I was a complete skeptic until ...

[Dr B]

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

No - it means you don't understand it. It could be the fallacy of the false comparison - but we need more detail from you first.

[Mulder]

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

In the article they ask, how can blood flow modulate neuron activity? But surely a better question is, what would modulate blood flow to affect neuron activity? For instance, would people with high blood pressure 'think differently' to those with low blood pressure?

And surely, there is no suggestion that blood does any more than mildly alter existing neuron activity? Given the amount of information processing done in the brain, how could blood flow possibly encode even a tiny fraction of that data flow? Neurons, on the other hand, can easily do so.

If this effect exists, I suspect it is a marghinal feedback effect, like well-known effects of stress, for instance.

[Pebble]

As a guess SiP is influenced by some of the basic science research into the potential role of altered blood flow patterns in patients who develop alzheimer's and extrapolating ad infinitium as is the standard practice among fringe pseuodscientists.

[SorryImPsychic]

As a guess SiP is influenced by some of the basic science research..... and extrapolating ad infinitium as is the standard practice among fringe pseuodscientists.

- is that how you want me to respond to your comment? And don't say if the cap fits......

[SorryImPsychic]

In the article they ask, how can blood flow modulate neuron activity? But surely a better question is, what would modulate blood flow to affect neuron activity? For instance, would people with high blood pressure 'think differently' to those with low blood pressure?

....how could blood flow possibly encode even a tiny fraction of that data flow? Neurons, on the other hand, can easily do so.

The heart’s nervous system contains some 40,000 neurons. So in answer to your question: What would modulate blood flow to affect neuron activity? I would answer that the heart's own responses determined by its inherent nervous system modulates blood flow and brain neuronal activity (and much more).

And yes people with high blood pressure certainly feel differently which can cause them to think differently than others.

[SorryImPsychic]

.... 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?

I'm a bit confused to what you are saying here

My arguement is that consciousness is determined by the cardiovascular system and not derived from the nervous system alone - so damage to the autonomic system does not necessarily impair consciousness.

[Nic]

So if Saul had been a true skeptic, we might never have had Christianity! There's a thought for the day ...

I do not think Saul / Paul of the Bible can be described as a true skeptic at all. Remember, he was a religious zealot who actively persecuted the earliest followers of Christ. Being a very devoted believer in orthodox Judaism, he beleived in Jehovah God and that's hardly skeptical.

Even if he had not expereinced the vision of the ressurrected Christ, we must remeber that Christianity originated with the original apostles, and not with Paul yet, wothout Paul's conversion, we might readily expect that the religion as we know it today might not have been as widespread, since the original twelve garnered followers amongst the Jews and áccording to the book of Acts "" great many of them were converted".

So I think Chritianity, albeit in a smaller form would have existed anyway.

[SorryImPsychic]

I do not think Saul / Paul of the Bible can be described as a true skeptic at all....he beleived in Jehovah God and that's hardly skeptical.

....we must remember that Christianity originated with the original apostles, and not with Paul yet, without Paul's conversion, we might readily expect that the religion as we know it today might not have been as widespread,

So I think Christianity, albeit in a smaller form would have existed anyway.

I think Paul can be considered a true skeptic in that Jesus would have been considered blasphemous in the eyes of orthodox Judaism and his story. We can accept that he "was a complete skeptic until......"

Although you say Christianity originated with the apostles - the actual documentation of Christianity's beginnings is to be found in the Pauline Epistles written decades earlier than the Gospels. And within these epistles the original apostles are severely criticized and discredited and doctrines are invented that go against the later Gospel writings.

If we only had the Gospels we would have a very different religion.

[Mulder]

The heart’s nervous system contains some 40,000 neurons. So in answer to your question: What would modulate blood flow to affect neuron activity? I would answer that the heart's own responses determined by its inherent nervous system modulates blood flow and brain neuronal activity (and much more).

And around 100 billion neurons in the brain! And all connected to every part of the body and sensory organs by nerves. Blood flow, by comparison, would be an extremely minor conveyor or modulator of information. It's like fibre optic versus semaphor.

Interesting though this is, it doesn't change the fact that lab experiments demonstrate that what we see is a construct of memory and sensory inputs, rather than literal reality. It is often altered before it we experience it. Do you dispute that?

I've talked to hundreds of people about their experiences of ghosts and you're the first one who wanted to keep it secret. Do you really think your experience is so different to all those others?

[Pebble]

The heart’s nervous system contains some 40,000 neurons. So in answer to your question: What would modulate blood flow to affect neuron activity? I would answer that the heart's own responses determined by its inherent nervous system modulates blood flow and brain neuronal activity (and much more).

And yes people with high blood pressure certainly feel differently which can cause them to think differently than others.

The heart and the vasculature are indeed richly supplied with nerves - from and to the brain - part of the autonomic nervous system. This system provides rapid subconscious modification of cardiovascular responses to physical and psychological events. This is not as far as is known an independent neuronal system within the cardiovascular system.

I'm a bit confused to what you are saying here

My arguement is that consciousness is determined by the cardiovascular system and not derived from the nervous system alone - so damage to the autonomic system does not necessarily impair consciousness.

So the point here is if the putative independent nervous system within the heart or vasculature is pivotal to consciousness, then obvious effects on consciousness would result from major perturbations of said system. Now heart transplants and those where artificial hearts are inserted and the persons heart removed, should be a major change in any 'novel' local nervous system independent of the brain that no one else knows about. Thus if there were a completely novel system, we would see its effects in these scenarios. If on the otherhand, the problem lies in the system we know of (the autonomic nervous system) and you are maintaining that this system is not really controlled by the brain, but rather the cardiovascular system, then those with extensive damage to this system would provide the evidence.

Thus these examples provide evidence of the futility of your position.

[SorryImPsychic]

The heart and the vasculature are indeed richly supplied with nerves..... This is not as far as is known an independent neuronal system within the cardiovascular system.

When did I say the cardivascular system had an independent neuronal system? I said: consciousness is determined by the cardiovascular system and not derived from the nervous system alone.

So the point here is if the putative independent nervous system within the heart or vasculature is pivotal to consciousness, then obvious effects on consciousness would result from major perturbations of said system.

Yes - this is correct but it is not relevant to this discussion because I am not suggesting an independent cardio nervous system.

Can you offer better examples to demonstrate "the futility" of my position.

[SorryImPsychic]

And around 100 billion neurons in the brain!.... Blood flow, by comparison, would be an extremely minor conveyor or modulator of information. It's like fibre optic versus semaphor.

No I don't get what you are saying here. Blood flow at capillary level is very instrumental and necessary in the activation of all neuronal firings.

Interesting though.... what we see is a construct of memory and sensory inputs, rather than literal reality. It is often altered before it we experience it. Do you dispute that?

No I don't dispute that....but I would add that the heart is in step with literal reality.

Re Ghost: I get ridiculed enough on this site and I really don't want to expose myself to more ridicule that necessary .

[Mulder]

No I don't get what you are saying here. Blood flow at capillary level is very instrumental and necessary in the activation of all neuronal firings.

Blood flow increases between 1 and 5 seconds AFTER neural activity. It is the neurons that trigger blood flow by their energy depletion, not the other way round. The blood is replenishing energy used by neurons, not triggering firing. Blood flow may be necessary to sustained neural activity but it is the neurons, not the blood, that are processing information.

My point about data flow is that if the blood was actually responsible for data processing (I can't believe I'm writing this), rather than neurons, it wouldn't have the capacity, through changes in flow rate, to convey data quickly enough (or in sufficent volume) to control a living creature.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your claim - it sounds as though you're claiming a central role for blood in data processing, rather than neurons which seem infintely better adapted for that role. What part are you claiming that blood plays in controlling living creatures?

No I don't dispute that....but I would add that the heart is in step with literal reality.

Do you have any evidence for this, please? How can ANY non-sensory internal organ be in touch with reality outside the body?

Re Ghost: I get ridiculed enough on this site and I really don't want to expose myself to more ridicule that necessary .

I've never ridiculed anyone describing their ghost experiences in my life. I spend a lot of time studying such experiences. You could at least state whether your experience differs significantly from others you've heard.

[SorryImPsychic]

Blood flow increases between 1 and 5 seconds AFTER neural activity. It is the neurons that trigger blood flow by their energy depletion, not the other way round. The blood is replenishing energy used by neurons, not triggering firing. Blood flow may be necessary to sustained neural activity but it is the neurons, not the blood, that are processing information.

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

Please explain

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.

My point about data flow is that if the blood was actually responsible for data processing....rather than neurons, it wouldn't have the capacity, through changes in flow rate, to convey data quickly enough (or in sufficent volume) to control a living creature.

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)

Maybe I am misunderstanding your claim - it sounds as though you're claiming a central role for blood in data processing, rather than neurons which seem infintely better adapted for that role. What part are you claiming that blood plays in controlling living creatures?

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)

How can ANY non-sensory internal organ be in touch with reality outside the body?

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

(I will tell you about my encounter with a ghost tomorrow when my brain is refreshed)

[Pebble]

When did I say the cardivascular system had an independent neuronal system?

Really? See below!

I would answer that the heart's own responses determined by its inherent nervous system modulates blood flow and brain neuronal activity .

Can you offer better examples to demonstrate "the futility" of my position.

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