TED Conversations

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/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2007.041178/full
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
"intelligent?"

Share:
  • 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:

    http://www.ccjm.org/content/74/Suppl_1/S48.full.pdf

    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"

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain

    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.

    George
  • 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.
        (cont.)
        • 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.
        Cheers!!
        • 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.
        Peace.
        • 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"

          "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

          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
          6 hours ago: 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.

          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."

          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.
        • Apr 17 2013: "The biggest threat to Science are people who distort it and use it inappropriately"

          "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

          Sounds like religion to me, Keith.

          Exactly look what people have done to Religion.. i dont want that to Science.. my point exactly
        • Apr 17 2013: Nobody is denying science, least of all me. I happen to love science.

          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.
        • Apr 17 2013: 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?
        • thumb
          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.

          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
      • 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.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain

    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 :
        http://www.gladwell.com/archive.html.
        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!

      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 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,
        Bernard
        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:
    http://www.scienceofcorrespondences.com/heart-and-lungs.htm

    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:>)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death
      • 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.

        http://crackpotwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/another-winner/
      • 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 30+

    • +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.