdated. 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. They are in direct communication with your brain and what they have to "say" is not simply to move this or that muscle, and neither is your brain the only place in your body where you can center your conscious awareness.


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.


Hopefully the pages I just referenced above can help you see the difference between neurons in the heart and neurons in the thumb, but if they can't then we can move on to additional scientific sources. It will be the first time in our conversation that either one of us has actually began linking to scientific articles to validate what one of us is saying.


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?


In the case of the heart it's posted above. You are ASSUMING they have nothing to do with consciousness based on your pre-conceived beliefs that we are still arguing over. You have no scientific evidence to suggest they are not conscious, only bias carried over from other assumptions you have already made. And again if you would be so interested and to begin meditating and doing body awareness exercises and learning to center your awareness in other parts of your body you would be able to discern this stuff without NEED for someone else's scientific evidence. It is in YOUR body.



No, I did not say consciousness was a physical thing.


See above.


Please, stop trying to TELL ME what I am saying or what I believe. That is not "communication," that is gestapo-like enforcement of YOUR views. I mean what I say and say what I mean. You are reading way too much between my words that isn't there, and trust me there are huge gaps that you are filling in completely wrong. One of which is repeatedly telling me that I am saying consciousness is a physical thing or results from a physical reaction. Buddy, I am not saying that, that is what a MATERIALIST believes. When I ask you questions that suggest that, I am being RHETORICAL. Maybe that is where the misunderstanding is coming from and you need to understand what rhetoric is first?




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.


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. Maybe we should discuss what constitutes scientific evidence while we are at it so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves?


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.


en.wikipedia.org...


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?


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)?


I don't believe for a second that having a heart attack would not affect your consciousness. To test that experimentally you would first have to have someone who is aware of the sensations their heart is responsible for, and then they would have to have a heart attack. If you actually conducted such an experiment I assure you the person would experience an effect.


Even if you introduce the idea that the brain is an antenna (an unnecessary step)


You are not demonstrating a scientific way of thinking when you are dismissing things because they are "not necessary" for your own beliefs, when your own beliefs haven't been proven scientifically to begin with. You are just repeatedly bull-dozing over a logical consideration with pre-conceptions. We both have just as much scientific evidence going for either of our theories. Neither of them have been proven. Consciousness has NOT been found and isolated within the brain, yet you keep talking like it has just because messing up your brain messes up your experience of it. And that does NOT contradict what I am saying, either!! Your whole case is baseless. Again, you have as much scientific evidence as I do at this point. Though at least I am honest about it.


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.


Yeah, so what? It doesn't mean your brain is making consciousness.


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.


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. That would require isolating consciousness, again, which has not been done.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by bsbray11]




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

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.


The OP's question isn't settled anywhere in the Bible so far as I can discern. You're just taking the opportunity to plug your religion without being relevant to the topic?


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.


I abandoned Christianity for a number of reasons, the most critical of which is the assertion that an "infinitely loving" and "infinitely powerful" God will allow you to burn in Hell forever and do nothing about it simply because you didn't believe in him or his "son." That is the most blatant form of fear-based spiritual blackmail to subscribe to your religion that after being raised Christian, and after having thought about the implications of this philosophy, I had to decide it was just a control mechanism for society and not true spirituality at all. And lo and behold, the more research I do into Christianity and its history, the more validation I find. Everything from the Crusades to the Inquisition to what the Catholic Church is still doing today. And just because other sects of Christianity broke away later does not make their philosophy or teachings any more valuable, especially when they keep the same blackmail baggage of "hell" and the Boogey Man and the rest of it.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
To me, step one is to find a purpose in life. This can be a hard nut to crack. If you have found this, life will become a little less unhappy or a little more happy and will you have...something to live for.

And sometimes you just have to accept that concrete answers are not available and must you find peace and quiet in your heart by just letting go.....let go of the need to have everything under control.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



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.


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.


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


What awareness? Give me concrete examples.


change in consciousness, whether you are aware of it or not.


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.

So basically this all boils down to what you say being right and everyone else being wrong.


They don't have to be to fire electrical signals across them and process information in a complex way.


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.


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.


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!

For example, take a look at the assertion that the heart beats before the brain develops. This doesn't even understand how the heart or nervous system works; the heart beats because of tissue that is capable of generating its own action potentials (chemical reactions that cause the muscle tissue to contract or in the case of other neurons to release neurotransmitters). It is completely irrelevant to the idea that the heart informs any aspect of consciousness.

Or take the next line;

“There are at least forty thousand neurons (nerve cells) in the heart – as many as are found in various subcortical centers of the brain.”

Which means absolutely nothing because the neurons in the heart are not the same as neurons found in sub-cortical centres of the brain.

The whole heart intelligence seems to be a misunderstanding of the peripheral feedback and cognition plus feedback theories of emotion. This is also the basis of your misunderstanding of the second quoted passage. It has nothing to do with consciousness.


I should point out that the science indicated in the above links is recent science


It's not science it's a couple of quacks, selling their oils misinterpreting what they've read in New Scientist!


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


Sure you can tell me that because I never said that. I said afferent and efferent neurons are for motor control and relaying sensory information which is why you can feel what your heart and gut.

And you criticize me for not reading your posts! Or maybe you're just selective.


You are ASSUMING they have nothing to do with consciousness based on your pre-conceived beliefs that we are still arguing over.


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.

I am open to the possibility of what you are saying but it still has no evidence to support it, it is redundant and is not consistent with what is observed.


(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?

(Continued below)



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
(Continued from above)


I don't believe for a second that having a heart attack would not affect your consciousness.


Really, are you being serious? Read what I wrote again;

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.

Here is another illustrative example, somebody undergoing open heart surgery while under local anaesthetic experiences no change in consciousness despite receiving no sensory input from the heart; this is true even when the heart is stopped and function is taken over by a cardiopulmonary bypass machine.

As I said above, this is not consistent with what you claim.


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.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

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.


Why do you feel like you have to keep telling me what I believe?

The reason science can't figure out what it's "made of" is because it's "made of" nothing, it's immaterial, and thus it is a RHETORICAL QUESTION when I ask you what it's "made of," and NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE that it's a physical thing.

Do you think I'm LYING to you when I simply state what I believe? What do I have to gain by lying to you about my own damned beliefs?


Nor am I telling you what you believe, just what you are writing.


I wrote the above, too. And I'm the one who writes it every time I correct you putting words in my mouth.


You say the brain produces consciousness. Well the brain is a physical thing. So therefore it must be making consciousness on some physical principle, with physical interactions. Even chemical processes are physical, though they are not physical objects they still happen in the physical world. So yes, you are saying consciousness is a physical thing in the fact that it is a result of physical processes. But you can't say which ones or how it happens. Because you have no actual evidence of this.



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 have ignored my responses throughout this entire thread. Which is typical really and I see it on ATS every day but to say I have been ignoring you is asinine when you consider I have responded to your posts every single time saying the exact same thing, that you are mis-interpreting me. Rather than reconsider what I'm saying you just keep telling me what I'm saying. You might as well be talking to yourself, right?



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.


Saying the physical brain produces consciousness (as you are) IS treating consciousness like a physical thing or more accurately physical interactions.

You tried to support your argument by saying grasping and spitting aren't physical things but they really ARE physical things, in that they are also physical interactions, and we completely understand them already in terms of physical reactions except where consciousness itself is involved with directing them.

If you really want to equate consciousness and spitting, where are the equivalent of muscle contractions, inhalation, exhalation, and excreting saliva to produce consciousness? Those are physical things. You are saying the brain makes consciousness, no? Then it must do it physically, or else how are you saying the brain does 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.


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.


A lot of animals do not appear to be able to recognize themselves as a being separate from its environment. Are these animals not conscious?

If you say that they are conscious, then you have to admit there is a difference between an animal consciousness that doesn't realize itself as a being separate from its environment, and human consciousness which does. Which means there are different kinds of consciousness we are talking about. When you say the heart isn't conscious you must be talking about being able to go inside of your heart and say "now 'I' am 'heart'" like you do with your brain, you go within your thoughts and think "now 'I' am 'brain.'" Your ability to ration is not what consciousness is. There are different forms of it because it is conditioned by your biology. We can both agree that consciousness is conditioned by biology. The kind of consciousness in other parts of your body does not have to be, and can't be expected to be, the same as in your brain.




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.


Sorry but I already explained this so I'll just repost my explanation:


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?


And the answer has now been revealed as: You will keep repeating that you have proven something while you have not.


I have to wonder if you're just in auto-pilot mode when you respond or if you really can't comprehend what I just had to re-post.


What awareness? Give me concrete examples.


You can feel your heart right now. And your gut. Or at least I can. If you can't accept direct neurological, experiential evidence from your own body then even if I make any point to you at all you are still hopeless.


This is just getting tedious, this sentence shows conclusively that you haven't the faintest idea what consciousness actually is.


Ditto my materialist brother.



What evidence do I have for this? Personal experience.


Great, evidence that conveniently doesn't allow you to actually produce it.


Whether or not it's produced depends on whether or not you are willing to explore meditation and the feelings that are constantly sent to your overly-analytical brain by your entire body. I'm sure you even draw awareness into your heart or gut when you are feeling certain emotions but you probably don't even think about it or realize it when it happens. So just pay attention next time you are depressed and see where in your body that "sinking feeling" occurs and ask yourself why don't you feel it all in your head instead?



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.


You don't know what you're talking about. All the neurons in your brain do is "fire or not fire and at different rates."
The difference is the patterns and networks in which they are linked up and how complex the interaction between them is. That is really the only difference I can see. The number of neurons in your brain, heart, spine, and gut are concentrations of neurons that are NOT typical of your entire body. One of the links I gave you stated that the heart has just as many neurons as certain parts of the brain itself. What do you think is the functional purpose of such a mass of neurons in the heart?


Utter nonsense, that's it, it's just … rubbish.


That's all you can really say when you are faced with something you can't debunk yet you want to debunk it anyway, huh? You have such an emotional ionization towards having to dispel all this stuff but for what reason I can't see. You haven't posted a single damned scientific article proving consciousness is isolated within the brain, and you must be a fool if you think repeating the same fallacy to me over and over again (that brain damage proves the brain makes consciousness) is going to make it suddenly make sense. All that brain damage means is that your brain can no longer amplify and condition consciousness the way it was designed to. It doesn't prove that the brain isn't acting as an antenna. I already explained this but you are too important to think about it I guess.



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!


Yeah, it made it all up because it's selling oils.



Well damn, you're going to have to make a lot more excuses for all of these other sources I'm going to start pulling now.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
so how come a person can remain alive if he or she is brain dead

but can't remain alive if the heart isn't working?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

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.


Let me stop here to suggest to you that this is a little more complicated than just 'fire or don't fire'.
Of course your simplistic explanation of neuron activity also applied to the brain itself (in which the neurons ultimately either "fire or don't fire," though the entire network and interaction is also obviously much more complicated than your simple explanation.


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.


I should also point out the obvious to you, just so you don't completely ignore it (like you probably will ANYWAY) that this is more than just a motor reflex.

Just to re-iterate, this is MUCH MORE THAN A MOTOR REFLEX.


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.


Did you get that last sentence? This is a real scientist btw, so he is no doubt talking real science and I will even start posting technical papers here in a second so put your thinking cap on.


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.


www.heartmath.org...



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.


This debunks your claim that the heart and other areas only have afferent and efferent neurons. They also have "interneurons" that process incoming signals before they are outbound again. They are not simple motor reflexes. If you are going to argue with this please post another source that explains how the heart does not affect the incoming and outgoing signals with the interneurons.

Again this is what you said:


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.


And again:


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.




The following explains the above diagram:


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.


Do you see where it explicitly states the heart processes neurological information and is in direct neural communication with the brain?


Just wait, even more direct refutation on the way. I really want to see sources from you if you want to argue with this stuff too, not just more of your tired and outdated opinion that makes the brain the conscious center of everything in the body to the exclusion of all else.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
The brain is the source of, memory via, brain cells, a scientific observation.. Everything else is speculation. With all due respect to the op and the theme it follows, nothing else can be proven. It is to be based on ones religious beleifs after that until we can prove it otherwise....

Until we start applying scientific methods to these beleifs nothing but the heart and soul of the one preaching about what they belive exist. No disrespect. That is what makes us special. Above all else we just were'nt born knowing or understanding it. Perhaps one day we will have the facts, until then thank you for the idea's.... i hope the op has read some of these great idea's on this thread as I...



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


You mentioned heart attacks earlier,


“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.


I want to see empirical studies that conclude heart attacks only affect neurology within the brain, because it is obvious to me that it would not affect only the brain. Again your bias is just bull-dozing over everything before you even stop to think about this. You are ASSUMING the only reason there is a change in consciousness during a heart attack is because oxygen is cut off, and yes that would definitely have an affect. But to say it is the ONLY REASON is an assumption that you are totally making up and pushing as a fact when you have present 0 evidence to support it. Again, this is your bias making total assumptions in the lack of either data or experience.

But here is more information relating to the brain, heart, and heart attacks, illustrating the demonstrable neurological relationship between feelings/emotions and the heart:


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)


www.heartmath.org...


Why is there such a strong relationship between emotions and the heart if the heart is not a conscious "emotional center" as I have been saying?

Why are there neurons in the heart that process information based on things such as hormone releases in the body (which are in themselves known to be associated with emotions)?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Head-Heart Interactions



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.



So we are talking not about brain dominance over the whole body, like the brain is the seat of conscious thought and everything else in your body just reacts mechanically. We have already established that there are neurons in the heart that process information, not just carry on a motor reflex, as you asserted without evidence. Now we are looking at the ways in which the heart exerts influence over the brain, not just the brain exerting influence over the heart. As mentioned before by a scientist, the neurological system in the body is a parallel system which if you are familiar with electrical engineering means that processes are ongoing simultaneously and independently within different parts of the neurological "circuit," as opposed to a "simple circuit" where the brain commands everything directly and is the sole feature of conscious decision-making.



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.


Let me stop here to point out that the article is talking about "intentionally altering one's emotional state through heart focus," which in turn alters the brain's functioning. If the brain produces consciousness like you are saying and consciousness is isolated within it, why can't the brain just change its own state without needing emotional coherency from the heart? I guess you will probably just dismiss the whole thing out of hand as "rubbish" again.




This is the EM field of the heart, the most powerful and influential EM field in the entire body, which can be synced up with the brain in special coherency conditions.


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.


And this is NOT the brain simply dominating the heart. It is two-way communication and mutual influence and information processing. The heart has a completely separate and MUCH more powerful EM field.

This is discussed here:


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.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

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!


1) Your insinuation that studies have not shown other parts of the body to influence consciousness (and I wonder if you mean BRAIN WAVES since "consciousness" has NOT BEEN PHYSICALLY MEASURED) is completely wrong. The heart also has demonstrable effect on brainwave patterns as I proved above, and the heart processes its own information and behaves independently of the brain in many regards, and also influences and directs certain functions of the brain.

2) What I am ignoring is your asinine assertion that your brain must produce its own consciousness and nothing else in your body does simply because damaging your brain affects your experience of consciousness. Because I have repeatedly shown you explicitly why this is a logical fallacy, and does not disprove the idea that the brain is an active antenna, but you never address the fact that you haven't disproven anything and simply ignore me when I say this. You will ignore this too. The effects of brain damage are consistent with my theory AND with your theory. That is why arguing like you are debunking me with it is completely ignorant, and continuing to make the same argument over and over without addressing the fact that it doesn't even exclude my theory is even more ignorant.



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).


That does not at all refute what I was saying. But thanks for the definition. You still have not identified the physical processes responsible for it, if the brain is producing such a thing.



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.


If the facts you are posting are consistent with both of our theories, why in the hell do you even think you're making an argument to me in the first place? My theory explains the same thing equally well! What am I supposed to say? "Oh, well my theory explains that as well, but since yours does too, uhhhh, yours must be right"?


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.


The reason brain damage affects the way the brain processes consciousness is because the brain itself has been damaged. It wouldn't make sense for other parts of the body that process consciousness to be affected by a brain injury. I would think that would be the most common of common sense in the world but I guess we are going to spend 10 posts back to back arguing about that as well now.



(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?


If you think the brain physically makes consciousness, then I am dead serious. I DON'T think the brain makes consciousness, I think it simply picks up, amplifies and conditions a natural energy inherent to the universe and that makes the universe experiential in nature. You are saying consciousness is a biological process that is created by the physical brain. So yes, literally, scientists should (according to the consequences of YOUR opinion that the brain makes consciousness) be able to figure out how it PHYSICALLY does it. If it's a process, an interaction, then that is also physical and yes they should be able to find it and say "there it is." If they can't, as I suspect they will NEVER be able to, then it is in fact non-local which means it is inherent to the universe itself.



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.


What you deem "beyond what is necessary" is COMPLETELY dependent upon your own opinion, which is that the brain makes consciousness within itself. That is why you claim what I was saying was not "necessary" in the first place, because you think you are already right and I am already wrong, therefore my theory isn't needed because yours already works. Bullocks. You haven't proven it. What is right or wrong is NOT dependent upon what is simplest.


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.


For one because you have no evidence that the brain actually creates consciousness. That is the only reason I need to give. If you don't have evidence to support your case to begin with you can't tell me basically "I'm right until you prove me wrong by default." Come on man, you know better than that. You STILL haven't proven to me that consciousness is within the brain. And even you admit that both of our theories explain the brain damage crap -- give it a rest and come up with something new. Go find a better paper and post it or something, that shows how the brain makes consciousness and what exactly physically gives rise to it.



Consciousness has NOT been found and isolated within the brain


Another rhetorical statement? :rollseyes:


Are you or are you not arguing that consciousness arises from biology? Biology is PHYSICAL. It is not immaterial stuff, nor are its processes. And don't tell me chemical reactions are concepts and not physical things because that is a load and biologists do not just study concepts.



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.


So far the only one posting EEGs to back up their arguments has been me.

And so far, to my knowledge, the only one of us who practices body awareness exercises and meditation, is me.




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.


That is another very simplistic explanation that ignores, for one thing, the nature of the charges themselves that build up and "fire" within the neurons. If it were that simple then simply standing in a strong EM field from electrical appliances would have dramatic effects upon our thoughts and feelings. Instead, we notice that our CONSCIOUS WILL is what really directs our thoughts and feelings, something that you have yet to isolate as a biological function.



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.


You are ignoring the fact that someone can consciously will their thoughts or feelings to change. They can do this regardless of the surrounding environment, and even overcome other thoughts and feelings to change the way they think and feel. I do this all the time.



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.


You don't even understand the mechanism that creates consciousness so there is no way in hell you can talk to me about the mechanism or even tell me that what I just said was wrong. It baffles me that you don't think you have control over your own thoughts and feelings. I suppose when you go into a restaurant to order something off of the menu, it varies depending on what the chemical soup inside your head is doing that day? Basically you are saying everything you do is at the mercy of uncontrollable interactions within your body, which is a lot of hoo ha. If you can't control your thoughts and feelings that's you, but I can do it, and I can even shut them out completely in meditation, and I am STILL CONSCIOUS. You would say then I haven't really shut them out, but I know when I am thinking and when I am not thinking and I know what the difference is like in my head.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

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.


Just because other areas of the body manifest consciousness does not mean they do the exact same things. Your brain is your faculty of reason. No other part of your body can reason or analyze like your brain can, and it was designed to focus consciousness to doing exactly such a thing.

Your heart is different. If focuses conscious energy onto wider "magnetic" feelings and emotions, and processes THAT information. If you learn to feel your heart, which is as easy as directing your awareness to the part of your chest that is where your heart is, and just "listening" to it in a sensing way, then you WILL feel emotions in your heart. You will realize that the seat of your sensing of emotion is NOT IN YOUR HEAD but in your heart and this is where the sensation of emotions comes from. Not ALL emotions I should say, but nonetheless.

If you further learn to feel your gut, it doesn't have much to "say." It is not very analytical and doesn't do much of anything as dramatic as what your brain or heart do, yet nonetheless you will find occasions where you get a sinking feeling in your gut, or if you are questioning someone and you FEEL they are lying in an intuitive way, that often comes from the gut as well. It is not an accident that the phrase "gut feeling" means what it means. It was not some kind of bizarre coincidence that someone just said that one day and it stuck. Nor is it a figment of your mental faculties simply giving the illusion that your gut is reacting to information that other parts of your body are receiving from the external world. Your heart and gut do actually respond to the sensory information, if only because they actively respond to what passes through your mind and down along your spinal column.


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 want you to do the same. You act like your own opinion is already established fact so you don't have to prove it, but that's nonsense. Consciousness has not been proven to be a result of biological processes of the brain. Biological processes are involved in directing and conditioning consciousness, but there is absolutely 0 evidence to support the idea that your brain completely creates the ability to experience an external world all by itself and nothing else is capable of perceiving and interacting intelligently. Or at least if there is such empirical evidence you have NOT posted it. The only thing you have offered as evidence so far, again, does not exclude either one of our theories. So it established nothing.

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.

You are CONSCIOUS of what your heart is "thinking" when you are conscious of these feelings that are emanating from it. "Thoughts" are the "feelings" of your brain and "feelings" are the "thoughts" of your heart and therein is the difference in the way the neurons of your heart and brain manifest consciousness. They are both sources of consciousness, both inherent to the over-all human experience of consciousness, but they are obviously not exactly the same or serve the same functions and I am not claiming that they are or do. But I have already shown they process information with neurons similar to and independent of the brain.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I'm not wading through that heartmath pseudo-science (it's not a scientific body, it's self help company!), especially when 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).

Here's an article attesting to the scientific incompetence and self serving nature of heartmath written by a genuine scientists from a genuine education establishment.

www.cabrillo.edu...

Their research is bunk and they misquote other's for their own gain.



In parting here is an interesting paper on the brain and consciousness.

www.coma.ulg.ac.be...



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I don't guess you noticed but there are scientific papers embedded within what I just posted, from very credible people, ie a tenured Stanford materials science professor, that have done actual experimental work on the subject.

I'm sorry but you asked for evidence as I gave you tons of it. You are going to have to address it specifically if you want to tell me it's all bunk, not just attack the messenger, which I already explained is a logical fallacy anyway and does nothing to address the information itself.


I wrapped it all up at the end into 4 easy points for you:


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



Like I said, if you have issues with any of that, don't just slander the source, post the proof that it's wrong.

I can post other sources for the fact that the heart has interneurons, and there are already tons of papers addressing the links between negative emotions and heart diseases to demonstrate a physical association between the two.

I didn't type all that crap for you to hand-wave it away.



Originally posted by Mike_A
you're ignoring most of what I say


That is absolutely not true. In my last series of posts I addressed every single thing you posted in your last two posts before this. I guess it's hard to tell when you probably didn't even read all of what I posted anyway, huh?


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).


I'm afraid if I were much nicer to you, you would abuse the privilege by repeating the same fallacies ad infinitum as if it's ok and it's just a ginger disagreement. Posting a logical fallacy is not a matter of a difference of opinion and I will hammer that through to you in whatever tone it takes. I am still waiting on YOUR proof brother. So far by my count it's 1 to 0 if for no other reason than you haven't even tried to validate what you're saying, except through an argument that I have had to repeatedly show you is a blatant fallacy.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
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.

We might as well be talking different languages.


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.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Mike_A]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

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! :-)






he pretty much said it all..ahahaha..



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
I don't see anything that isn't from heartmath.


So what? So far you've only dismissed Heartmath out of hand. That's not a logical argument. You haven't even touched any of the things they say or the scientific studies and scientists and doctors they are referencing, you have only slandered them as an organization twice.


There's no point in arguing this any more because you are basing everything off sources that just get it wrong


You mean like claiming the heart doesn't have interneurons when it in fact does? Or claiming the heart has nothing to do with emotions when evidence in the scientific studies above suggests emotions are directly and physically related to your heart's function?


to go through it all would be an exercise in futility.


What is futile is simply telling me I am wrong without giving me evidence when I am posting evidence for you to read. And you are not even reading it or considering it. You are just dismissing it out of hand because you don't WANT to believe it because your mind is already made up, that's how you entered this discussion, and that's how you'll leave it no matter what.


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.


Do you have references to any scientific studies that say your right testicle "has a pleasing baritone"? Remember that even though you are slandering Heartmath, they still have people like Stanford engineering professors and doctors from various institutions backing the research they are basing their claims on. The reason you don't have any contradictory studies is because there is nothing to contradict these studies. The only thing that contradicts them is your opinion that the brain makes consciousness.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


In this case we are talking about actual scientific studies that involve real professionals and not just a bunch of pathological liars. Calling them pathological liars without proof is also fallacious. I might as well just call you biased to the point of refusing any kind of evidence whatsoever and just base my entire argument with you off of that. So I hope to see some actual science refuting these various peoples' work from you.


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


So would you like to compare your own qualifications to some of the authors of the studies HeartMath references? Or maybe compare them with the qualifications of the authors of contradictory scientific studies you can produce here?


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.


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. I am seeing it here right now. I need no further proof that this is happening. When you can't debunk scientific studies with other scientific studies or even with deductive reasoning that is based on other scientific studies then you just start making things up about the people who wrote the reports and making all kinds of nonsense up about 'vested interests' which is based on nothing but your unhappiness to see something which you can't otherwise contradict.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
You’re not posting evidence you are posting quackery from a self help group with a track record of bad science, not a scientific body.

For example on the first page they claim that Dr Armour has found that the heart can “learn, remember, and even feel and sense” but I can’t find any reference to this in any of his work and they don’t provide a proper reference for anyone to get this information. Just writing it on their site doesn’t make it true.

Another from just the first page of their “science” of the heart section.

“Thus, under normal physiological conditions, the heart’s intrinsic nervous system plays an important role in much of the routine control of cardiac function, independent of the central nervous system.”

This is just not true. The central nervous system consists of the brain and spinal cord with interneurons being found only in this system; though axons can extend beyond the spinal cord the soma remains.

www.emc.maricopa.edu...

If you read Dr Armour’s piece on the “heart brain” he does not contradict this;

ccjm.highwire.org...

Thus to say that the heart operates independent of the central nervous system is just not true. Just as it is wrong to state that there are interneuron’s in the heart; what you fail to understand is that an being part of an intrinsic nervous system does not mean all the neurons are localised in the organ in question. As I have said earlier, a polysynaptic reflex arc that involves the foot shares a similar layout but interneurons are still located in the central nervous system.


Do you have references to any scientific studies that say your right testicle "has a pleasing baritone"?


Do you have any references to any scientific studies that have found that the heart can learn and remember? No actually you don’t, you have a self help group that makes second hand claims without proper references. That’s not good enough.

You make no logical arguments of your own, if you want to talk about logical fallacies how about appeal to authority? “They’ve got a nice website so they must be correct”.



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.


You want a scientific paper saying that the temperature of your hand affects what you consciously experience?!

Go and stick your hand in a pan of boiler water, you’ll soon come around to my way of thinking.



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.


But I never said that a heart attack only affects neurology within the brain as you claimed, you keep making things up.

And I did give evidence suggesting (I would never say proved) that a heart attack does not affect the consciousness (I am here referring to the production of the conscious experience, not what is experiences); I gave examples of surgery that interrupts operation of the heart, in some cases stopping it completely along with its ability to communicate with the brain while the patient remains conscious showing no signs of change in their ability to consciously experience. Here’s a reference to one such surgery if you don’t believe it happens.

www.scribd.com...


I never said sensory input is the source of consciousness.


So what have you presented, even in the heartmath stuff, that suggests the heart is conscious or that consciousness is produced by the heart?

Even if we took it all as true all it says is that the heart affects what is experienced which is something I, in general, would not disagree with but this is a very different thing to actually producing that state of conscious awareness.

I mean you post about entrainment as though it helps your case but even what heartmath claims does not suggest the same thing you do. For example they talk about the hearts EM field affecting brainwaves (dubious in my opinion but we’re now in the realm of the hypothetical) but this still demonstrates a change only following modification of brain activity. The point being a change in brain activity independent of the activity of the heart would produce results whereas a change in heart activity does not and must be followed by a change in the brain. Even assuming the heart causes the change in the brain, and that this change directly affects conscious awareness this does not point to the heart being the source of this consciousness just because it is the first in the chain. Read up on entrainment, an external stimulus can (reportedly) do the same thing. Another example, if I stub my toe on a rock, the rock cannot be said to be what produces my conscious experience.

Even heartmath does not suggest that conscious experience is possible independent of the brain.

Incidentally I’ve just come across this gem in your earlier post;


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.


Why? Neurons do many different things depending on their specific type, how they interact with other neurons, etc. Only if every neuron was the same and orientated in the same way could what you say be correct.

That’s like saying simple neurons firing don’t explain why my hand moves in response to a hot flame because not all neurons cause my hand to jerk.


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?


Because the heart can be taken out of the equation without affecting the ability to consciously experience. I gave an example of this above.

If the heart produced consciousness then this could not be the case, once the heart was sedated or even disconnected consciousness would stop as is the case if particular areas of the brain are sedated or removed.


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.


lol I posted a review of their research methods earlier, I didn’t just make it up. They do have a track record of very bad methodology.

But as above, let’s just pretend that everything you posted from them is totally correct, how does it prove or even logically suggest that the assertion that the heart produces or is itself conscious is correct?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join