I was a complete skeptic until ...

[Mulder]

You are getting into philosophy and away from science. The fact is, we already know enough to say that experience is largely a construct of the brain with sensory input only one factor involved. We also know that it is very easy for certain circumstances to fool the brain and hence manipulate experiences. To say 'seeing is believing', for instance, is now a pure statement of faith rather than saying anything meaningful reality. And that's before even considering problems with memory and confabulation.

So, how's you're secret ghost sighting looking - still rock solid?

[SorryImPsychic]

Consciousness is a whole brain activity performing an executive decision making and monitoring role over the much more important unconscious brain activity.

If you have any radically different information about sensory perception, perhaps you'd like to share it?

Consciousness, according to my own Neurocardiological Theory of Consciousness, involves brain activity but this activity is aided and informed by the cardiovascular system.

[Mulder]

Consciousness, according to my own Neurocardiological Theory of Consciousness, involves brain activity but this activity is aided and informed by the cardiovascular system.

And this explains perception how?

Briefly, what is this theory? Is the cardiovascular system somehow responsible for consciousness?

[SorryImPsychic]

You are getting into philosophy and away from science. ....To say 'seeing is believing', for instance, is now a pure statement of faith rather than saying anything meaningful reality.

So, how's you're secret ghost sighting looking - still rock solid?

Yep - still rock solid! But sorry to stray from topic. So seeing is believing (faith) but seeing can also be evidence. (proof)

[Mulder]

Yep - still rock solid! But sorry to stray from topic. So seeing is believing (faith) but seeing can also be evidence. (proof)

No, never proof (except in some courts which have much lower evidence levels than science). We've always known anecdotal evidence was not reliable - didn't need neuroscience for that. Now we have a good idea why it is unreliable. Such evidence is, however, a useful starting point to prompt an investigation and search for other evidence.

I am perfectly happy to accept that people see ghosts. It is the cause of those experiences that is the interesting bit. So far, the evidence does not suggest the involvement of spirits, the traditional explanation. Nor any sign of "animated life though the matter it is composed of is not actually that of animated life".

This is why I'd so much like to read about your experiece as it sounds unique!

[SorryImPsychic]

And this explains perception how?

Briefly, what is this theory? Is the cardiovascular system somehow responsible for consciousness?

The cardiovascular system responds to sensory perception by triggering every neuronal firing from receptor to brain. Its complex to explain and it's 1:30 am here. But basically Consciousness has more to do with the heart than the brain. Bye for now.

[Mulder]

Before you go - do you have a link for that because Google doesn't seem to have heard of it?

[SorryImPsychic]

Before you go - do you have a link for that because Google doesn't seem to have heard of it?

Of course not - it's MY THEORY I'm still working on it

[Mulder]

Even if your theory is correct, it won't alter evidence from labs that perception consists of a mixture of sensory input, memory and a 'forward projection' of around 1/10s to take into account how long it takes for light to be processed into a visual image. Nor does it change the fact that it is easy to misperceive things. These are the important points when it comes to seeing ghosts, irrespective of what theory of consciousness you have.

So what is so different about your secret ghost sighting that means that you know it can't be accounted for by such mechanisms?

[Pebble]

The cardiovascular system responds to sensory perception by triggering every neuronal firing from receptor to brain. Its complex to explain and it's 1:30 am here. But basically Consciousness has more to do with the heart than the brain. Bye for now.

Cardiovascular system is a fairly broad sweep. Of course no cardiac output will result in loss of conciousness in less than 20 seconds, but that is to do with the high energy demands of the brain and its low energy reserves. Heart transplants and artificial heart data show that the heart is of no direct relevance here. The unaltered conciosness of supine autonomic neuropathy patients, strongly argue against any of the rest of the cardiovascular system having a direct neuronal influence on conciousness.

So there is plenty of data against this 'theory', what have you to offer in favour apart from a mystical insight of course?

[Dr B]

There is no globally accepted Theory of Consciousness.

We can observe neuronal activity related to conscious experience but neuroscience cannot explain how this activity is translated into "conscious' experience and all that entails.(e.g. qualia). I believe we do need to understand what consciousness is before we can talk about "rationality".

Nonsense. There are many areas of science where there is no single dominant theory - but they all clearly show that consciousness is a brain driven thing (and show it well). So this adds no evidence to your point what so ever. I also note at no point have you ever been specific about which models of consciousness you find insufficient - which is what i have been asking for all along. You have been seduced by nonsense....and standard logically flawed arguments - think for yourself

I know if certain cells don't work properly you won't see certain colours - so that's a direct link between neurons and qualia....you just don't have a background on these issues sufficient enough to justify your argument

[Dr B]

Consciousness, according to my own Neurocardiological Theory of Consciousness, involves brain activity but this activity is aided and informed by the cardiovascular system.

well - the heart pumps blood which carries oxygen (and other nutrients) to neurons in order to function. Not so much 'your theory' as an accepted fact.

Unless you are going way beyond this observation (and i suspect you are).

[SorryImPsychic]

well - the heart pumps blood which carries oxygen (and other nutrients) to neurons in order to function. Not so much 'your theory' as an accepted fact.

Unless you are going way beyond this observation (and i suspect you are).

I am not the only one going beyond this observation.

Please read this item: http://web.mit.edu/mcgovern/html/New...th_blood.shtml

Especially note Moore's comment ""Many lines of evidence suggest that blood does something more interesting than just delivering supplies. If it does modulate how neurons relay signals, that changes how we think the brain works."

My research goes beyond Moore's current studies - does that make me a criminal .

[Tony Williams]

My research goes beyond Moore's current studies - does that make me a criminal .

Not at all - but exactly how are you conducting this research? It sounds interesting.

[Dr B]

I am not the only one going beyond this observation.

Please read this item: http://web.mit.edu/mcgovern/html/New...th_blood.shtml

Especially note Moore's comment ""Many lines of evidence suggest that blood does something more interesting than just delivering supplies. If it does modulate how neurons relay signals, that changes how we think the brain works."

My research goes beyond Moore's current studies - does that make me a criminal .

No - its almost the same point I am making - blood carries oxygen and nutrients to neurons - they use that in different ways depending on neuronal dynamics in systems at that time - its not that there is anything else going on with the heart - its the legion of combinations going on in intra and extra-cellular environments around the neurons.

Differing patterns of activity have differing demands, and if the supply is altered this can impact on the unfolding dynamics in a manner entirely consistent with what I have said.