Hadar Cohen

Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art

This conversation is closed.

Is the heart overlooked when it comes to intelligence?

The center of the nervous system, the brain, has been popularly defined as the fundamental core of intellectual activity. Yet, in my Bioelectricity class with Professor Nina Tandon, we learned about recent research suggesting that information processing in the body may in fact be more distributed.

For example, there is increasing evidence suggesting that the cardioelectromagenetic field can actually affect human beings in close proximity.These signals are stronger in amplitude when in direct contact, but are still detectable up to several feet away from the source. Through these interactions, the heart transfers energies between human beings. The heart can therefore be characterized as the engine for distributing and controlling energy of the human body.

These extraordinary results illustrate that the heart is not only responsible for blood regulations, but is also a very powerful intelligence system.

This made me wonder, could intelligence be distributed through the body in ways we might not expect? Could this information sent to the brain perhaps even influence emotional states? Or provide insight into some of the unexplained links between "mental" and "bodily" diseases (eg Alzheimer's and cardiac disease etc)?

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3547419/
and http://books.google.com/books?id=pvkpdNHhI6cC for more details

Given that the heart and other organs are frequently excluded from the
intellectual discussion, I would like to ask the Ted community, how do
these new findings affect how we view intelligence? How will our
interactions with each other differ if we view more of our bodies as

  • thumb
    Apr 11 2013: Yes, I think intelligence is distributed throughout the body, and only now is evidence beginning to catch up with intuition in this and many other areas. This opens up the wider implications in the gulf of understanding - trust even - between intuition and science.

    There is good reason why we refer to "the gut" for instinct and "the heart" for emotion, feeling and love, and there is extraordinary evidence from heart transplant patients, who relate that their emotions and interests changed post-operatively, to those of their donor. This phenomenon, known as "cellular memory" has been researched by Dr David Armour at the University of Montreal:


    This should come as no surprise, since the heart has been found to contain 40,000 neurons, so is in effect a small "brain".

    As a supplementary to your question, it's worth noting that the gut also contains neurons. This from Scientific American:

    "The enteric nervous system uses more than 30 neurotransmitters, just like the brain, and in fact 95 percent of the body's serotonin is found in the bowels"


    This could mean that there is a link between the "brain" in the gut and disorders such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Depression - and perhaps the misplaced role of SSRIs in prolonging the presence of serotonin in the gut rather than the brain in our head.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: Good information Allan!

      It does not come as a surprise to me. New research is reinforcing these ideas, which actually go back to ancient times, and demonstrate the interconnectivity with all parts of the body/mind systems.

      The ancient practices of yoga, acupuncture, reflexology, etc. and the not so ancient practices of reiki, iridology, etc. are based on the interconnecting body/mind systems:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2013: Hi Colleen. You are right - It never ceases to amaze me too, that many ancient wisdoms are only now being 'rediscovered' by modern science.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2013: Yes indeed Allan.....it is called "New Age"......"The New Psychology".......LOL:>)
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2013: Hi Colleen,

        Very interesting that you connected this new research with ancient practice. I find that we often think of ancient practices as antiquated, however, they can definitely open up areas of knowledge for us. It is easy to dismiss the past by claiming that they were less knowledgeable than us, but human intuition proves that we can actually learn quite a bit from analyzing their conventions.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2013: I agree Hadar, that some people would like to dismiss ancient practices, and perhaps some of them SHOULD be dismissed. However, there are many things that were KNOWN by people in ancient times that are still very relevant in modern times, and I think it benefits us to build on that knowledge, which seemed to be very natural for people in ancient times.

          The interconnectivity of the body/mind systems seems to have been very well known in ancient times, and for awhile, we dismissed those beliefs in favor of modern technology and science. Now, we are re-discovering the connections again, and in my humble perception, ancient wisdom AND modern technology all fits together!......I LOVE it!
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: Colleem,

        I really like how you connect ancient wisdom and modern technology. It is a very unique relation that many overlook. I would love to explore more what this connection really entails of.

        But you are right, the inter-connectivity of the body and mind has been a concept that was very widespread in ancient times. It is amazing how they viewed the body as directly affected by the mind. I think this type of awareness of the effects of our systems is highly important in understanding how humans actually function.
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: Hadar
          I agree...it is important to understand the body/mind connections, and I believe in using ALL availabe information:>)

          I had some interesting “seeds” planted at a very young age.

          My parents had a huge garden, chickens, fresh eggs, meat, fresh veggies, herbs and fruits. We ate fresh from the garden in summer, and canned food for winter months....healthy!

          My mom LOVED “Prevention Magazine”, which introduced many alternative practices and ideas for keeping the body healthy, and I found it fascinating:>)

          I began working at age 13, and one of my most significant jobs, was at age 17, as an operating room technician…assisting for major surgeries…I got to observe the interconnecting systems of live human bodies, and that was a HUGE learning experience.

          Jump ahead to age 30, when I was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease in the spine, which is generally a progressively disabling condition. It is common as we age, but I was only 30. After taking pain meds, being in traction and wearing a neck brace, none of which relieved the pain, a fusion of the spine was advised. Well, I had seen THAT done, and was not impressed! I started exploring alternative practices, and of course everything I had been exposed to started to come into play.

          As I explored holistic practices I decided to strengthen the muscular system to support the degenerating spine. It wasn’t “work”, because I started playing tennis, volleyball, sailboat racing, and dancing, as well as yoga….all of which strengthened the upper body. For 10 years, I strengthened the body and mind with alternative practices. I knew that the DDD would not heal, and I managed it pretty well.

          What I didn’t know, was that what I was learning about the body/mind would be used again, when, at age 43 I sustained a near fatal head/brain injury from a horseback riding accident. Upon regaining consciousness after an emergency craniotomy, my family and I were told I would never function normally again. Time to rebuild..again
    • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: Hi Allan,

      Thanks for posting all these resources, I really appreciate it! These new research findings are fascinating as they definitely make us question what exactly is the function of various body parts and how they interact with each other.

      I like how you broadened the question of the relationship between intuition and science. This is something I think about quite often, and I really think should be discussed more.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 13 2013: Hi Don,

        Thanks for that video link. It is fascinating.

        I'd like to take a look at all four parts, so may take me some time!
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2013: I can safely assume that the bulk of information processing happens in the Central Nervous System (CNS), especially when it comes to bodily action that relate to consciousness.

    This does not mean that our whole body affects and co-influences our CNS. Our hormones and sensors give a lot of information and influence what we do and think.

    I do agree that we do not fully understand all the interactions between all our organs (I think the possible permutations are staggering)

    we know that food influences our moral decisions (judges give smaller punishments after a snack).

    On a cell level, we can assume there is a lot of regulation and communication going on (with surrounding cells).
    Still, it's nerve cells who are speciallized in information processing and passing it on to the other nerve cels

    So is there a possibility our heart "thinks"? I don't think so. The article refers to a nerve nucleus: It's function certainy is information processing (as our gut-brain does as well). But the number of cells there probably indicates that it's contribution [to intelligence] cannot be as big as that of the CNS

    As for the cardio-electromagnetic field theory... I am very sceptical about that (I see it pop up more often in pseudo-science and new-age than in actual scientific research)
    • thumb
      Apr 17 2013: I agree with you Christophe. But I think it's a pity. It looks like just because some people use pseudo-scientific attempts to correlate heart with intelligence, scientists shy away from examining it critically.
      Intelligence is under appreciated in my opinion. You are right that information processing is primarily done by CNS and there is no denying that for humans CNS is pretty developed. But what exactly is intelligence?
      I think we always define intelligence with the idea of a goal or purpose in mind. A person can be very intelligent while grasping a physical reality and very dumb while managing relationships or emotions. I broached the subject of emotional intelligence in this context.
      Purely biologically, where propagation of genes is the ultimate purpose, an organism that has traded a developed and complex CNS for a survival related adaptive trait that helps it to continue for millions of years, can be viewed as biologically intelligent.
      I may be wrong, but it appears to me that our idea of intelligence is too outwardly directed, so much that we often say our brain decides this or that, and 'we' are relegated to a living corpse. Can it it be so there is another kind of intelligence within our body, among our organs, a mind blowing concert between different parts of our body to achieve seemingly mundane tasks like drinking a glass of water?
      I think that is a very interesting and useful question to ask. I just hope scientists of future will take this question seriously.
    • thumb
      Apr 17 2013: I particularly appreciated hearing from a neuroscientist here. Thank you for contributing!
  • thumb
    Apr 16 2013: Hadar,
    I survived a heart attack. I can tell you from my experience that one of the most noticeable symptoms of heart attack is a sense of impending doom. Some call it anxiety, but I noticed it's more than that. Now why heart, a muscle basically, under attack makes the brain to send such signals you think?
    I heard when a heart attack is imminent, certain hormones are released into blood stream to cause that sense of doom. Do you think it is an alarm system of the body?
    I also heard that laughter keeps the heart healthy. Do you think it has scientific basis?
    This conversation is drawing to a close, but I hope you will ponder. Thanks.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Hi Chris,

      I completely agree with you that understanding consciousness is highly significant to science. I like your phrase of "materialistic science"- it definitely evokes certain thoughts.

      I feel that while scientists have done a great job at exploring the Intellectual Brain, they did not give as much meaning to the Emotional Brain or the Motor Brain. I would love to learn more about these types of brains and how they differ from the Intellectual Brain.

      Thank you for posting all this information!
    • Apr 13 2013: How can you have non-materialistic science? Science has to have something tangible to study? Just because we dont know yet how the brain produces consciousness doesnt mean we will never know. The brain governs the entire body and everything in it, so obviously its connected with eveything. The brain is the command and control center everything else in the body is kind of a slave to the brains command, except that which happens anywhere else effects the brain also. Theres actually some pretty good theorys, backed by observation, that could help you better understand what consciousness really is.
    • Apr 14 2013: The problem with your thinking is that it ignores what "science" actually is. Science is the action of studying physical phenomena. If some type of metaphysics existed whether it be telepathy or whatever, then it would have to be able to be studied before science would be able to accept it. Consciousness is a mystery although existing cognitive science does have some theories. However scientists are humble enough to admitt what they dont know. By postulating an idea without evidence is not scientific by any means. You said the brain doesnt produce experience? Well i guess then hundreds of million$$ are being wasted in Neuroscience study brain activity and what its associated with, using MRI. STOP PROMOTING GARBAGE AND CALLING IT REAL. you can believe what you want but if your going to sell PHILOSOPHY call it PHILOSOPHY dont call it SCIENCE.
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 15 2013: Dude for real? You do know i was being vague considering i dont have all the time and space in the world to type.

          "Nothing is generated by the brain; thoughts come from our body of consciousness ... collectively known as the mind, aka, the soul."

          "Nothing is "produced by" the brain. The brain is a processor, not a generator, nor does it store anything.

          The brain processes, period."

          Absolute garbage.. like i said dont call your philosophy, science, please. Ill let your ignorance go.. Peace
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 15 2013: Science is the action of making a hypothesis that can be tested, testing it, and drawing a conclusion from the data collected. If you cant test your "theories" than their just "theories" not science. Go worship the sun!
    • Comment deleted

      • Apr 17 2013: science doesnt accept anything that doesnt have evidence to validate it. ideas are what make Philosophy but its only where science begins. Science Does not just accept something until proven otherwise..exactly the opposite. the "social brain" is a concept. the reality behind that concept is not fully understood. we are social animals that evolved this way. If you have a question be more specific and ill attempt to answer it.
  • thumb
    Apr 16 2013: Hi Hadar,

    It is interesting to ponder possibilities of an alternate intellectual infrastructure of the human body, however, I don't think that evidence of a cardioelectromagenetic field affecting a human in close proximity is evidence that a deeper intellectual system manifested in the heart or other organs may exist. Why is this alleged cause and effect relationship between an electromagnetic field and a human different from the sense of touch or any other sensory input that the brain perceives? I'm not sure what you mean by "intelligence" though. Many complex and "intelligent" processes occur to make even the simplest of bodily processes possible. At least for me personally, these findings will not have any affect on how I interact with other humans. Even if I do believe a person's heart is "smart", what difference does the source (brain or other organ) of intelligence make? Just my two cents.

  • Comment deleted

    • Apr 15 2013: So you transcended duality? When you where in school did you study history? The idea of science initially was motivated equally by an emerging world-view than the method of inquiring itself? Voltaire proclaimed "The Age of Reason Is the War on Superstition". Science emerged to fight Dogma and dissolve the superstitious world view. Makes sense right? Science provides medical explanations while religion and intuition provide demons. Theres a documentary called "Witch Doctor." Its about a Shamans in Africa who tells people (and actually believes) you can be cured of AIDS if you have sex with a virgin, now you can imagine how this played out. In short, Psuedo-scientific new age/ quasi-spiritual non-sense will lead us back to the dark ages. If you want to live in the Empirical world and not the Fantasy world than embrace real science, please. At least Keep your spiritual stuff away from science.. personally you can believe what you want.
    • Apr 15 2013: Carolyn I fully agree with you and have the feeling also that materialism is seen as the way to be and the way to go. The most important aspect and aim of life seems to be now, to die as the richest person possible. It is all about what we have, not what we do or why.

      The two major motivators in this world seem to have lost the connection to each other and have also lost their connection to reality. This life is not only about matter and it is also not only about spirit. Both should relate to, and respect, each other and acknowledge their limits.

      We basically need a spiritual motivation to use scientific (or physical items) to assist and help each other and society. What science does not see or cannot sensor it says 'does not exist' and the ones 'defending' the Bible have (I'm sorry to say) almost no idea what they're talking about.
      Gladly there is now a way to reconnect.
      • Apr 15 2013: Agree materialism is the goal these days and many do not care how many others they trample on to get there. It is clearly a good aim to be reasonably financially secure, roof over your head,food, kids through college, decent car, retirement funding.

        Avarice (greed for money) brings, jealously, often working yourself into the ground, disconnect from community and family, no respect for others including animals. Lives of isolation and ignorance of the world around you. I look at Australia's Billionairess + wealthiest woman in world through mining. Totally oblivious to the world/community around her it appears and total disarray btw family members.

        A survey asked ....towards the end of your life....was my life lived worthwhile? Looking back what would you have done differently ? Top answer ...to have stopped to smell the roses...spent more time with my family, not worked so hard. Connected with community.
  • Apr 15 2013: I wish reply chains could go on longer than they do. Pabitra, I think there are several problems that I have with this article and ones like it. First, a lot of the references cited came from something called "subtle energies", which seems highly suspicious to me, and I still don't know what it is. Second, the mechanisms they talk about constantly mix science and pseudoscience (for example, the talk about practitioners adopting a "sincere caring attitude, and thus introducing increased coherence into their cardiac field.") Furthermore, "If we define energy as the capacity to produce an effect, these experiments suggest that an exchange of energy has occurred. It has also been demonstrated that many of these therapeutic effects occur without physical touch, indicating that energy of some kind is radiated or broadcast between practitioner and patient". This is incredibly vague, and doesn't give me any good idea of the mechanisms even adding all the Electromagnetic field stuff into the equation.

    Mainstream science journals hold the position that the the evidence for any kind of "energy healing" is lacking, and the studies that do see evidence have been criticized for using bad methodology and "selection bias".
    • Apr 15 2013: Noah yes the 'evidence' is missing. One day though when I'd say the world is more at peace and perhaps do we dare to hope world hunger gone, this 'metaphor' proof might be found.

      There is a large teaching hospital probably the best in my State of Victoria Australia. It has just put in a cancer building of 10 storeys high ... it also includes alternative therapies as well as cancer drugs. Only just been opened and they are collecting the data if and hopefully why the both together might work. First instigated by singer Olivier Newton-John for whom it is named.

      The was a heart surgeon there I think and after scrubbs, he would pray (not prey) over his patients ..... his success rate was many times better than any other surgeon.

      No explanation to that either ... not yet that is
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: Dear Noah,
      I am aware what is mainstream science, how it works and validated. But I think there are substantial branches of studies that are arguably outside of mainstream science but are credible by their own processes. Some are observational, some behavioral and some statistical. The scientific process of inquiry and scientific evidence are quite well defined and the publication might not apparently meet that standard but I prefer to keep myself open to all new work and observations from these and believe that will not harm mainstream science in any way.

      I also find 'real science' a rather rarefied claim. There is science and there are other things.
      Btw, I notice that you feel uncomfortable with semantics of propositions. Unfortunately, science still needs language for communication and language does not follow scientific and evidence based practice. You can check descriptions of postulates by very mainstream scientists about a century back. I did, and it appeared to me that it came from a pseudo-scientist.

      I think science is unable to handle the whole idea of healing, let alone energy healing. Some may take a position like how long do we wait till mainstream science finds scientific evidence for nursing and healing to be having positive effect on patients, while tons of personal experience affirming that to be something tangible.
      • Apr 15 2013: One kind of research/science needs the other. So called proven science of today is often something else or discredited 20 years down the track.

        One kind of 'research' cannot stand alone. If Science is to progress it needs to be mindful and encompass 'alternative' belief/science !

        Great to think Ms. Cohen has the competence to realise this. Bravo.
      • Apr 15 2013: I think you're aware of the placebo, which is exactly why we have "tons of personal experiences". And the effect disappears when we take the placebo away. You say "I think science is unable to handle the whole idea of healing, let alone energy healing", but if the only way we are going to get an effect is to not study it, something is wrong.
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2013: Are you seriously saying all our personal experiences are placebo? Placebo meaning a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient?
          Kindly elucidate how science has studied, explained and refuted/proved the process of nursing and healing. Or are you saying nursing and healing are placebo, too?
      • Apr 16 2013: The placebo effect is when a person's health improves just by them thinking it will. That's why when they do drug testing, they give the control group a placebo (a pill that does nothing) so that they can rule out the possibility of the placebo being the reason the drug works. The placebo has been studied extensively, and effects are great, especially when all it needs to do is make a patient feel better (particularly in energy healing, homeopathic medicine, or other alternatives.)
    • Apr 15 2013: I agree. Im appalled at how many people just except this kind of garbage upon faith. I sware pseudo-scientific journals are the Bible of the New Age religion. The same people who like to think they embrace science, really are only distorting it and not even applying its wisdom and method properly. People want to believe in something, If the traditional faith are not working, people will create a new creed with a seemingly higher legitimacy, and thats what this stuff is.
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2013: Thank you. But I am surprised that you are appalled. That to be credible and authentic you have to be somehow scientific is a dogma in itself and it has been created by generations of practitioners of science. To prevent seemingly impossible things to be accomplished out of new age fluff, science and scientists have been stereotyped as nerds, just check Hollywood potboilers to see how just impressive machines, funny sounds and assembly of blinking consoles along with some jargon thrown in can make utterly ludicrous ideas seem authentic.The onus of the distortion is squarely on societies and cultures who worshiped machines, productions and material results.

        I think you are aware that science can well cease to be an inquiry, can grow into a belief system (which some call scienticism) and warp even the brightest of minds. Newton started one. It took half a century to take the non-deterministic views of natural sciences seriously.

        I hope I made it amply clear that i do not accept there is anything such as real science. There is science and there are other things. In my humble opinion, I am unable to discard any inquiry just because it did not follow scientific process and EBP. Therefore Ms. Cohen's question is quite legitimate to me and I am confident I can separate out the voodoo from a reasoned research and you need not worry.
        • Apr 16 2013: " That to be credible and authentic you have to be somehow scientific is a dogma in itself and it has been created by generations of practitioners of science"- First, thats how science was born as ive mentioned in a differant comment.. Science was born out of conflict with dogma and superstition. Science is a verb, not a noun. The principle behind science is to make claims based on empirical evidence rather than faith or superstition... seems to be a universal and infallible idea for Logic.

          Scientists can become dogmatic but not "science." Because real science is based on real facts and real evidence. Newtonian physics is deterministic but for the purpose of his research into the macro-universe yes to this day it is still deterministic. If it wasnt you couldnt have any applied science of physics for example if laws governing our macro-universe where probabalistic than rockets airplanes cars our own motions etc.. couldnt be possible to formulate without a constant re-adjustment. The new paradigm of relativity replaced the classic views because now they had perspective on light, waves, space-time, the particle universe etc... but it didn't change the way physics was already understood relative to the everyday
          matter we constantly interact with.. of course you shouldn't discard a theory if it had not yet been verified by science but you shouldn't be Certain of something that hasn't been proven, and definately, and this is what bugs me, no body could discard the oceans of scientific evidence that has already been accepted to re-enforce some "idea" or philosophy they have.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2013: I appreciate your passion. However, I have very different ideas about almost everything you are saying.
        1. Though it helped greatly to remove, Science was NOT born out of conflict with dogma and superstition. Probably you are mistaken by the scientific revolution that took place in 16th and 17th century Europe. Empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, and Roger Bacon). More ancient references of science can be found in Hindu philosophies. Science originated as a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. I see it as an incrementally developing human inquiry rather than a revolutionary idea out of a war or fight.
        2. It is good that you see science and scientists as different. ‘Scientist’ is a relatively modern term coined by William Whewell in the 19th century. Previously there were only natural philosophers. But I am very confused with your statement “Scientists can become dogmatic but not "science." Scientists can be dogmatic, but what is that dogma, then?
        3. Universal and infallible idea of Logic is not the forte of science, not exclusively. It better not be because had it been so you would have required no evidence. Logic, as proclaimed, is good enough to establish a truth.
        4. I think science is a noun, not verb in dictionaries. As a body of knowledge it should be a noun. Science can appear a verb when scientific and critical thinking is a teaching tool but even then the idea is controversial.
        • Apr 16 2013: Definately, what you said was the most thought out thing and i respect that. I guess the nature of Language is fallible. I think at some points you are not grasping whats im saying.. and not because it beyond you but because words are semantic. Indeed you are right on certain fronts but i believe you attempt to find the grey areas in what can be interpretted by my words and start an argument. For example the whole scientific revolution thing and Aristotle. I mean yes depending on a broader definition of science you where right however your deliberately ignoring the context in which im writing and my point. I was wrong in using "certainty" because it come across too absolute and yes science is fluid, however science is not build on assumptions.. the conclusions drawn are from sold evidence. Also much of what i convey is a matter of Fact that you can research not perspective.. atleast if your being objective. You totally did not catch what i was attempting to convey about Classical Physics and quantum mechanics. I feel no need to really explain but a huge problem in todays physics is understanding... how matter in the microcosm acts through probabalism and in the macro-universe it has through determinism. How does matter made of matter behaving undeterministically.. act deterministically? Digest what I say!
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2013: 5. You are making a distinction between everyday ‘matter’ we constantly interact with and other things that relativistic or quantum physics deals with. Is that a special physics? Your chain of universality and infallibility of logic seems to break down here. I hope you know that a million observations of white swans will not make the proposal ‘all swans are white’ true but a single observation of a black swan will establish the proposition ‘all swans may not be white’. If the knowledge of quantum indeterminacy, relativism and probability did not change the physics the way everyday matter is understood, it appears that science does compromise with practicality and let us know things the way we can comprehend. It does not make everyday matter science beyond question, isn’t?
        6. I am seriously confused about the certainty that you are implying to be coming from scientific proof. If I have understood anything about science, it NEVER proclaims certainty of anything, not even with oceans of scientific evidence. Science remains falsifiable. That is why millions of students study science, piece through works of people before them, aspire to challenge and falsify one little bit and that’s how science progresses. No one has spoken last word about science.
        7. Science does not require crusaders like Keith Weissman or Pabitra Mukhopadhyay to be saved from pseudo-science because it is far too great a human quest and far too inclusive than you may care to think.
        I think you will benefit from reading the works of Thomas Kuhn.
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: "If I have understood anything about science, it NEVER proclaims certainty of anything, not even with oceans of scientific evidence. Science remains falsifiable."

          Nicely put Pabitra.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: Thanks Allan! I too have come to like what you say, most often. :)
        • Apr 17 2013: Certainly it remains falsifiable.. but scientific claims are clearly different than philosophical claims. If there wasnt "constants" in science, building rocket ships and doing surgery would be pretty hard. think about what your saying its not a matter of philosophical debate. Look at all that has come to fruition because of science. Its self-evident that there are absolutes and laws that govern this existence.. Applied science would be irrelavent if everything was always in flux
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: Ok Keith. Give me an applied science based observation of the momentum and position of an electron at any given instant.
        • Apr 17 2013: That science is a work in progress. i tried telling you already.. matter on the micro-scale behaves differently than on the macro-scale. Much of our lack of understanding of the particle universe lays in the extreme difficulty in studying such phenomena. We have to build billions dollar enormous accelerators to do it ineffiecently. However on the macro-scale we have many laws and absolutes mapped out and understood. How else do you think we can send rockets to mars and achieve great medical knowledge? Not philosophy! A doctor must be certain of his practice... he doesnt remain in your bubble of philosophical doubt
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: I tell you how Keith. You can check it. When we send rockets to mars and watch it in monitors, we eat our whole fingernails. You know why? Because we, so certain about science, shit in our pants fearing every second that it will burst into oblivion. Any second.
        Doctors are even a worse lot my friend. They perform surgery and say, the operation is successful but the patient died. In other instances, medical doctors, the product of macro level science per excellence, pray. Can you believe it? They pray!
        • Apr 17 2013: Well its still accomplished bucko! Science is a growing field. I never said we knew everything. Nasa bite its nails and doctors to because they are aware of unaccounted for variable and bad math.. Yes rocket ships have crashed before due to miscalculations. However how many open heart surgeries have successfully been done? Not because of uncertainty but because of a significant body of data and research. Without a significant degree of certainty what has been accomplished the last 100 years would be impossible. Think about it.. would a doctor do a heart transplant if he wasnt at least certain that there was an exact science behind it. yes theres a margin of error but if the laws where constantly changing no body would be confident in applying research to its practical application.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: Sure. I am feeling sleepy so let's conclude.
        Science is a growing field. This exact science is entirely based on statistical success. In last 100 years every day science has separated from micro level science where physics still works. It's not a philosophy anymore.
        • Apr 17 2013: I still think you have wrong idea but whatever. Micro-level physics is just the least determined science thus far. also Macro-level science has been re-affirmed thousands of times in the areas it is certain of its claims. obviously all fields of study are continually growing. WHen science is Applied in practice its doing so based on proven results.
  • Apr 14 2013: I have. I read the article you posted, and I looked up different uses for magnetic fields in medical practice, some of which have a real basis and some of which are pseudoscientific. What I can dismiss are claims by people that jump to illogical conclusions, citing sources that don't prove what those people are claiming.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Noah,
      Is this comment to me? Good job to do your own exploration.

      I did not know what, or whom your other comment was addressing, so it helps to put a name on the comment.

      Also, it helps to keep the comments in sequence as much as possible. If there is a little red "reply" in the upper right of the comment, you can reply directly to the person. If not, scroll up to the first opportunity to reply.
      • Apr 15 2013: The brain is a part of a constant reciprocating communicative process with the body. It gets feedback from all over but ultimately the brain is the location where experience occurs.
      • Apr 17 2013: "No Keith, you don't need to say anything again. What would be helpful to any conversation, is for you to be clear regarding what you want to express. "
        Read what ive wrote.. how am i not being obvious? im explaining what school children learn in their introductory science classes reguarding the scientific method. Really im coming off frustrated because its like.... what planet are you on? isnt it obvious science is a process of experimentation and claims based on empirical data?
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: I am on the same planet you are Keith, and I read what you write. I have not EVER argued with you regarding what science is, or is not. Perhaps you are getting lost in your own frustration?

          Here is what I wrote to you recently...
          "Since you ask Keith....
          What is MOST obvious about your comments, in my observation, is your intolerace for other people's thoughts, feelings, ideas, your sarcasm and anger, which simply muddies the water, causing less understanding of what exactly you are trying to express."

          If you want people to genuinely listen to you and respectfully engage in conversation, it would be helpful for you to offer the same.

          So, again....I have not argued with you regarding what science is, or is not. Why do you want to be disrespectful with your question..."what planet are you on"? Why is that kind of communication necessary for you? What do you gain? What purpose does it serve?
      • Apr 17 2013: Im getting frustrated by repeating my point over and over. Sometimes being direct is the best way to get through to people.. wake them out of their coma haha. I dont mean to offend you if thats what your thinking. WHen i see ridiculous claims i respond accordingly.
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: If you are frustrated with repeating your point over and over again Keith, don't do it! You are simply frustrating yourself. You don't offend me Keith, you offend yourself. YOUR comments are a reflection of YOU. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone else.
      • Apr 17 2013: thats your subjective opinion. Those who understand my position of defending Real Science may have a different view. Religion is not the biggest threat to science, NO, the biggest threat to science are people who distort it and use it inappropriately. As i have said in response to somebody earlier "i would not adamantly attack someones views on religion or philosophy, but science is worth defending"
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: Yes Keith, some folks may have a different view indeed......and some maybe the same view:>) YOUR comments are a reflection of YOU, and it doesn't have anything to do with anyone else.

          You are arguing with me, and I am not arguing with you. Got that Bucko? I noticed that you like that name for people you converse with, so you must like it for yourself as well:>)
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: "The biggest threat to Science are people who distort it and use it inappropriately"


          Sounds like religion to me, Keith.
      • Apr 17 2013: the problem with comments are they are always out of context because the human presence necassary for deciphering context is not here. You may have they wrong idea of my intentions and certainly perception is influenced by subjectivity. Therefore what my comments reflect is more determined on whos reading and how its being processed. You dont have to supply your therapuetics in my conversations with other people. If all human action is driven by motive, whats yours? Some people believe their words and actions arise from a place of reason and altruism when they really are speaking from a self-righteous moral hill-top... not saying thats certainly you, im throwing it out there.. Apart of awareness is understanding that which drives you. Even our apparent friendliness and happy motive may be seeded in the same fear, desire, and ego that spiritual practice is aimed at dissolving.
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: Keith,
          Let me remind you that this thread started with a question from YOU...

          "Keith Wessman
          7 hours ago: Need i say it again.. Science needs to have proof! at least a way to prove it. Im not against Philosophy.. im against the confusion of the two. Im against Bad Science and miraculous claims made under the pretense of science. WOW! how isnt that obvious? "

          My response to you Keith...
          "Colleen Steen

          Since you ask Keith....

          1.Comments ARE NOT "out of context"......except yours.
          2. If you do not want an answer, do not ask the question.
          3. YOUR comments are a reflection of YOU and no one else.
      • Apr 17 2013: clearly you didnt process my last message. Take a deep breathe.. and let it go. if somebody says 2 plus 2 equals 5 im not going to accept their viewpoint. Your wrong my comments also reflect the stupidity of many people commenting on this thread. you where being reasonable until you intruded with this life lesson.. others where being "flat- earthers" so i called them on it. With the level of "Science-Denial" that was going on i had to be blunt. what can i say... cry me a river.
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: Clearly Keith I did indeed process your last message, as well as your previous messages.

          YOUR comments reflect YOU my friend:>)
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2013: Nobody is denying science, least of all me. I happen to love science.

          I just deny your particular brand of it.
      • Apr 17 2013: ok Mom
    • Comment deleted

      • Apr 15 2013: I think you know what I mean. If not, I'll say it again in a different way: You can't claim something and provide a source that does not back up the claim.
      • Apr 15 2013: If your brain was monitored by MRI and they pricked you or stimulated different parts of your body corresponding regions of your brain would light up. Hey Socrates why dont you read a real science journal. the amazing thing is that real scientists publish all their experiments and data and wait usually before something is considered as true the experiment is replicated many time by many people. For real open up a piece of accepted scientific literature.. you would be surprised. You should try to kick your little folk science thing.. really pathetic, and it upsets me only cause people like yourself mislead other and taint what Science represents. Come on, read the array of garbage you post on this site.
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2013: Descending into ad hominem actually devalues any valid wisdom you might have to impart.

          Your angry comments are telling me that you are operating on a narrow belief system - a belief that science is the overlord of everything, including human existence and consciousness, which regularly defies logic and is often chaotic.

          If you say you have an interest in psychology, then you would know that.

          You cannot distil human existence exclusively down to coloured blips on fMRI images and the (as yet not fully researched) role of neurochemicals.

          In the field of psychology, you simply have to open your mind up to its behavioural/social aspects of study (both sciences, yet both potentially defying logic) in order to fully comprehend what really does make us tick.
      • Apr 15 2013: When I called you Socrates, yeah, that was sarcasm Bucko. Philosophy is great but it doesnt prove anything. Your Poetic notions although, romantic, are not true. Like i said believe what you want just dont corrupt science or any form of academia with your thought pollution. If you where religious i and everyone could just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh hes just Religious" But No your selling your witchcraft under the pretense of science.. thats what bugs me.
      • Apr 15 2013: The way this comment section works is annoying. Chris, the way I see it, there is no such thing as "materialistic" science. What exactly does "material" mean? If something like spirit energy or ghosts or something could be documented by science as a legitimate phenomenon, it would become the material world, not much different from magnetic fields, dark energy, or whatever. Also, according to string theory, all matter is just a manifestation of energy. So maybe what the universe essentially boils down to is just laws.
      • Apr 16 2013: "Truth cannot corrupt science.

        Limiting your understanding of what science is, corrupts it."-- If anything is "true" it must be proven to be so with evidence before science would accept it. Science has no boundaries except
        that it can only test what is testable.... once again clearly you dont know the first thing about what science really is.. Go worship the sun
      • Apr 16 2013: Does the photon behave logically, or does it defy logic? hahaha! Yeah it defies your anthrapromorphic conception of logic. It still behaves in the context of order. Go worship the sun!
    • Apr 15 2013: Allan Macdougal, My comments are sarcastic, not angry. Look you too are contriving some idea that im suggesting something im not and saying something that isnt widely accepted knowledge in the field of science. Think buddy.. all im doing is debunking miraculous claims. Just because you believe in the religion of new ageism, doesnt mean its true.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: OK Keith, let me ask you a few questions:

        How does one arrive at a hypothesis?

        How and where in the mind do scientific theories originate?

        Do you believe that intuition, imagination and creativity have a place in science, as well as logic? Is there a hierarchy for those? Is intuition the servant of logic - or is it the other way round? Which comes first?

        Do you think Darwin was accused in his time, of peddling miraculous claims?

        Do you accept that the theory of natural selection is now mainstream science - or do you still see it as a miraculous claim? Which one is it, and why?
        • Apr 17 2013: Have you heard of Complexity Theory? Used to understand evolution, the big bang, and Free markets, complexity theory demonstrate how extraordinarily complex systems arise out of simple ones. Creativity Intuition and consciousness are produced this way through material and evolution.. Of course hypothesis arise out of creative thinking. Darwins Hypothesis In Origin Of species was backed by his physical observations, and since been verified in every way possible thus far. If you have a theory it must be either verified or verifiable. Science doesnt make claims that either are not already verified or able to verify. Also.. you cant have a theory that rejects established truths.. unless you already have the evidence.


          Sounds like religion to me, Keith.

          Exactly look what people have done to Religion.. i dont want that to Science.. my point exactly

          I just deny your particular brand of it."

          You Mean Real Science?
          you havent understood one thing i said so far. go pray to a statue buddy!
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: Complexity Theory facilitates the revision of system concepts of in order to grasp the unstable and dynamic processes of phenomena. An essential component of Complexity Theory, as you might know, is its anti-reductionist strategy, enabling fundamental re-thinking of the nature of systems. Your take on science seems to me very reductionist, and therefore dismisses many of the concepts and possibilities discussed here.

        Science can push its own boundaries with such theories, but pioneering, cutting-edge science owes a great deal to the possibilities expressed in metaphysics and philosophy - much of which lies outside the reductionist/empiricist paradigm.

        If you accept, for instance, that quantum entanglement and 'spooky action at a distance' requires that light travel at 10,000 times faster than Einstein predicted, then why can you not accept the possibility that the heart, with its 40,000 neurons, could have an influence on intelligence? Which one is science, and which one is "witchcraft"?

        "Witchcraft", "New Ageism" and "Miraculous Claims" are nothing short of pointless labels used to dismiss an essential thought process, which might eventually lead to the kind of science you vigorously defend, but with a broader reach.
        • thumb

          Since you ask Keith....
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: OK Keith, I'll let you stew in your own anger for a bit.

        Let me know when you want to directly answer my questions, and I'll listen and politely discuss...
        • Apr 17 2013: Im only typing in a frustrated manner because my point is so simple and universal, it appalls me i have to re word it a millions times and its still alluding you. The way to solve a problem is not by making it more difficult. thats the problem with being overly philosophical.. your not solving any problem if anything your making a simple point far more complicated than it has to be.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: Few things are obvious to everyone. There is lots of material online, for example, that pulls people's ideas in different directions. Once people's beliefs become quite firm, competing points of view are even less obvious and new information more likely to be discounted.

        I mention this because people are often offended when a person suggests that things they do not believe are obvious. The potential for communication is greater if you accept that the same things are not always obvious to people.

        I do agree that "bad science" or distortions of science to whatever ends can be frustrating to see, but the fact is that it is often extremely hard for people to distinguish one from the other.
        • Apr 17 2013: good point, i agree. I believe Science is worthy of fighting to maintain though, because it has proven to be our greatest assett. I would never adamantly fight against somebodys religious our philosophical beliefs.. but i will fight against peoples flawed views of science and bad assumptions made under the pretense of science.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2013: RE: These extraordinary results illustrate that the heart is not only responsible for blood regulations, but is also a very powerful intelligence system.

    Intelligence? The heart does in fact have some 40,000 neurons, but what is a neuron, and how does it differ from other cells in the body? It is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals, but there's more to it than that. What type of neurons are in the heart, since there are more than one type of neuron?

    Re: The heart can therefore be characterized as the engine for distributing and controlling energy of the human body.

    What about the 'enteric system'? The case you are trying to make from the heart can also be made in a convincing fashion for the enteric system, which has some 100 million neurons.


    But I applaude you for presenting this question and feel you will learn a great deal from asking it.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Hi Theodore,

      Exploring these questions is significant in understanding the function of the heart.

      The point I was trying to make was that since the heart is responsible for generating the largest electromagentic field in our bodies that can be detected up to several feet away, Because of this, it is able to control how the body allocates energy.

      You are right though, "intelligence is found in the brain and the heart, but also in other organs like the heart.

      Thanks for the link!
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2013: Could the electromagnetic field that the heart produces be responsible for our concept of "personal space"? Psychologically we acknowledge the existence of "personal space", but could the electromagnetic field the heart produces be physical evidence of why we believe in "personal space"?
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2013: Hi Casey,
        that's a very interesting point and makes a lot of sense. It could be that the electromagnetic field that our bodies create regulate how close we want to be to other people. On the other hand, personal space is often related to one's culture. In the US, people are more aware of their personal space and don't like to get too close to people who they're not familiar with. I've been in other countries, however, where people don't care that much about getting close to people. But it would be an interesting thing to look into.
        This conversation is a little strange because we don't often associate other organs aside from the brain as being intelligent. But I really think that this conversation should also consider what is intelligence? If intelligence means simply communicating and reacting with the outside world, not necessarily through speech or learning mechanisms, then I think that Hadar makes a good point. Our hearts and other organs react to the world around us. Consider breast feeding for example. When women give birth, their bodies start to produce milk to feed their youth. And when the children stop wanting the milk, the woman's bodies stop producing milk. This is an example where our bodies automatically communicate with our surroundings without the conscientious involvement of our brains.
        With further research, we'll come to learn about many of the other "intelligent" roles that other organs in the body play!
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2013: One thing that may be worth mentioning is that while the heart produces the EM field with the most Amplitude, there are certainly other factors of a wave that come into play which may have a bigger role as far as "intelligence".

        That aside, I think more than "Personal Space" as Casey mentioned, the field in question probably has more to do witha persons 'energy' or 'aura' which is cited in many homeopathic/(sor lack of a better term:)pseudoscience. In his book, The Essential Guide to Energy Healing, Dr. Michael Andron speaks about energies generated from the body which can be felt/detected and even altered by external and/or internal sources like a healer or a cancer.

        Certainly, these energies could very well be "generated" at the heart (as opposed to the brain). This would closely relate to more "mystical" approaches which have held the heart in high regards for many centuries.

        It seems that these ideas may bridge the gap between what we consider hard-science and what is sometimes termed pseudoscience!
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2013: Hello Hadar Cohen! Nice to meet you! :D

    Well if you define intelligence as "whatever a intelligence test tests" or as "IQ", then yes the heart (if it does influence your IQ) probably is underestimated. ,
    I mean until I know how you define Intelligence, I feel that I am not really able to comment on this properly. :)
    Sorry to have contributed not very much, it's just that defining words is extremely important! (I find!)
    Considering intelligence can be split into :
    - Willpower + Motivational skills (Which IQ tests don't measure! I mean if you take 10 years on a hypothesis, an IQ test wouldn't measure this!)
    - Memory
    - Creativity
    - Intelligence (Which can be split even further. Like into Practical + Analytical intelligence)
    - Charisma (sometimes related to as "emotional intelligence")

    Which I personally would say are all different things, yet are all important aspects of what we mean when we say "intelligence".
    I mean is "wisdom" a type of intelligence? :)

    Hope I helped somehow. I don't feel like I have, just further complicated this debate!
    Please tell me if I have misunderstood!
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Hi Bernard,

      You make an excellent point. I purposely did not define intelligence because that is part of my whole question. Obviously the brain and heart have different functions and depending on the way we define intelligence, either can be more or less intelligent. So when I ask if the heart is underestimated in this conversation, part of what I am asking is well, how do we define intelligence? By this definition we can figure out if this intelligence is strictly limited to the brain or actually encompasses more than we think.

      If you as me how I personally define intelligence, I would say that it is closely connected to truth. Therefore, I would definitely include wisdom as a type of intelligence. Of course, this raises another question of what is truth...

      I guess I was wondering if we are able to apply a characteristic that has commonly been referenced to the brain in other ways, leading us to conclude that intelligence is actually more broad than we think.
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: I believe one thing which is underrated when people say intelligence, is that people often ignore the "motivational and willpower" skills people have to persist in their goals. As Malcom Gladwell talks a lot about in his book "The Outliers".
        And I can imagine that your heart would help you somehow with willpower. (I'm not sure how, this is just a pure hypothesis!)
        Yes this would be very interesting debate! :)
        Also if you believe that the most "intelligent" people get into power, you have just look at people like Chris Langan to find out this always isn't true. Which (in my opinion) makes intelligence too far overrated. And think about "late bloomers" like Einstein, or that people who "could" be really intelligent yet the opportunities are crushed for them.
        Sorry I feel I am getting too side-tracked.

        Well done on starting this debate though, it is very thought provoking!

        Also the fact remains that "is intelligence a set thing?" (I believe not) And if your heart does have impact on your intelligence, it can have massive implications.

        Sorry, I'm my thoughts are kind of everywhere, very hard to structure!
        P.S I am a great fan of Malcolm Gladwell.
        Here are some of his very thought provoking articles!
        What I.Q. doesn't tell you about race. : http://www.gladwell.com/2007/2007_12_17_c_iq.html
        Are smart people overrated? : http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm
        And there are many many more!
        I can send you this link as well :
        I think it will help you a lot!
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Hi Bernard,

          That's great that you are such a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell! I am not a huge admirer, but I do appreciate a lot of his thoughts. His ted talk was very inspiring http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html

          I also read his book, "Outliers". I like the idea of willpower playing a big role in defining intelligence. It is interesting that you said intelligence is far too overrated. I tend to agree with you on that aspect, but only if we are viewing intelligence as society does. I think intelligence is more than what society makes it out to be. If we are able to define it properly enough, well then I don't think it would be overrated at all!

          I do agree with you that intelligence is not necessarily set. I believe the heart does affect our intelligence and I am very intrigued to learn about the many ways that it does.

          Thank you for your comment! I appreciate the lack of structure, sometimes it helps with sorting out your thoughts :)

          I will be sure to read these links, thanks again!
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Hi Don!

      Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. That is amazing that you have been analyzing Electo-Cardiogram Signatures of the heart for so long! I would love to hear more about your findings.

      I tend to agree with you on "our collective ignorance". I found that our society is actually quite fearful of engaging in ideas they don't believe in or agree with. I like to think of the mind as a completely boundless creation. Because of this, I do not think any idea is "off-limits". It is important to learn how to appreciate thoughts, even if they do not coincide with your individual beliefs. Only through this analytical system of understanding can one truly develop insight.

      The Primer Lesson from Cern seems beyond fascinating, I will be sure to watch it in the near future. It is quite astounding how recent these discoveries are. I really appreciate all this information!
    • Apr 13 2013: hi Don,I was watching the primer fields. whats the validity of the stuff this guy is demonstrsting? he did make it easy to understand ,some what and i was intrigued. does that magnetic shape really account for it all? how Many scientists attention has he caught?thanks for Sharing that.
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 13 2013: I couldnt question it . I watched primer fields one and part of two. i like how he makes connections with places in history to even today. I just wondered what his colleagues felt about him. I dont know what i said .i wasnt try to offend . i actually liked watching the videos thus far.
        • Apr 13 2013: they see how simple it actually is and there like"OH......." yea, i hear you.
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 14 2013: thats funny how somebody could explain something so deep with a simple hands on demonstration,yet , not surprising.
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2013: I've always thought of my brain as my whole body, my heart as my soul and me is all of that. So what if it's jumbled mess of nouns, it is there.

    My heart and soul directs what my intelligence focuses on, in my belief. You will not pay as much attention to certain concepts if you are not emotionally attached to such. It's a reward system in our mind that most likely was there at the very beginning of life, to help our drive and focus.

    Remember that expression, Don't do something if your heart's not in it? Best example I can think of, you simply will not put forth every aspect of your intelligence if you are not passionate about what you are observing or working on.

    We are the sum of our Actions + our Passions.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 17 2013: Chris, that is interesting. As a person of science and as one who does not believe in God, after life, reincarnation etc. I am skeptical about all claims that have anything to do with religious sources. But when I studied chakra system (Kundalini) I was very impressed by its structure and connection with health/mind. One has to be a little open to examine such treatise because it's not in line with modern scientific inquiry but the wisdom shines through.
      I do not know if you ever practiced it, but please do not exercise it without the guidance of a very capable teacher. This and tantric exercises have some unexplained qualities which I believe are frighteningly powerful.
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: As you know Pabitra, I do not believe in a god, or practice a religion either. However, there seems to be no question that energy moves through our body/mind systems, which are all interconnected.

        Energy fueled our systems BEFORE religions were established, and I believe the words which may stem from religions are merely words that were adopted by the religion to try to explain the energy in the body/mind systems.
    • thumb
      Apr 17 2013: Good point Chris, to be aware of the Chakras, which is why my very first comment in this discussion is:

      "Colleen Steen
      6 days ago: Good information Allan!


  • thumb
    Apr 16 2013: Hi Hadar,
    It's interesting to think about the heart as a intelligence system given the traditional ideas associated with the heart. Although we seldom think of the heart as an intelligence system, it intuitively makes sense because the center of the intelligence system, the brain, relies on the heart to perform all of its functions. In this sense, I think all of our organs contribute to our intelligence system in some way or another.
  • Apr 14 2013: Just another thought on what interactions might influence body/mind.

    A study I read on the best thing to stop a baby crying is a warm room and Mom massaging bare babe.

    My son these days at 40 yrs. would be horrified if I attempted it on him now ! All the same tho he has a hot tub outside his back door with massage jets ! lol
  • Apr 14 2013: Hmm thanks for posing the question. I have read that when one dies it is the soul that transcends to heaven. Someone actually weighed the body before person died and then after and found the body to be somewhat lighter (can't remember how much). There is NO other reason that could explain it.

    Next question what exactly is the soul ? A combination of a metaphor of heart and brain that lives on ?

    Is the brain ruled or helped by the heart ... I don't doubt it. Since becoming disabled a few years back I am now an advocate and find that even though my heart has always been kind to people & animals for me there seems to be a correlation as I fight for Disability rights in Australia. i.e. My body might be stuffed but my brain has never been better, faster, bilaterally thinking. I believe that more than ever my life is now lived with purpose.. a fulfilling purpose as I am making a difference for myself and others. Never sad, or angry or lost.
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2013: Hi Hadar,
    After learning more about the heart, I definitely feel the heart is a bit underrated when it comes to information processing. You mentioned evidence that the cariodelectromagnetic field can affect people several feet away and I think that is truly remarkable. It makes you really reconsider phrases like “the vibe coming from a person”. If the heart can transfer energy between human beings, that could have an enormous impact on the way we perceive human interactions. Perhaps the heart really can get an understanding of another person and sense certain features that our brain does not pick up on. There are many different types of intelligence and although the brain may be responsible for our primary source of knowledge interpretation, I believe there is a level of intelligence distributed throughout the body in ways we have yet to understand.
    • Apr 15 2013: G'day Neema.... I would add the word KARMA (what goes around comes around) perhaps no evidence ..as yet but plenty of believers.

      Sir Francis Drake was told if he sailed over the horizon his ship would fall off he earth. Just as well he did not believe it eh ?
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: Neema- I also thought of the act of getting a certain "vibe" from a person when reading this question. I think the most interesting part of this question is the open-ended view of intelligence within these bounds- our bodies ability to transmit and react to cardioelectromagnetic fields, once it becomes a true perfectly measurable quantity, will definitely become a factor when we consider the relative intelligence of a person.

      I also definitely agree that there are levels of intelligence that are not yet quantifiable or measurable and so we (as humans) don't really understand the full extent to which humans in general experience and act upon the world, which is a bit scary to think about.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2013: What sorts of intelligence do you think we can obtain from the heart?

        My take on this is that the heart is a muscle. Therefore, how can the heart have any intelligence? Looking at the basics, the brain is made up of neural cells while the heart is made up of muscle cells. These are intrinsically different. I really don't think that our heart can have any sort of intelligence. If it could, then could our leg muscles have intelligence? I understand that there are nodes that send electrical signals in the heart, but they are merely there to keep the heart contracting at a steady pace.
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2013: @Hadar Cohen (Sorry comments getting quite confusing down there!)
    Well I am glad I could help! :D
    If you asked me what I thought intelligence consisted of I would mention these (will slightly repeat myself):
    - Creativity (+ original thought)
    - Memory (otherwise known as "Knowledge") Also this helps with maths.
    - Charisma + Understanding people(Sometimes known as charisma or "Street smarts")
    - Willpower (sort of self-control, I would also include motivation in this)
    - Intelligence = Which many would argue is a bit like this link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
    - The humility to admit your wrong. (Massively underrated) Yet I am still debating whether to call this a type of Intelligence, for it is more part of your personality.
    And there was a very interesting experiment done, where it was found if you primed to be reminded of their ethicallity, then Black people would do worse in IQ tests, while White people would do better. While if you didn't remind them of their ethinicallity they would both do the (roughly) the same regardless of race! This can also been seen, just replace IQ with sports. Black people do better at sports, and white people did worse.
    Shows how expectations can influence our performance. (Sometimes known as a "self-fulfilling prophecy!")
    Also it is shown if you are more "positive" your IQ goes up, and that if you view you can "become better/ change your IQ" then you will gain about 10 points on your IQ.
    While with your debate, if any of these things are influenced by your Heart, then yes your heart influences intelligence (unless you have a different definition!)

    Yet :
    I do feel that intelligence is far too much over rated! And encourages a form of eliteism which crushes potential!
    I mean the current education does not encourage "intrinsic motivation" and "critical + original thought".

    I did really badly in my GCSE's, do this might be a bias! :P

    Sorry if I have repeated myself! I hope I have been of assistance!
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Hi Bernard!

      These characteristics that you mention are all great to incorprate in this term 'intelligence'.

      I think that the experiment you mention tends to be true. This illustrates that a lot of times, our capabilities are hindered by certain expectations. I can relate to that a lot! I think it is important to remember that one should create their own expectations and not let others dictate them for him/her.

      I totally agree with the statement you made that intelligence is overrated and encourages a form of elitism that can crush potential. I think that I have actually seen this happen. It is sad to think that these are the consequences of such notions. I think we should educationally encourage "intrinsic motivation" and "critical and original thought", however I am not sure how that can happen practically.

      Thanks for your contribution!
      No apology necessary for repetition :)
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2013: This would make an interesting question to you, a slight side subject, should we equate intelligence with how well you do in exams? :P
        Yes I agree it is a problem to make this go practically!
        Well glad I could help as always! :-)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: I think the question you posed is a really important one. Personally, I think that no, intelligence should not be equated with how well we do in exams, lest we limit intelligence to measurable form. By equating the two, we result in discouraging many from learning. I honestly do not think a number can be put to intelligence.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2013: Oh dear. I forgot to mention emotional intelligence as well!
        Yet I don't understand it very well myself, do you? (Is it much different from charisma?)
        Also found it interesting how you said : "Personally, I think that no, intelligence should not be equated with how well we do in exams, lest we limit intelligence to measurable form."
        Because this happens a lot in the educational system, it's said that (according to some experiment) that if you "acknowledge"people's work they will be more likely to work harder. (Watch : Dan Ariely: What makes us feel good about our work? : http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_what_makes_us_feel_good_about_our_work.html)
        Also I do believe FLOW : http://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html is very important to the education system.
        Kind regards,
        EDIT :
        I mean EQ (/ emotional intelligence) in addition to all of the intelligences I have mentioned!)
  • Apr 13 2013: The relationship of the heart and lungs is a very special one, and both have an influence or correspondence with our spiritual components and life.

    You may find this approach interesting:

    That being said, I strongly support the idea that what we love (our heart) is many times more important than what we know and how much we know. As the saying goes, We are what we love.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Hi Adriaan,

      Thanks for the link!

      Philosophically, I also love the idea you mention. This concept drastically changes how we view the meaning of life and shapes how we define our goals.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Wow, this is an amazing poem!

      Very creative. I especially like the somewhat radical statement of leaving the path of logic in order to reach true understanding. Definitely raises a lot of interesting thoughts.
  • thumb
    Apr 11 2013: Hi Hadar

    I feel that indeed our bodies are a spectacular creation which we don't use our minds to decide how they should operate. They instinctively do what they need to, to survive and to accommodate to conditions.

    Generally we as humans cannot really has the level of control of our bodies to harness the capabilities that exists, though i know that in cases such as monks who sit in meditation practicing for years can do feats which we cannot totally comprehend, though they can due to they level of control they have over their bodies.

    Although there exists intelligence in our bodies which we don't fully appreciate, we can progress in this aspect if we are prepared to dedicate more time to it.

    I appreciate your thoughts on this.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: HI Yusuf!

      It seems you are saying that our bodies are actually superior to our brains. This is a fascinating idea to think about. Our society constantly appears to dictate otherwise, with phrases such as "mind over body".

      I am curious about how we as humans can control our bodies in order to appreciate the complexities of our intelligence. I do think though that we do need to dedicate more time to uncovering more about these concepts.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
      • Apr 13 2013: Thanks for the question. (I would've asked it myself if I weren't afraid of it being deleted for being too new-agey & unfounded.)
        I'm waffling on whether or not people believe in the brain over the body... I'm thinking this specifically because of the quote: "People may forget the things you did, but they'll never forget how you made them feel," (or something like that.)

        "... as humans can control our bodies "
        Maybe if we ease-up on the idea of "control" would help. [sentence broken, you get the idea.]
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: I agree with Yusaf, there are certain people who are capable of controlling our bodies and I liked the example he gave with the Buddhist Monks! But the average person doesn't have the patience and drive to tap into that inner power and capabilities. Our bodies are wondrous things that we continue to learn more and more about each day, and this question is no exception. I don't know the electrical and biological anatomy of the human body as well as I would like, but Allan and Colleen stated below, it comes as no surprise that the heart "controls" our emotions. There are thousands of neurons found in the muscle mass of the heart! And there are so many different forms of exercise and rehabilitation that focuses on this body/mind relationship that it can't simply be ignore.
  • Apr 11 2013: In India, the heart is considered to majorly influence one's decision making process. It has always been associated with the feelings and intuition of a person. Also, i have always been told by my parents to " Listen to my heart" because that is where one would find the answer during a dilemma. This conditioning makes me feel that the heart definitely has an intelligence system of its own.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: Hi Arun,

      Thanks for bringing up the cultural reference! It is interesting that we as humans have been conditioned to something we have not yet understood. Yet, we constantly follow our mysterious hearts.
  • Apr 11 2013: and most of all " I LOVE YOU WITH ALL MY HEART ! " . how long have people been saying this. probly since the advent of the word. science confirmed something people intuitively knew all along.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: Hi Nathan,

      Thanks for the phrase connection! It is quite astonishing how human intuition can be very accurate.
      • Apr 11 2013: very much so. I do believe the body has an inteligence of its own. it does what it was programmed to do. the one thing that tends throw it off is our own negativity towards ourselves or others negativity we allow to have an effect.
  • thumb
    Apr 11 2013: Kenneth Robinson has said that people tend to think of their bodies only as a form of transport for their heads. But scholars who study the brain and how we think and act understand that the body is an interconnected system. For example, we think less rationally when under long periods of stress, through the effect of stress-related hormones. Pain affects how we think. Shortage of air due to poorly functioning lungs or circulatory problems would logically affect how well we think. The way we perceive things will depend on our vision, our hearing, and our sense of touch.

    When people think about or study intelligence, isn't it usually based on the behaviors that manifest themselves without allocating credit to particular body parts?
    • Apr 11 2013: stress doesn't cause us to think less rationally. stress causes physiological changes such as hormones, which then in turn affect the brain. similarly neither pain nor a shortage of oxygen affects our brains, but the effects of these situations do. if this wasn't true then painkillers wouldn't work. pain is not experienced by our bodies, it's a signal from a part of the body to the brain, which then interprets it as pain.
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2013: I did not mean that these directly cause us to think less rationally. I meant through the mechanisms you describe.
        • Apr 11 2013: right but the original question is perhaps the heart is responsible for some information processing and my answer is that no it isn't. it would be intriguing if the biological infrastructure to allow such a thing were there, but it isn't. there are connections yes, but we shouldn't give these connections any deeper meaning than what actually exists. there is no difference between the lack of pain due to lack of injury, and the lack of pain due to a severed connection to an injury.
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: I know what you mean. My point was that the common scientific perspective does not, in fact, ignore that there is a nervous "system" and a body and that the brain receives inputs from the body. We could not learn the things we now do if various parts of our body did not do data collection and transmit information.

        Cognitive scientist George Lakoff of UCBerkeley describes the first generation of cognitive science as the "disembodied" view and the second generation as the cognitive science of the "embodied" mind, in which, for example, we recognize that "the conceptual structure and mechanisms of reason arise ultimately and are shaped by the sensory motor system of brain and body."

        In another example, Eric Kandel, Nobel laureate in neuroscience at Columbia writes that fellow laureates Richard Scheller and Linda Buck found from their study of the sense of smell and noses of mice that "this vast array of receptors... explains why we can detect thousands of specific odorants and indicates that a significant aspect of the brain's analysis of odors is carried out by receptors in the nose."

        I agree that these interconnections are acknowledged rather than having deep and neglected meaning.
        • Apr 12 2013: really? can you explain how this analysis is done by the receptors in the nose?
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: I doubt that this is "analysis" in the complex cognitive sense in which the human brain processes the data it receives. But as I, like you, think of the brain as where all the true "analysis" takes place on the basis of vital sensory inputs received from the balance of the body, and as I know I am only a reader of such work and not an expert, you might want to go to the source and read the work for yourself.
        • Apr 12 2013: yep i might when i have some time, just hoped you might summarize it for me. thanks for the info though anyway! i'd be interested to know whether anything actually happens there, or if it's purely a bioelectric reaction to the presence of a particular molecule, and that no analysis is done until that signal reaches the brain where it can be interpreted. i think it is extremely important to know where in the body these processes occur, so as we aren't barking up the wrong tree when we then go to work out how. if we start crediting the heart, nose, or anything with having intelligence when they have none, understanding will suffer as the truth is obfuscated by this 'competing' theory.
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: To be clear, I am not under the impression that these body parts have intelligence in the way we normally think of it. I think they provide inputs and offer supporting services without which the brain would not be intelligent. Without a circulatory system and oxygenation of blood, I think we could skip the IQ tests.

        It is in that sense that it is a whole-body team effort. It is not a competing theory. It is just a context of appreciation for the whole apparatus.
        • Apr 12 2013: it's seems our disagreement is very nuanced! i guess to simplify i would say that in my opinion it's not a whole-body team effort. input yes most certainly, but even these are not necessary for the brain. for example we can see without our eyes, such as imagination, and without this there would be no art.

          what do you mean by other supporting services by the way?
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: I mean that without the arrival of blood and oxygen to the brain, the brain won't function. These are "lifeline services" rather than sensory inputs.

        We can imagine without our eyes, but the data we collect with our eyes still provide us with information that can allow us to reason about a situation.
        • Apr 12 2013: i see what you mean thank you. do think it would be fair to say that actually the brain provides itself with blood, since it's the signals that the brain sends that cause the heart the heart muscles to contract, which causes blood to be pumped? i would say that while the heart allows the brain to function, it doesn't assist it in any way.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: Dear Fritzie and Ben,
      For what it's worth, it appears that you are both saying the same thing:>)
      • Apr 12 2013: i think yes and no. we both agree that there are connections. perhaps i'm misunderstanding, but while i'm quite sure the connections between body parts have no more function than as a relay, the questioner and i believe the commenter too is wondering if there is something more to those connections.
        • Apr 12 2013: Have you considered dyslexia and its effects? The brain cannot think without the body, from what dyslexia reveals.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: I agree Ben...yes and no:>)
      • Apr 13 2013: jim i hope you won't mind elaborating on how dyslexia shows that the body is necessary for thought?
        • Apr 13 2013: Glad too Ben. Consider, the severest cases of dyslexia, see the afflicted in fetal position, never to come out of it. I read of dyslexia long ago and the severest form was said to be such, but I don't see it on the net any longer. I have no corroboration, so you can just disregard this. Apologies.
      • Apr 13 2013: very interesting! i hadn't heard that. though since the body cannot move without an electric signal via the nerves from the brain, surely a malfunction of the brain is responsible, and not vice versa? the more common forms of dyslexia also have been shown to be a kind of malfunction/crossover within the brain rather than faulty information coming to the brain, not unlike aphasia really which is almost the reverse condition. also the prevalence of people with a physical disability but unaffected mental condition suggests to me that the brain is fine without the body. dreams too.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Ben,
          You say...."the brain is fine without the body". I think I "get" the point you are making.....as with Parkinsons for example? The body is compromised, while the brain is still alert?

          However, clinical death is now recognized as cessation of blood circulation and breathing. I say "now", because I believe there was a time when clinical death was determined by cessation of brain activity.

          It appears that brain activity can be compromised, as long as the heart and lungs are working? These days, of course, all of this can be done with life support systems! I had the pleasure of that experience, so I LOVE life support systems:>)

      • Apr 14 2013: parkinson's is the opposite, it's a problem in the brain that manifests as loss of motor control.

        that's a good point. i remember reading about the difficulty in determining brain activity, since there is usually an electric field there anyway, but it's impossible to say whether it's due to actual thought occurring or not. even a banana has such a field so by the earlier definition we wouldn't be able to define a banana as dead! what that means though is how we define death clinically, and no more than that. the definition was changed to make it useful.

        the heart and lungs cannot work without the electric pulses that tell them to contract, and so if the brain is incapable of doing that then something else is needed until the brain is back online. people can be clinically dead but not dead. from your experience you are probably one of the few who would be able to understand that easily! :)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: You're right Ben, Parkinsons is a problem in the brain that manifests as loss of motor control and dementia often occures in advanced stages. In the early stages of the disease, when the motor control is beginning to be challenged, the brain/cognition seems to be working well. I helped care for a couple friends who had parkinsons, and that is my only experience with the dis-ease, other than what I read about in preperation for caregiving.

          A banana has the same electric field.....well that's encouraging!!! :>)

          Yes, I do understand....a person can be clinically dead, but not dead:>)
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: Even those who think of the body as a brain with its means of transport would likely agree that on a literal basis, the body is one structure.
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: Not yet.
      • Apr 13 2013: glad to find someone else who is unimpressed with sir ken! don't know how he got the idea that studies in english and a career in drama gave him any insight into education. teach before you preach!
      • Apr 14 2013: none needed, i understood your original message, i was just going off on a tangent since sir ken was brought up.

        by the way just an fyi, while it's an interesting theory, it isn't substaniated or supported by any organisation, it's just a backyard idea, and to be honest it seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

      • Apr 16 2013: not my opinion, just the name of that particular website. perhaps it was unfortunate choice of link, i wasn't intending to be offensive, just show that he has no connection with cern, nor do his views represent any "news out of cern". to put it most simply, he's incorrect. it's not embarrassing at all to anyone from cern, who do actually know what they're talking about.

        i did do some checking about lapoint after i started watching his video that you posted the link to. i found it to be full of errors and assumptions and so i had check to see whether he was wrong or i was. you've done some checking too? would you mind sharing what you found?

        i'm not sure what you'd like me to clarify regarding the relay of electrical signals through the body?
  • thumb

    R H

    • +1
    Apr 11 2013: Absolutely. One of my favorite topics. In my opinion, we haven't even begun to explore the frontier's of the intelligences of 'experience' and 'sensitivity'. But it's not only 'the heart', it's the whole body. This is what we need to balance our 'mathematical proofs' and 'reasonings' for great decision-making. We 'rationalize' unconscionable acts. Yet if we understood the intelligence of our 'knowing' and our 'anxious sensitivity', we may find another way. We dismiss what we feel and 'know' as our decisions are subject to 'fact'. But if we had full knowledge of our intuitions and the infinite intelligence of human sensitivity, our decisions could have long-range exponential results with all concerned and could be synergistic with future developments- but that's me.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: Hi R H!

      I like how you distinguish between 'rationalizing' and 'knowing'. I totally agree that exploring human sensitivity can greatly advance our progress. Thanks for your comment!
  • Apr 10 2013: thankyou thankyou thank! I first learned of this on YouTube s science of the heart. gives new meaning to vibes in a room,and are there resonant frequencies for other waveforms besides sound? I also wonder if this is another tool people are unaware of that they use when reading into other people. It is very interesting, thanks for bringing it up.
  • Apr 17 2013: I think our brains are processors of information, but how we get that information is not always well defined, especially if it lies outside the purview of the 5 senses. I am sure there are electrical and chemical forces at work we are more or less totally unaware of, and which influence how we think.
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Apr 16 2013: Hi Hadar, great question! I was particularly interested in the library of medicine article you posted. It's easy to follow the thinking that the heart affects the brain as with the Broken-Heart syndrome. The "sympathetic limb of the autonomic nervous system leads to cardiac myofibrillar degeneration." It is more difficult to observe the intelligence of the heart and see how the heart primarily affects the brain. The article states, "Neurologists and neuropsychologists also increasingly appreciate the importance of vascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases on cognitive function." From an engineering perspective on the brain, I want to see by what mechanisms the heart can affect the brain. How can the heart reach out? From the article, I think that damaged heart tissue or clogged arteries obstructing blood flow can affect the brain chemically by failing to keep it oxygenated. This is one way the heart 'reaches' out. What are other ways?
  • Apr 15 2013: Chris, how exactly do you know all this?
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: Noah, if you want Chris to see your question, find a place Chris has posted a comment and go to the red word Reply on that comment.

      When you post to the top of the thread, as you have here, the only person you can count on to see it is Hadar, who gets a message that you have replied to her.
      • Apr 16 2013: The problem is that the reply button disappears after a few comments.
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2013: Noah,
          Do you see the little arrows at the left by your name? That indicates what level the coment is. There are 3 levels.....you see that your comment has two little arrows? This comment has 3 little arrows? We cannot reply to a 3rd level comment......only first and second levels.
          So, when we want to reply to a 3rd level comment, just scroll up to the next "reply" opportunity. It may not be the same person you wish to reply to, but if you put the name of the person you wish to reply to at the top, the person probably will find it:>)
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 16 2013: I am not techie.

          I don't know why you don't get alerts. Have you tried contacting the tech people about this?
    • Comment deleted

      • Apr 16 2013: By testing everything for yourself? Everything? How?
      • Apr 16 2013: But you still haven't answered my question, which had to do with validating your assertion that "Energy is what animates our physical matter. The mind is a form of pure energy; the physical organs are matter, material. Thus, it is our mind which gives the life energy to the physical body". This has nothing to do with any kind of scientific definition of what energy is, nor what I was talking about, which is string theory.

        "Science is wonderful ... because science is about knowing something. Not simply having an unchallenged hypothesis, but true KNOWLEDGE."

        I agree, which is why I'm trying to challenge you on all these unchallenged hypothesis you expect me to believe.
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2013: Hadar, I know that in our culture the heart is considered the symbol of emotion, but in your bioelectricity class, do you consider the heart the seat or source of emotion or feelings? What role for the heart and what role for the brain do you learn correspond to current neuroscientific or medical understanding of emotion or feeling?
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: Hi Fritzie,

      In our bioelectricity class, we did not analyze the heart as the source of electrical activity associated with emotion or feelings. I think the spirit of Hadar's question is to open up the consideration of sources of electrical signal aside from the brain which could influence the way we perceive and interact with our surroundings.

      In other words, since the heart produces electrical signals just as the brain does, could there be some connection between the electrical activity in the heart and the electrical activity in the brain, as a sort of interference phenomenon? This could have implications on not just our emotions, but also our motor function and subconscious regulatory processes.
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2013: Thank you, Osaze. You are thinking, then, in terms of normal pathways through which we interact with our surroundings.

        What confused me were the specific connection of brain in this discussion to the idea of intellectual priority, as if the brain was somehow uniquely intellectual and traits one might not think as intellectual might reside elsewhere.

        There have been references, for example, to EQ, as if that had some specific unappreciated connection to the heart.
  • Apr 14 2013: "there is increasing evidence suggesting that the cardioelectromagenetic field can actually affect human beings in close proximity."

    What the fuck is this? Where is this evidence?
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Dear Noah,
      This is very basic science, which is used clinically, as you might learn from this link, and many others which are available with a couple clicks on your computer:>) No need to make yourself look silly!

      • Apr 14 2013: Actually I'm not talking about Pulsing Electromagnetic Therapy, which is a legitimate, documented form. I think I'm attacking her whole paragraph claiming "Through these interactions, the heart transfers energies between human beings. The heart can therefore be characterized as the engine for distributing and controlling energy of the human body." I think it might have been a mistake to outline the first sentence.

        The site looks awfully suspicious, without any links or references to other sources. But there is legitimacy to it that has nothing to do with the heart being some "intelligence" center.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Noah,
          Your previous comment stands alone. I'm not aware of which paragraph you are "attacking" as you say.

          That was just the first site that showed up when I googled the topic.....there were lots more that might give you different, more or better information.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Dear Noah,
          If you can come down from your fighting horse, a reading of this link may explain things that Ms Cohen tried to say in the paragraph you quoted.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Pabitra, as the lead author seems mostly to be associated with psi sites and this publication is not in a peer reviewed journal, would you have any references that are from such journals?
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2013: I don't know about psi sites but it appears that this publication was peer reviewed/referenced by K. H. Pribram, ed. Brain and Values: Is a Biological Science of Values Possible. Proceedings of the Fifth Appalachian Conference on Behavioral Neurodynamics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1998: 359-379.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Noah, I have not yet looked for reliable material one way or another on this, but there are a range of uses of magnetic fields, some which are, in fact, clinically valid and some that are, as perhaps you suspect, promoted and used without medically valid evidence of effectiveness.

      If I were you, I would do your own rooting around on this so you can evaluate the validity of the different sources for yourself.

      I don't think it is ever silly to look for or ask for evidence.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2013: I agree Fritzie, that it is not silly to look for, or ask for evidence. In my humble perception, there are better ways to ask than "what the fuck is this".....that is what I was suggesting looks kind of silly.....the way the question was asked. The evidence, as you have reinforced is "out there", and if/when a person wants to explore the topic, s/he certainly can.....good reminder Fritzie:>)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: I also don't like rudeness. I would want evidence on the point as well, particularly as the best evidence I have from expert sources casts doubt on that particular claim.
      • Apr 14 2013: I'm sorry guys, but I get worked up by people who use real scientific studies to say crazy stuff that isn't related. I'm trying to fight claims that assume "the heart can therefore be characterized as the engine for distributing and controlling energy of the human body", or something along those lines. I'm heavily biased toward real science and don't like to accept anything that hasn't been examined in mainstream science journals.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Noah,
          Stop "fighting", do some research, and offer your perspective. Getting "worked up" doesn't solve anything.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: I totally get that, Noah, particularly if you are someone who has a background in science. It's just that using insulting language tends not to be a winning strategy for getting people to rethink anything.

          Other than that, asking questions is a great contribution to discourse.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Hi Noah,

      As has been stated above, using foul language is completely disrespectful and unproductive. I understand where you are coming from, but you need to remember that well, you don't know everything. I am not really sure what you mean by "real science". Please remember that the scientific world is far from black and white.

      Others have kindly provided numerous research results. Pabitra specifically mentioned heartmath, which I referenced for this conversation.
  • Apr 14 2013: Hadar,

    Thanks for sharing what you learned in Class. It is some interesting material.
    The idea of a Body-Mind, or Heart-Brain, dichotomy is deeply ingrained in most world cultures. One is typically elevated and given importance over the other, or the duality is implicitly acknowledged and a 'balance' sought.
    Coming from a Brain-over-Body perspective, any research illustrating decentalized bio-info computation will seem amazing and mind-blowing, but it should not surprise us. We are, in fact, whole Human Beings, and each and every aspect of us is intelligent, social, and rather lazy in nature.
    I don't think this research will change how we view each other on a personal or emotional level. Most of us intuitively understand things such as 'muscle-memory' and 'body language,' and hopefully view our friends personalities as something that resonates from something more than just particular regions of their neo-cortex. It will, however, make for interesting discussion over wine.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Hi Seth,

      It's true, the concept of the duality of heart and brain has existed for quite some time. It it interesting that you say that wer are whole human beings and that therefore we should not be surprised by these results. However, I find that in our society we constantly praise intellect (from the brain) as one of the most important human characteristics. I think with societal progression, we tend to dismiss many aspects that make us "whole Human Beings".
  • Apr 13 2013: By Heart do you mean the allegorical symbol representing love, compassion, and empathy? Well i can put it this way, there is a dynamic of our brain associated with concepts, logic, and absolutes (Left-Brain) and a dynamic associated with feeling, sensation, and intuition (right brain). I do believe, especially in the west, we are overly "Left-Brained." I do believe we need to integrate both aspects of our brain functioning and recognize the wisdom each part has.
    • Apr 13 2013: thats the thing, its not necessarily how you think it is.its not all in the brain. people intuitively knew somethimg science has just confirmed. we lovr woth our heart,physically.
      • Apr 13 2013: how do we love with our heart? And the heart in every society meant something differant. It would be only "intuitive" or by default that the heart would be of significance to the mind of the illiterate ancient man, because the heart beats and you can feel it. So the heart was associated with the soul like in Egypt when the heart was allegedly put on a balance after death with a feather in attempt to measure your karma before entering the underworld.
        • Apr 13 2013: emotions are sent via electro magnetic fieldds the heart puts out.
      • Apr 13 2013: sorry buddy emotions are produced by the brain. The physical aspects of emotions are differant biochemicals the brain signals to be released. For example the feeling of anxiety or fear is really
        just adrenaline and cortosol. Dopamine seratonin and an abundance of many biochemicals in particular doses and measurements produce your entire spectrum of emotion. EMBRACE REAL SCIENCE, THERES A LOT OF GARBAGE OUT THERE.
        • Apr 13 2013: sorry buddy, but a ..this article states otherwise. u should try reading it. the people making these findings are pretty darn real. just try reading one of the links before you reserve judgement and think you know what REAL SCIENCE is.
        • Apr 13 2013: add the heart to those facts in that it relays emotions via electro magnetic waves. it can do how you saypluss what this article says .its not either or.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Hi Keith,
          You mean real science like 'God does not play dice'?
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: I agree with you Keith....there is a lot of misleading information "out there".

          You say..."The physical aspects of emotions are differant biochemicals the brain signals to be released...anxiety or fear is really just adrenaline and cortosol. Dopamine seratonin and an abundance of many biochemicals in particular doses and measurements produce your entire spectrum of emotion".

          I agree that the biochemicals, released into the body/mind cause various reactions to stimuli. Do they however, "produce the entire spectrum of emotion"?

          There has been research indicating that when we consciously think about, and feel certain emotions, these chemicals are released in the body/mind. For example, it has been proven that laughter and crying release similer chemicals in the body/mind. Consciously making facial expressions (sad or happy for example) causes the release of chemicals in the body/mind.

          So, which comes first? The stimuli (external or internal) which causes the release of chemicals? Or the production of chemicals which cause the emotions?

          You are saying..."Dopamine seratonin and an abundance of many biochemicals in particular doses and measurements produce your entire spectrum of emotion", which I don't think is true. Based on research I've seen, it is the other way around.
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2013: Keith,
          It looks like this comment of yours, which was kind of randomly in another spot, is a response to my comment above, so I hope you don't mind that I copied it here to try to keep the comments consistant.

          "Keith Wessman

          I agree with you that " The brain is a part of a constant reciprocating communicative process with the body". Well said Keith.

          I believe research shows us that "experience occurs" throughout the body and brain. As a part of a "constant reciprocating communicative process", which you insightfully recognize, how could it be any different?

          I am very grateful for your respectful reply to me. I observe some of your other comments and replies, and your demeanor is not always beneficial to the conversation.
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 13 2013: you read the question thoroughly? this isnt the first time ive heard this. on you tube"science of the heart" explains as well.
          energies, information is in the electro magnetic waves. this has an effect to people within proximity of you.
      • Apr 13 2013: Sorry buddy the article is wrong or your kind of misinterpreting it. The heart sends signals to the brain and can effect the brain and its emotional processes. The heart is not giving the brain the exact command for a particular emotional response. Maybe if you understood a little more about physiology you would have some sort of context in filtering the information. Every organ gives feedback to the brain and yes they are discovering the signals of the heart are of special importance. However your emotions although effected by the heart in ways not yet fully understood are not responsible for your exact emotion and the way you experience and process it.
        • Apr 13 2013: what is it ,am i wrong or the article?it also states these waves have effect on people in proximity,and dont put words in my mouth. no one ever ssid " fully responsible".
      • Apr 13 2013: put it this way... if the article is suggesting what your saying than your both wrong. Theres a lot of junk science out there dont buy everything you hear. i never said fully responsible either, pal. research the gut/brain connection and learn how that effects the mental and biological processes. No Organ dictates your emotions but your brain, although many organs can INFLUENCE emotions... big difference.
        • Apr 14 2013: oh yeah . what was i thinkin. kieth wessman knows it all... put it this way... if the article is suggesting what your
          saying than your both wrong
          Your not even reading the article? why you even commenting?Don't you gotta bridge somewhere to be under? calling stuff garbage without reading it?
    • Comment deleted

      • Apr 13 2013: I came to the conclusion that brain size is not always equal to level of inteligence when reading the article about turtles that dont deteriorate and the guy that discovered it. His observations showed these turtles would gain wisdom of there suroundings over several years of living there.
        • Apr 15 2013: Nathan Nathan Nathan.. oh your ignorance to our most blessed gift, Truth. There no need in explaining anything to you. you dont have the capacity to grasp anything i try to convey so.. Peace.
      • Apr 13 2013: I like the idea of integration but im aware of the importance of method and skepticism. Many people put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. Im for the Facts.
      • Apr 13 2013: I feel you... but you know there's a lot of garbage out there and this subject looks like its attracting the pseudo-scientists. Plus our own minds are not always trustworthy thats why evidence is crucial.
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2013: I see how there could be an evolutionary explanation for this. If you regard us as the result of evolution of life on earth from one cell , multi cell and to complex forms of life it could be that back in time the heart had a more complex role; as the brain appeared and evolved it took charge of those functions; maybe that gut feelings, love from hard, broken harts are some manifestations of ancient ways that we still carry in our genes. I am not a scientist but this thought crossed my mind while reading people's comments; I might be under the influence of David Christian's talk on the history of the world.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Hi Anairda,

      Thanks for your comment! I like how you look at this concept from an evolutionary perspective. However, it seems that you are saying that while the brain evolves, the heart does not.I agree that as our society progressed, the brain has taken control of certain functions that in the past, might have been the task of our hearts. But this does not necessarily mean that this is the more "insightful way" of governing our lives.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2013: Actually I agree with you. Those feelings and knowledge we get from the heart/body must be way deeply rooted in our being since they are historically older on the evolutionary scale ; so they have to be more insightful but also more instinctual than rational pertaining more to the basic human needs of connection, security, fear...survival. The challenges of modern human societies with all their complexity require probably more of the rational. The thing is that society is evolving much faster than our biological beings can keep up with and adapt; I don't think either the brain or the hart evolved much in some thousands of years while the social evolution was tremendous. I also think that with all the advancements in human society the process of natural selection /evolution is totally altered so neither the heart or the brain's evolution will evolve independent of human's interference.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: You are right, society is evolving at a much faster pace than our biological systems can handle. I think this is a bit of a problem because we often forget about our "roots" due to the social progression. I find that we often focus more on social progression than evolving our brains and hearts. It is interesting to think about the brain and heart evolving with human interference. It illustrates how much power we actually have on our future.
  • Apr 12 2013: "could intelligence be distributed through the body in ways we might not expect? "

    No because electrical signals are limited by the speed of light and cellular communication is limited by distance. There are different parts of the nervous system that command certain regions of the body but I think disabled people are evidence enough of what happens when things go wrong.
    • thumb
      Apr 13 2013: Professor Stephen Hawking can be a very good starting point to consider your stand.
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2013: Hello Miss Cohen!
    It used to be. But I think, not anymore. Apart from the physilogical basis of intelligence (neurons etc.) located in parts of our body other than the brain, IQ has a competing candidate now which is known as EQ (emotional quotient). Daniel Goleman's work on emotional intelligence is interesting despite criticism from mainstream scientists.
    We already have a scientific basis of 'gut' feeling, I hope.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Hi Pabitra!

      You are right, we do have evidence of neurons located in different parts of the body. I am curious to know more about this Emotional Quotient, would you be able to expand on that concept? What is this EQ based on?

      I agree the mainstream scientists often like to dismiss this idea, which comes to me as a surprise. Why do you think there is so much criticism from mainstream scientists on this topic?
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2013: Hadar and Pabitra,

        Emotional quotient, cool! I can't wait to hear more about this!

        Adding to Hadar: "This made me wonder, could intelligence be distributed through the body in ways we might not expect? Could this information sent to the brain perhaps even influence emotional states?"

        and Pabitra: "We already have a scientific basis of 'gut' feeling, I hope."

        I think there is something to the intelligence of other parts of the body having the capability to "influence emotional states". The example I think of is when I get sick, say catch the flu or something like that. When I get sick, emotional speaking, I don't "feel" like myself. I tend to get grumpy, agitated, or I "feel" uneasy.

        And also, when I get sick, my brain doesn't say "Hey, you got the flu! You might want want to do something about that!" No! However, my body sure seems to know something isn't as it should be and I think that effects my emotional state.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2013: Hi Casey!

          That is very interesting that you mention getting sick as a way to realize our other body parts intelligences. You are right, our brain does not let us know that we should take care of ourselves. But our bodies do inform us.

          Its almost as if getting sick is a wake up call in which the body is yelling "pay attention to me too!". I find that when I get sick, I tend to appreciative my health more. Our bodies are amazing creations that seem to be able to take care of themselves for the most part. However, we do need to be more aware of what actually goes on with our bodies.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2013: Dear Hadar and Casey,
        There is a lot of information available online about emotional intelligence, of which I am sharing a few.
        Some scholarly articles by Salovey and Mayer, who first proposed this idea in a coherent and scientific angle are also given.
        My personal take on this is as follows:
        IQ is arguably not an effective measure of intelligence (I was told to have possessed an IQ higher than Bill Gates - you can easily assess the level of achievements and successes of Bill and I :) ). Emotional intelligence integrates passion, goal orientation, communication smartness and ability to channelize emotional energies gainfully with capabilities of critical/abstract thinking. It is a more holistic idea compared to IQ based intelligence. It is relevant to your question because power to emote is a function of the body where organs other than brain figure too.
        I would like to point out to you that the idea of intelligence that you are discussing is apparently limited to human faculty. Intelligence takes on special significance when you decide the direction and goal of life. From a purely biological point of view, where propagation of genes is the ultimate goal, size and power of brain functions start to lose special position. I mean, there are wonderful life forms on earth successfully surviving despite very low brain mass - are they any less intelligent? From that perspective, plants, that reigned the world much before higher order primates and possibly going to survive when they become extinct, are no less intelligent that humans. However this is a bit radical idea I suppose. :)
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Hi Pabitra!

          Thank you for all these links, greatly appreciated!

          I agree with you that defining intelligence is related to our ultimate goal. Your example was very interesting, though is pretty radical! I think that humans have an advantage compared to other life forms because they have this special intelligence, whether it is related to the brain, heart of other organs. We as humans, I believe have an additional task to procreating. Obviously there is much debate as to what this purpose actually is, but I think many agree that it exists.

          I like how you define emotional intelligence to include passion and ability to channelize emotional energies with abstract thinking. I think it is tough to be able to determine how these characteristics can actually be measured, but important to do nonetheless.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2013: Hi Hadar,
        The EQ can be objectively measured. There are several models available, of which I find EQ-i very comprehensive. You can test your emotional intelligence here.
        To know how EQ measurement is standardized you may find this useful.
        My wife (a professional theater actor) and I did a study on how theater acting can increase emotional intelligence of senior school students where we used EQ-i model questionnaire to test if late teen boys/girls can develop emotional intelligence by using theater acting as an activity.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Hi Pabitra,

          I just took the quiz and got above-average! I would have liked there to be more of a spectrum though.

          That is fascinating about your study, I would love to hear the results!

          Thanks for these links!
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2013: Dear Hadar,
        For more detailed test you have to buy the tests, I guess.
        The study I mentioned has joint copyright with Government of India, who funded it. But I can share some salient results with you :)
        1. EQ of late teen students showed no co-realation with economic class they came from but a direct proportionality with the size of the family. EQ and language skills were found interlinked. Size of group under study was 180 randomly selected students of both genders.
        2. Of the same age brackets girls showed higher EQ than boys.
        3. Exposure to theater games like trust games, imaginary red ball game, improvisation game etc showed improvement of EQ in all subjects.
        4. Emotional management exercises seem to improve grades but conclusion was not convincing.

        I hope you know that unlike IQ which tends to fall with age, EQ improves.
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2013: Wow that is great, thanks so much for this!

          Result numer 1 is fascinating. So interesting that size of family impacts EQ.

          I am very intrigued to explore more about this topic.
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2013: I think so because how we feel will always effect our decisions, it is a part of our natural bias.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2013: Hi Thaddea,

      It is interesting you say "it is part of our natural bias". I think that because our emotions play such a huge role in the way we behave, that means that our emotions actually know something that our brain does not. In other words, there is a certain type of intelligence associated with the heart. We sometimes dismiss our feelings as being 'irrational' but maybe they are acting upon a rationality we have not been able to understand just yet.
      • Apr 13 2013: Okay, first of all the heart is an organ much like the liver or kidneys except obviously they have their own function. The Brain is the one and ONLY command center. The hearts association with emotions and love go back to the ages before science when people could feel the heart beat in a living person and could not feel a heart beat in a dead person. the obvious conclusion was to make the connection between heart and soul. Now emotions are a Proxy. Emotions where given to us by Natural Selection. Much like pain signals us to a wound an emotion signals us to a response. The Sensation of emotion is produced by different biochemicals in the body and brain. Your brain gives the signal for endorphins and other chemicals to be released and so you feel the emotion and then you react to it much like nature intends you to do.
  • Apr 11 2013: the body definitely has an intelligence of its own. a story on tv dealing with the human body had a segment about this guy who was stranded at sea. He began eating the fish he had caught so he wouldn't starve to death.something told him eat the eyes. come to find out the eyes were the most nutritious part.his body knew with out his mind knowing.
  • Apr 11 2013: and does the heart also interpret these signals? in much the same way as a compression wave is nothing even when it hits the eardrum until it is interpreted by the brain, i'd be surprised if the heart was able to do anything with this received signal other than send it to the brain.
    • Apr 11 2013: i would think they work in tandem. It differs from the idea "its all in your head". it explains alot with human interactions.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2013: Hi Ben,

      It is interesting that you think that the heart is not capable of processing signals and can only transfer them to the brain. I like to think that the heart can analyze signals in ways that we don't understand yet. Rather than the heart being subservient to the brain, I believe that the heart and the brain are connected in a mutual intimate relationship.
      • Apr 11 2013: agreed. its most definitely worthy. when reading some of those links im afraid they were a bit much for myself but i did pickup something about tonic muscles and how they are very rare in mammals but found in reptiles. what would be the connection or the reason for slow reaction to stimuli, if im understanding it correctly?
      • Apr 11 2013: that might sound nice and of course anyone is free to think this way if they wish, but exactly what reasoning leads you to think it?
        the heart is mostly muscle, which contracts when it receives an electrochemical signal from the brain - it's a reaction not a decision. where in the heart do you imagine these parts that can analyze anything could be?