I was a complete skeptic until ...

[Mulder]

Blood flow increases between 1 and 5 seconds AFTER neural activity.(???)

Please explain

"Since the 1890s (Roy and Sherrington, 1890)[1] it has been known that changes in blood flow and blood oxygenation in the brain (collectively known as hemodynamics) are closely linked to neural activity. When nerve cells are active they consume oxygen carried by hemoglobin in red blood cells from local capillaries. The local response to this oxygen utilization is an increase in blood flow to regions of increased neural activity, occurring after a delay of approximately 1-5 seconds. This hemodynamic response rises to a peak over 4-5 seconds, before falling back to baseline (and typically undershooting slightly). This leads to local changes in the relative concentration of oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin and changes in local cerebral blood volume in addition to this change in local cerebral blood flow."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMRI

It is a combination of blood flow and heart rate which determines how and if data will be processed. For example in a lesson, those who are interested in the subject will be awake and excited while those that are disinterested will be nearly comatose with boredom. Yet both types are receiving the same data. This level of boredom or interest can be determined and measured by cardiovascular activity? Furthermore blood test would show the neurochemicals introduced into the bloodstream of each type of student will be different and serve to modify and control neuronal activity even further.

So boredom is controlled by the heart? Boredom, in the example you describe, is probably the default network state. Oddly, it involves more neural activity (and presumably greater blood flow) than goal orientated activity. Do you know of any evidence either way?

Well consider reflex actions and how they are almost instantaneous in response to the activating stimuli and occur before any conscious realization. Or consider driving a car while having a discussion....you drive without any conscious effort yet are snapped into conscious effort when something startles you to attention.(heart pumps you to attention actually)

Reflexes occur without conscious intervention via the spinal cord. You become aware of what happened afterwards. Even the unconscious brain is too slow to handle reflexes. As for the consciousness, remember I told you it is 1/10s behind sensory stimulus. Any 'rush of blood' you feel is the motor reactions moving muscles. Or do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

"A reflex arc is the neural pathway that mediates a reflex action. In higher animals, most sensory neurons do not pass directly into the brain, but synapse in the spinal cord. This characteristic allows reflex actions to occur relatively quickly by activating spinal motor neurons without the delay of routing signals through the brain, although the brain will receive sensory input while the reflex action occurs. The main source of the reflex action is through the bottom muscles."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_arc

I am claiming that the whole cardiovascular system has a central role in consciousness, neuronal activity and data processing. The electrical activity of neural firings alone does not translate into consciousness and all that involves. (s.a. the qualia associated with the stimuli)

That's probably because, like many philosophers, you put consciousness on a pedestal it really doesn't merit. As I said before, it's more of a monitoring station for the unconscious part of the brain, and to do long term planning.

Can you be more specific about the role you see the cardiovascular system plays in data processing? Given that neurons are perfectly capable of performing rapid, high volume data processing, what part does blood play? If you imagine a computer, to me the brain is the cpu and memory while the blood is the power supply. Yes, you need the power supply for everything to work but you cannot process data without all those transistors. When data is being processed and stored, more power is used.

You would need to accept that the heart is also a sensory organ.

I might if there was some evidence for it.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way but your model needs to start with the lab evidence.

[SorryImPsychic]

Certainly, but this seems fairly conclusive for now, unless you have a new definition of inherent to supply.

I have never taken "inherent" to be synonymous with "independent".

in·her·ent: adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

[Pebble]

I have never taken "inherent" to be synonymous with "independent".

in·her·ent: adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

Well you should. But if not then please explain what you mean, "I would answer that the heart's own responses determined by its inherent nervous system modulates blood flow and brain neuronal activity".

The hearts own responses - I take this to mean that it is not being externally directed to respond, but responding itself.

..determined by its inherent nervous system - now you want me in this context to accept that this inherent nervous system is not independent, but not independent of what? Most would say the brain (and there is vast quantities of robust experimental data to back this up), but if the nervous system that is determining the hearts response is not independent, how then is it the hearts own response that occurs?

See the problem yet?

[SorryImPsychic]

.... please explain what you mean, "I would answer that the heart's own responses determined by its inherent nervous system modulates blood flow and brain neuronal activity".

The heart, just like the brain, interprets our subjective reality. All stimuli e.g. thoughts/feelings/emotions are products of stimuli that have passed from heart -> brain ->.heart -> brain. This begins (to be general) at the capillary/firing nerve level (just think of all the capillaries in the eyes) where the capillaries communicate stimuli data to the heart which begins to access how to respond.... heart has already determined response/destination seconds before you are conscious of response. This is why there is that real time lapse in what we see....but our heart has primed us to see it and respond accordingly. And this is why if your 'eyes' catch a glimpse of a shape like a snake you'll get a jolt making you look closely only to realize it is a hose...the heart takes no chances!

The hearts own responses - I take this to mean that it is not being externally directed to respond, but responding itself.

.....nervous system.....but not independent of what? Most would say the brain, but if the nervous system that is determining the hearts response is not independent, how then is it the hearts own response that occur?

Neurocardiology is based on an ever increasing amount of evidence demonstrating that the neurons in the heart and the neurons in the brain are dynamically linked (to the point that the heart is being labeled a "little brain"). The heart/brain dialogue is stochastic in the sense that the state of the heart can be mirrored by the brain and/or the state of the brain can be mirrored by the heart.This mirroring is significant especially once we realize that heart rhythems (beat to beat patterns) can have significant inpact on cortical inhabition v's cortical facilitation.

Mulder mentioned earlier that the 'bored" state demonstrated higher levels of neuronal activity than the "focused" person. So if we were to moniter HRV (heart beat to beat variability patterns) of this poor bored to death sole we would find considerable dissonance - demonstrated by highly erratic and jagged patterns emerging across the screen. This is called an Incoherant signature and such a signature causes cortical inhibition - so the poor student becomes even less able to think clearly or concentrate. (Not to mention that the wholesale negativity of his emotions are supressing the immune system, and releasing high doses of stress hormones into his system which also is dangerous). It is true - you can be bored to death

My own interest in Neurocardiology is to demonstrate how heart/brain work together in the production of "consciousness".

Gosh this is alot of typing

[Pebble]

This then I presume is what you are referring to:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Heart,%...ed%20Salem.pdf


"This then gives rise to the concept of the spirit as the non physcial element, or field, of the mind that can communicate with the cosmos outside the constraines of time or space."

Science???

Taking information that demonstrates that there are intimate neuronal bidirectional conncetions between the heart and the brain and coming up with this rubbish is not science.

HRV is controlled by the autonomic nervous system, it is largely absent in transplanted hearts. For this theory to begin to hold water one must address the issue of the emotional responses in heart transplant patients and those with familial autonomic neuropathy.

Certainly there is great interest in the neural systems in the heart both in health and disease especially in relation to arrhythmia and sudden death, but extrapolate from these preliminary findings to what you are suggesting is not science.

[SorryImPsychic]

This then I presume is what you are referring to:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Heart,%20Mind%20and%20Spirit%20%20Mohamed%20Salem. pdf

Science???

Why do you presume that the above is what I am referring to? When did I mention any of this twaddle about mind/spirit/cosmos?

Taking information that demonstrates that there are intimate neuronal bidirectional connctions between the heart and the brain and coming up with this rubbish is not science.

Well the bit about bi-directional connections between heart and brain is true. Heart and brain both have the same neural transmitters. But as I indicated the Professor's paper is not at representative of mainstream neurocardiology.

HRV is controlled by the autonomic nervous system, it is largely absent in transplanted hearts. For this theory to begin to hold water one must address the issue of the emotional responses in heart transplant patients and those with familial autonomic neuropathy.

Most Neurocardiologists are involved with the causes and treatment of cardiovascular disease and stress related illnesses. I'm sure neurocardiology will address the areas of heart transplants/neuropathy as it advances in it's research and understanding.

but extrapolate from these preliminary findings to what you are suggesting is not science.

I'm sorry you see it that way but please note:

Although Professor Mohamed Omar Salem uses the findings of Neurocardiology, his paper really goes beyond mainstream thinking in this field. And this paper is certainly not representative my thinking.

Found this link referring to a work by Dr. J A Armour MA. Phd who the Prof references.
http://www.heartmathstore.com/cgi-bi...nro&type=store

[Pebble]

Why do you presume that the above is what I am referring to? When did I mention any of this twaddle about mind/spirit/cosmos?



Although Professor Mohamed Omar Salem uses the findings of Neurocardiology, his paper really goes beyond mainstream thinking in this field. And this paper is certainly not representative my thinking.

OK. good to hear that you disagree with this nutter, but to date you have provided relatively little to go on. What seems clear is that you claim:

1. The hearts neuronal system is instrinsic to the heart
2. That this is capable of independent responses to sensory stimuli
3. That the heart's response is communicated to and influences the brain
4. That consciousness at least in part is determined by this cardiac modulation of cerebral activity.

Now while these are fine as hypotheses leading to experimentation to test the validity of this idea, you have to date provided no references that support the above claims. I would not accept as evidence for the instrinsic nature of the cardiac neuronal system the simple fact that transplanted hearts continue to generate and propagate impulses - this is perfectly explicable on the basis of spontaneous depolarisation of specialised myocytes and intercalated disc propagation of impulses myocyte to myocyte.

I would counter that the brain controls and is the seat of consciousness and that while input is received from many organs, there is nothing special about the heart. The observations in respect of HRV and the rapidity of cardiac responses to stressful stimuli are entirely in keeping with this paradigm. So Occam's razor would indicate that as you are making a claim for greater complexity, it is for you to provide sufficient evidence to justify this revision of current understanding.

[ZERO]

- this is perfectly explicable on the basis of spontaneous depolarisation of specialised myocytes and intercalated disc propagation of impulses myocyte to myocyte.

I'm so tempted to make this my new signature.
???

[Pebble]

I'm so tempted to make this my new signature.
???

That would certainly be worse that your current signature. Apologies for the language, but unless one uses legal precision SiP sidestepps.

[ZERO]

That would certainly be worse that your current signature. Apologies for the language,

No need to apologise, if I don't understand something, that is my problem.
Dumbing down should be fought to the last.

but unless one uses legal precision SiP sidestepps.

SIP will sidestep anyway..or pick and choose what questions get answered...or ignore altogether.

[Mulder]

I think we're reaching the point where it would be nice, SIP (why are you sorry that you're psychic, by the way?), if you'd present specific evidence that shows that your model is better than the existing current 'brain and nervous system' model of human data processing.

Obviously your model must account for all existing evidence. However, that would take a long time to demonstrate. So how about just showing something specific that your only model explains or explains better?

And you did promise your ghost sighting account ...

[Pebble]

Found this link referring to a work by Dr. J A Armour MA. Phd who the Prof references.
http://www.heartmathstore.com/cgi-bi...nro&type=store

It would appear that Dr Armour is less ambitious for this 'little brain' than you, he simply feels that it provides reflex arcs for co-ordinating cardiovascular responses to regional cardiovascular stresses and demands. Given years of research into vasomotor depressor syndrome, this looks like a different name for well known pathways. In essence it is like the 'brain' in a modern car, it responds to the demands for blood supply in different parts of the body while simultaneously adapting to the stresses associated with different postures, states of motion and indeed emotional states - in respect of the latter, the brain is the primary source of information, the remainder can largely be managed independent of the brain after a while, however as spinal shock experiments show, under normal circumstances there is considerable autonomic control from the brainstem.

Exp Physiol. 2008 Feb;93(2):165-76. Epub 2007 Nov 2. Links
Potential clinical relevance of the 'little brain' on the mammalian heart.

Armour JA.
Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Research Center, 5400 Gouin Boulevard West, Montreal, QC H4J 1C5, Canada. drewarmour@hotmail.com
It is hypothesized that the heart possesses a nervous system intrinsic to it that represents the final relay station for the co-ordination of regional cardiac indices. This 'little brain' on the heart is comprised of spatially distributed sensory (afferent), interconnecting (local circuit) and motor (adrenergic and cholinergic efferent) neurones that communicate with others in intrathoracic extracardiac ganglia, all under the tonic influence of central neuronal command and circulating catecholamines. Neurones residing from the level of the heart to the insular cortex form temporally dependent reflexes that control overlapping, spatially determined cardiac indices. The emergent properties that most of its components display depend primarily on sensory transduction of the cardiovascular milieu. It is further hypothesized that the stochastic nature of such neuronal interactions represents a stabilizing feature that matches cardiac output to normal corporal blood flow demands. Thus, with regard to cardiac disease states, one must consider not only cardiac myocyte dysfunction but also the fact that components within this neuroaxis may interact abnormally to alter myocyte function. This review emphasizes the stochastic behaviour displayed by most peripheral cardiac neurones, which appears to be a consequence of their predominant cardiac chemosensory inputs, as well as their complex functional interconnectivity. Despite our limited understanding of the whole, current data indicate that the emergent properties displayed by most neurones comprising the cardiac neuroaxis will have to be taken into consideration when contemplating the targeting of its individual components if predictable, long-term therapeutic benefits are to accrue.

[Pebble]

Table from reference above outlines the limited ambitions for this 'heart brain' Basically the evidence for local circuitry is based on the short latency of responses, the redundancy issues suggest that this system (a little like the appendix) was previously more important, the system is primarily concerned with intrathoracic responses to intrathoracic issues and serves to keep issues of little relevance to the rest of the body from bothering the central nervous system. This system has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness or emotional responses.


Table 1. The cardiac neuronal hierarchy
• The cardiac neuronal hierarchy can be represented as a massively parallel and, for the most part, stochastic control system such that
stable cardiac control occurs in the absence of obvious cause and effect (i.e. its constitutive parts mostly display emergent properties)
• Its constitutive parts comprise afferent neuronal somata in intrathoracic, dorsal root and nodose ganglia that transduce the
cardiovascular milieu directly or indirectly (via interconnecting neurones) to cardiac (adrenergic and cholinergic) motor neurones
• Collections of neurones on the heart (the little brain on the heart) represent the final co-ordinator of centripetal and centrifugal
information influencing regional cardiac electrical and mechanical indices
• Its peripheral cell stations (in intrinsic cardiac, mediastinal, middle cervical, stellate and superior cervical ganglia) influence
overlapping, spatially determined cardiac regions via varied-latency reflexes
• Neurones in these peripheral stations are under the tonic influence of central (spinal cord and medullary) reflexes and circulating
catecholamines
• Although highly optimized to tolerate normal cardiovascular perturbations, this neuroaxis can be catastrophically disabled by
cascading failures initiated by relatively localized input alterations
• What it cannot tolerate (because it is not a design feature) is rearrangement of its interconnecting parts or excessive activation of
select components to engender cardiac malfunction (e.g. cardiac arrhythmias)
• When contemplating the targeting of any of its select components therapeutically, the emergent properties of the whole should
be taken into consideration

[SorryImPsychic]

It would appear that Dr Armour is less ambitious for this 'little brain' than you,

Pebble - don't get so excited - I only provided the link to Dr Amour so you could see who/what Professor Mohamed Omar Salem was referring to. I could provide more specific information but copyright prevents it.

[SorryImPsychic]

(why are you sorry that you're psychic, by the way?),

I chose SorryI'mPsychic for its Assonance, and for Irony in the Concise Oxford Dictionary sense of "simulated adoption of another's point of view or laudatory tone for purpose of ridicule".

.... if you'd present specific evidence that shows that your model is better than the existing current 'brain and nervous system' model of human data processing.

Obviously your model must account for all existing evidence. However, that would take a long time to demonstrate. So how about just showing something specific that your only model explains or explains better?

I have taken on board everything you have requested and will soon post the necessary information. But a note of caution - do not confuse existing evidence as "my own model" - it is an existing neurocardiological model. My own Neuroacrdiological Theory of Consciousness works within this model but views it as having much broader implications.

And you did promise your ghost sighting account ...

I will post it today