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.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Serdgiam
Because the cardiac muscle is myogenic, meaning it has the property of being able to contract rhythmically independent of any nerve supply. So the autonomic nervous system modifies the speed of the heart beat but the heart can actually be removed from an animal and continue beating. Isotonic solution/saline is basically sodium chloride that is isotonic to body fluids, and is therefore able to maintain living tissue temporarily. It contains the same concentration of ios as blood and the cells of the body.
Source(s):
Cardiac Nurse
Do you have an actual source? I would love to see a test where the heart was able to beat an infinite amount of time outside of the source of its oscillations!
I have never denied the heart will continue beating. In fact, that is expected according to capacitance
Just to clarify, your "cardiac nurse" and myself are saying the same thing. Just like a capacitor in a stereo system will continue to hold a charge when the power source is cut. At least, for a time.edit on 11-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by 1nf1del
That is definitely an interesting site and I think makes a point that I didnt mention; that while the heart is not independent, neither are the systems that are connected to it!
The heart cant survive without the brain any more than the brain can survive without the heart. The co-dependence and balance within our bodies is a truly impressive thing. They can last for a brief time apart, but it sure doesnt last long. If any of it was truly independent, the individual systems would be able to operate without flaw and indefinitely with zero external stimuli (which I have never seen).
Again, completely willing to admit I am wrong if there has been a case where the heart (or brain!) was able to function without its supporting systems, for more than even a week much less months or years.
Glad to see the clash didnt carry over
edit: BLAST!!! off topic again!!! I just cant fight the flow!!!edit on 11-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Serdgiam
edit: BLAST!!! off topic again!!! I just cant fight the flow!!!edit on 11-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Serdgiam
The heart cant survive without the brain any more than the brain can survive without the heart. The co-dependence and balance within our bodies is a truly impressive thing. They can last for a brief time apart, but it sure doesnt last long. If any of it was truly independent, the individual systems would be able to operate without flaw and indefinitely with zero external stimuli (which I have never seen).
Again, completely willing to admit I am wrong if there has been a case where the heart (or brain!) was able to function without its supporting systems, for more than even a week much less months or years.
Glad to see the clash didnt carry over
edit: BLAST!!! off topic again!!! I just cant fight the flow!!!edit on 11-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Angle
Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but I'm fairly certain that enlightenment isn't as simple as finding clever quotes on the internet. I begin to suspect you are nothing short of a dreamy fool. I am one too, but more dreamy and less fool.
May the fire reach your guilt AfterInfinity. You owe me a $1000 if you don't get what I mean within 3 days. Thx a lot for the money..
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I did not say the heart can survive without a system. I am and have been saying that the heart beats itself. The brain is not making the heart beat. I have provided information for you to view in accordance with this.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I did not say the heart can survive without a system. I am and have been saying that the heart beats itself. The brain is not making the heart beat. I have provided information for you to view in accordance with this.
I knew what you have been saying all along You specifically used the word "independent" though, which nothing truly is. The heart beats itself in much the same way a CD player utilizes the energy from the power source. It does not do it independently though. If that power source is never connected, the CD/heart will never play.. I would guess that you have heard the word co-dependence in this field of matters (enlightenment, religion, etc). Usually "arising" works its way in there too.
In much the same way as 1nf1del and I have been interacting in another thread, you made a point with specific words that do not necessarily apply in my perspective (which, no matter your beliefs, is just as valid as anyone elses) even though the overall concept was reasonably sound. I just clarified according to my own perspective, which was then turned into a battle. This was done to show the discrepancies than can arise from two different fingers pointing to the same moon. Even when they are pointing to the same thing, our perspectives can outright disagree. This is the same for enlightenment (and every conversation or sharing of perspectives). It isnt a matter of which perspective is right, it is a matter of them both inherently co-existing.
1nf1del, do you see what I have been pointing to for the entire time in our other conversation? It may perhaps be clearer when it happens in a conversation which you are not necessarily taking part.edit on 12-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by 1nf1del
It is an overarching point that applies to both threads, and applies to both you and Itisnowagain equally (as well as myself).
I do not see the desire for growth in Itisnowagain like I see in you though. The possibility for us all to learn from each other on the same topic is there to be had, as long as we understand we are all coming at it from our own perspective.
In the differences and the discrepancies, we start to see how large the canvas we are all painting on truly is.edit on 12-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 1nf1del
That is kind of you to say, I respect you as well for keeping it civil, and I apologize if I came off as an ass last night as I've got issues going on in my personal life that I try not to let carry over to forums but sometimes it happens!
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Angle
Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but I'm fairly certain that enlightenment isn't as simple as finding clever quotes on the internet. I begin to suspect you are nothing short of a dreamy fool. I am one too, but more dreamy and less fool.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
In much the same way as 1nf1del and I have been interacting in another thread, you made a point with specific words that do not necessarily apply in my perspective (which, no matter your beliefs, is just as valid as anyone elses) even though the overall concept was reasonably sound. I just clarified according to my own perspective, which was then turned into a battle. This was done to show the discrepancies than can arise from two different fingers pointing to the same moon. Even when they are pointing to the same thing, our perspectives can outright disagree. This is the same for enlightenment (and every conversation or sharing of perspectives). It isnt a matter of which perspective is right, it is a matter of them both inherently co-existing.