It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mike_A
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.
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?!
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.
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?
You are asking me to show with biological evidence that consciousness can reside in the heart. According to what I myself have been saying this would be impossible.
Edit – From what I understand these theories, as they relate to consciousness, still rely on the unique structure of the brain and processes there in to explain the phenomena and don’t posit that everything is conscious.
With regard to the holographic universe theory, it seems to me that this would still not suggest that consciousness is produced or experienced outside of the brain, merely that what we call the brain is not what we think of it as.
because it would be an expression of the implicate order as would consciousness.
The fact that NDE's occur seems to prove that conciousness can exist externally of any biology. Also, "ghosts" are really nothing more than a conciousness free to roam the world after it's body's death.
Originally posted by Chonx
I can see where you are coming from there Mike but I would say that the brain (in this model) does not so much produce consciousness as acts as a vector for it's emergence.
Originally posted by Mike_A
You now have my own arguments plus five links that corroborate what I have said
where is the evidence that supports your views on consciousness?
Just answer this question, did you read the papers I provided?