2
   

The seat of consciousness

 
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 08:58 pm
I came across this little nugget the other day,

"The heart is the most powerful generator of electromagnetic energy in the human body, producing the largest rhythmic electromagnetic field of any of the body's organs. The heart's electrical field is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the electrical activity generated by the brain. This field, measured in the form of an electrocardiogram (ECG), can be detected anywhere on the surface of the body. Furthermore, the magnetic field produced by the heart is more than 5,000 times greater in strength than the field generated by the brain, and can be detected a number of feet away from the body, in all directions, using SQUID-based magnetometers."

And it got me wondering. So far science has been able to demonstrate what areas of the brain are affected by thought and emotion but not where thought and emotion originate.

If the Self is energy and the Heart is the generator of the body, then wouldn't the seat of consciousness be in the heart rather than the brain?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 5,721 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 09:11 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;151623 wrote:
I came across this little nugget the other day,

"The heart is the most powerful generator of electromagnetic energy in the human body, producing the largest rhythmic electromagnetic field of any of the body's organs. The heart's electrical field is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the electrical activity generated by the brain. This field, measured in the form of an electrocardiogram (ECG), can be detected anywhere on the surface of the body. Furthermore, the magnetic field produced by the heart is more than 5,000 times greater in strength than the field generated by the brain, and can be detected a number of feet away from the body, in all directions, using SQUID-based magnetometers."

And it got me wondering. So far science has been able to demonstrate what areas of the brain are affected by thought and emotion but not where thought and emotion originate.

If the Self is energy and the Heart is the generator of the body, then wouldn't the seat of consciousness be in the heart rather than the brain?
I do belive the heart is part of the CNS, which controls us in various ways, recent research has unvield that the heart does indeed contain memory cells, and countless heart transplant people has witnessed that either they got memory loss, or gained new memory of specially food.

Researchers Find Almost Half with Heart Failure Also Have Memory, Cognitive Problems

Besides, the heart is pat of the autonom system, and the heart will continually pump even after being released from the body, ofcause untill it runs out of "steam" so to speak.
0 Replies
 
sarek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 06:29 am
@trismegisto,
Its not difficult to find an explanation why serious heart problems can lead to cognitive problem. Brains cells are very fragile and starving them of oxygen is bound to lead to trouble.

As for the seat of consciousness. Assuming that is is centred 'somewhere' is unwarranted reductionism.
I believe consciousness to be an emergent property of the complex neuronal interactions in the brain. So its not a thing, its a process.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 06:38 am
@trismegisto,
That the heart produces more of an electrical field than <this> or <that> doesn't mean anything other than it produces more of an electrical field. Its the same kind of logic that might allow me to postulate: Since my stomach supposedly digests food, and it makes noise doing so, does that mean my trumpet (that makes much louder noises) can digest more food?

Ok, perhaps a bad example, but you get the picture. I was; however, rather piqued by the information of the heart's energy consumption/output - always nice to learn something I didn't know.

Thanks
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 06:50 am
@Khethil,
Strange as it sounds sometimes my body feels as though it is part of my consciousness. I can feel my whole body and its attachment to my brain, can you distinguish your consciousness from your body? I know the calculations and all the other necessary office work is done in my brain but my brain is not me, it only represents me. I could be just visiting and taking advantage of whats available, what is essential for life.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 07:03 am
@xris,
xris;151766 wrote:
Strange as it sounds sometimes my body feels as though it is part of my consciousness. I can feel my whole body and its attachment to my brain, can you distinguish your consciousness from your body? I know the calculations and all the other necessary office work is done in my brain but my brain is not me, it only represents me. I could be just visiting and taking advantage of whats available, what is essential for life.


I could see that.

I believe our consciousnesses are contained in our brain. But since they are so interconnected with the rest of our physical being; and are constantly 'wired-in', so to speak. In that light - functionally - I could see their presence and input as being part of the overall 'consciousness experience'. To my mind; however, we'd need to be careful going down this road of logic. Because the hip is connected to the thigh-bone, and they work together, does not mean we can therefore call the thigh-bone "really a hip, too". Does that make sense?

I suppose this gets into component identification to the various aspects of consciousness (and yea, I realize this is iffy-ground, given the difficulty in nailing-down just where consciousness resides, physically). Remove my sight, and visual imprinting will wane as a method in which my memories are stored (and likely the same result with any other of the senses). Remove them all (including all sensory input from the body), and where stands consciousness? Hmm...

Good point Xris, thanks
0 Replies
 
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 04:53 pm
@sarek,
sarek;151762 wrote:
Its not difficult to find an explanation why serious heart problems can lead to cognitive problem. Brains cells are very fragile and starving them of oxygen is bound to lead to trouble.

As for the seat of consciousness. Assuming that is is centred 'somewhere' is unwarranted reductionism.
I believe consciousness to be an emergent property of the complex neuronal interactions in the brain. So its not a thing, its a process.


You are still suggesting that the process is seated in the brain. This clearly isn't the case as far as neurocardiology has been able to demonstrate.

Which is kinda the reason for this thread.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 03:57 PM ----------

Khethil;151764 wrote:
That the heart produces more of an electrical field than <this> or <that> doesn't mean anything other than it produces more of an electrical field. Its the same kind of logic that might allow me to postulate: Since my stomach supposedly digests food, and it makes noise doing so, does that mean my trumpet (that makes much louder noises) can digest more food?

Ok, perhaps a bad example, but you get the picture. I was; however, rather piqued by the information of the heart's energy consumption/output - always nice to learn something I didn't know.

Thanks


The point is that these electrical fields from the heart directly influence how the brain processes information. Science has not thought this to be true for thousands of years.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 04:35 PM ----------

xris;151766 wrote:
Strange as it sounds sometimes my body feels as though it is part of my consciousness. I can feel my whole body and its attachment to my brain, can you distinguish your consciousness from your body? I know the calculations and all the other necessary office work is done in my brain but my brain is not me, it only represents me. I could be just visiting and taking advantage of whats available, what is essential for life.


I am going to think more about this. My gut reaction that the Self is distinguishable from consciousness and that consciousness is just the realization of the Self through the body.
Reconstructo
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 06:14 pm
@trismegisto,
Consciousness is an extremely tricky concept. What is it? Is it an "it"? In my opinion, the mind-matter duality isn't logically cohesive, although it does have a certain utility.

What is Being apart from all beings? Is this notion equivalent to consciousness? I suspect that "consciousness" and "being" are high-level abstractions, not unlike numbers. And the "self" too is another such abstraction. Wittgenstein 's line seems potent to me. "The self is the limit of the world." And consciousness is a synonym for experience?

And yet I see the problem. If a person watches us sleep, it's easy for them to see us as matter devoid of consciousness. Whether we are truly unconsciousness is not so easy to say, for all this depends on memory, and we often forget our dreams.
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 06:38 pm
@trismegisto,
It feels to me that when I think, it's happening in the brain. Somewhere behind the eyes. But supposedly the ancients thought that thought came from somewhere else like the heart (hence the Egyptians not caring to put the brain in on of their canopic (?) jars). How would that happen? I can't even imagine feeling like my thinking was being done in the heart.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 06:52 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;152053 wrote:
It feels to me that when I think, it's happening in the brain. Somewhere behind the eyes. But supposedly the ancients thought that thought came from somewhere else like the heart (hence the Egyptians not caring to put the brain in on of their canopic (?) jars). How would that happen? I can't even imagine feeling like my thinking was being done in the heart.
That is concious thoughts, what about the subconcious thoughts, such as instincts?

Thing is, I belive it has a practical use, from the time when dinosaurs dindn't have the biggest brain around, and the CNS had to account for most of the "thinking".
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 03:48 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;151623 wrote:
I came across this little nugget the other day,

"The heart is the most powerful generator of electromagnetic energy in the human body, producing the largest rhythmic electromagnetic field of any of the body's organs. The heart's electrical field is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the electrical activity generated by the brain. This field, measured in the form of an electrocardiogram (ECG), can be detected anywhere on the surface of the body. Furthermore, the magnetic field produced by the heart is more than 5,000 times greater in strength than the field generated by the brain, and can be detected a number of feet away from the body, in all directions, using SQUID-based magnetometers."

And it got me wondering. So far science has been able to demonstrate what areas of the brain are affected by thought and emotion but not where thought and emotion originate.

If the Self is energy and the Heart is the generator of the body, then wouldn't the seat of consciousness be in the heart rather than the brain?


There is a part in the Illiad where the emotions are discussed. I remember only that the hart was seen as the seat of the soul. Emotion 'courage' was thought to be in the belly. The ancient Greek did not have much ego; I doubt if they would call Soul a Self.:whoa-dude:
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 05:23 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;152026 wrote:
You are still suggesting that the process is seated in the brain. This clearly isn't the case as far as neurocardiology has been able to demonstrate.

Which is kinda the reason for this thread.


I would very strongly suggest that you do a whole lot more research first, before trying to support some most clearly incorrect claim as found in the second sentence of the above quote.

Here, you are trying to tell us that the mole hill is mount Everest, and in doing so, are making a big mistake. My suggestion is with the intent of good will, but is serious. Please do the research firstly. Thanks !!

KJ
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:58 pm
@HexHammer,
the seat of consciousness is abviously the Brain

the heart has the same complexity as the Brain ?

the Brain and the heart are two completely different organs for a Reason
0 Replies
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:11 pm
@trismegisto,
the heart can be transplanted with a machine, while the brain can't be.
0 Replies
 
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:03 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;152507 wrote:
I would very strongly suggest that you do a whole lot more research first, before trying to support some most clearly incorrect claim as found in the second sentence of the above quote.

Here, you are trying to tell us that the mole hill is mount Everest, and in doing so, are making a big mistake. My suggestion is with the intent of good will, but is serious. Please do the research firstly. Thanks !!

KJ


Thanks for your suggestion, clearly you have not read anything about neurocardiology and its implications. After you have done a little research of your own you can then argue the validity of my conjecture. But please, have some substance to your critique before you decide to reply.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 11:06 PM ----------

north;155350 wrote:
the seat of consciousness is abviously the Brain

the heart has the same complexity as the Brain ?

the Brain and the heart are two completely different organs for a Reason


It is not obviously the brain. That is the entire point of the implications of nuerocardiology. Science has not found any organ that originates thought, only those that respond to it. If thought originates from an energy field instead of an organ (which there is no evidence of either way) then the heart produces a field much more powerful than that of the brain which in fact influences how the brain operates as much, if not more, than how the brain influences the heart.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 11:08 PM ----------

Wisdom Seeker;155355 wrote:
the heart can be transplanted with a machine, while the brain can't be.


The heart could not be transplanted 100 years ago, who is to say that the brain will not be transplantable in 100 years from now?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:55 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;155969 wrote:
It is not obviously the brain. That is the entire point of the implications of nuerocardiology. Science has not found any organ that originates thought, only those that respond to it. If thought originates from an energy field instead of an organ (which there is no evidence of either way) then the heart produces a field much more powerful than that of the brain which in fact influences how the brain operates as much, if not more, than how the brain influences the heart.
Excatly with which methods do they investigate thoughts of the brain? With blood flow?

trismegisto;155969 wrote:
The heart could not be transplanted 100 years ago, who is to say that the brain will not be transplantable in 100 years from now?
That's a very realistic scenario, but to elaborate on it, I think in 1000 years, maybe we can transfer our conciousness to machinery, thus we become androids, or just live inside computers.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 11:16 pm
@HexHammer,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
the seat of consciousness is abviously the Brain

the heart has the same complexity as the Brain ?

the Brain and the heart are two completely different organs for a Reason


Quote:

It is not obviously the brain. That is the entire point of the implications of nuerocardiology. Science has not found any organ that originates thought, only those that respond to it.


they have the brain






Quote:
If thought originates from an energy field instead of an organ (which there is no evidence of either way) then the heart produces a field much more powerful than that of the brain which in fact influences how the brain operates as much, if not more, than how the brain influences the heart.


part of the brain the LIMBIC SYSTEM controls the automatics of the body , so that we , people , don't have to think about the everyday comings and goings of things , going within our body
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:42 pm
@north,
north;157815 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
the seat of consciousness is abviously the Brain

the heart has the same complexity as the Brain ?

the Brain and the heart are two completely different organs for a Reason




they have the brain


I am afraid you are wrong



north;157815 wrote:
part of the brain the LIMBIC SYSTEM controls the automatics of the body , so that we , people , don't have to think about the everyday comings and goings of things , going within our body


That is interesting but not relevant
0 Replies
 
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 04:29 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;151623 wrote:
I came across this little nugget the other day,

"The heart is the most powerful generator of electromagnetic energy in the human body, producing the largest rhythmic electromagnetic field of any of the body's organs. The heart's electrical field is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the electrical activity generated by the brain. This field, measured in the form of an electrocardiogram (ECG), can be detected anywhere on the surface of the body. Furthermore, the magnetic field produced by the heart is more than 5,000 times greater in strength than the field generated by the brain, and can be detected a number of feet away from the body, in all directions, using SQUID-based magnetometers."

And it got me wondering. So far science has been able to demonstrate what areas of the brain are affected by thought and emotion but not where thought and emotion originate.

If the Self is energy and the Heart is the generator of the body, then wouldn't the seat of consciousness be in the heart rather than the brain?


That simply isn't true; the amigdala for instance is the center of aggression. Here is a little link:
Limbic System: The Center of Emotions

and another page that might put you in the right direction:

Brain and Emotions Research at UW-Madison

I would stray away from trying to speculate on how conventional wisdom might actually be true (feeling coming from the heart); it's not very scientific to do so. To my knowledge; no respectable research indicates that functions of this type previously thought to originate in the brain are actually originating in the heart. Also ; I don't know what this Self is energy stuff is? Sounds like new age mysticism and nonsense, though I could be wrong.


Also, you seem to completely misunderstand neurocardiology; might I inquire as to your qualifications to throw around the claims you are making? If you can't present at least two solid articles relating to your claims, sir, I would suggest you end this thread because you sound a bit silly. Of course if you do provide some relevant articles from well respected journals I will eat my hat.
trismegisto
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 05:13 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;161401 wrote:
That simply isn't true; the amigdala for instance is the center of aggression. Here is a little link:
Limbic System: The Center of Emotions

and another page that might put you in the right direction:

Brain and Emotions Research at UW-Madison

I would stray away from trying to speculate on how conventional wisdom might actually be true (feeling coming from the heart); it's not very scientific to do so. To my knowledge; no respectable research indicates that functions of this type previously thought to originate in the brain are actually originating in the heart. Also ; I don't know what this Self is energy stuff is? Sounds like new age mysticism and nonsense, though I could be wrong.


Also, you seem to completely misunderstand neurocardiology; might I inquire as to your qualifications to throw around the claims you are making? If you can't present at least two solid articles relating to your claims, sir, I would suggest you end this thread because you sound a bit silly. Of course if you do provide some relevant articles from well respected journals I will eat my hat.


Well, thank you for your OPINION. But you are so far off base that it is almost worthless to respond. You clearly have merely stumbled upon a couple articles and then pasted them thinking they confirm your perspective. I suggest you actually read what you post before you post it.

Please stop wasting everyones time with your pseudoscientific OPINIONs.

You embarrass yourself and waste my time.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The seat of consciousness
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 01:38:34