s1eep Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) In this thread I will briefly describe how the heart effects, inter alia, thought and emotion. As the Egyptians transcribed 'the heart is the seat of all emotion, and with my modern day experience added, I can safely say that it is also the subconscious, and thus, the source of man's thought. When we think of a subject, it's by way of a prompt from the heart (~in the form of a "!") to the mind ("?"), whether this be by natural instinct or through the subliminal; nature or nurture. A thought-prompt is a signal sent by the heart, and it's not originally worded-- it takes mental power to word 'a real cat' for example. All hearts are connected, by way of them being hearts, call it a special relativity, and probably in other ways. How does a thought-prompt emerge? When hearts cross, instinct arises... And this is the primary reason the heart prompts the mind. If my body, naturally, begins to align with a cat's heart some moments before I think of it, then I will be prompted by my heart, and this prompt will likely turn into a thought; a soft proof of this fact is that when I have not experienced what a cat is, I will not think of it because I don't know it exists, and therefore our hearts cannot be aligned; however, a paternalistic hand can change this malleably. Worded thought is like an "iron sceptre" that we use to excite and manipulate our heart into omission of certain subjects; we can change our hearts course with spoken and acknowledged word. Take for example the word "rat", it rhymes with the word "cat", and if I'm caught in rhythm then I may think of cats because I was thinking of rats; this is but one example of how our hearts are manipulated by the word of the tongue in the mind. This means that my teacher may cause my heart to align with the cat's heart, and thus cause me to think of a cat; assimilation of a cat's heart is not a requirement since a my teacher or a teacher in the cycle of teaching, had assimilated it, so it's a silent passage through the subconscious. Think of the heart as an engine to the mind, all movements of a human, or cat, are coming from their heart, at the source, but movement is henceforth controlled by the mind; it's possible for the mind to follow the heart's command, and vice versa, for example, in situations where we are scared, we will instinctively try to pacify our emotions so that we become fearless again-- we are following the heart and it's output here, and not the mind. A metaphorical example; if I take my foot of the acceleration pad of a car, then I will still be in motion, and I'm left to keep control of the torque of the engine's prior output, that's unless, amongst other things, I choose to put my foot on the brake and come to a halt. The flow of nature makes it so there are lots of moments wherein we can follow our hearts, such as by meeting someone we like or someone that we don't, hunger or fear, whatever the case is, sometimes we submit to the pulse of emotion and follow the commands given by the heart. THIS IS MY OPINION! Written above is what had led me to this opinion... Edited January 30, 2015 by s1eep
andrewcellini Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 what would you like to discuss? are you attempting to justify the quote in your title?
s1eep Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 I have edited the original post, as the original post once said "The copy & paste feature doesn't work, so I'm trying to use the quick edit option to see if it works", it didn't, so I wrote it freehand, it took me about five minutes, sorry for the delay.
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 There is nothing scientific about any of this. Your use of "heart" is not a biological one. I don't know why you use terms like "...cause my heart to align with the cat's heart", since cats have a heart rate that's more than double what a human's is. There's no mechanism in the heart that could account for what you claim. I've studied the charts in my cardiologist's office. There are signals coming to the heart from the nervous system, but the only signals the heart sends out are kept within the cells of the heart itself, mostly to promote sinus rhythm. You seem like you're trying to tell us this is the way things are rather than might be, and yet you're using concepts that can't be/aren't supported by evidence. In essence, you're turning your opinions into assertions, which takes all the meaning out of discussion. All we can do is agree or disagree with you, since none of it is testable (except for the obvious parts like heart rates). You should start a blog somewhere. 2
s1eep Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Being less strict on semantics, when I say align, I mean, 'meet in the middle', rather than completely eclipse the cat's heart. And by no means am I saying the heart experiences anything, I'm saying it's the source which sends the chemicals in your body wild, for them to then be assimilated by the mind. Let me ask two questions: Does the brain experience emotion with no heartbeat?! Does the brain sense the heart? Let me bring to the topic then, I think that the heart is the source of all emotion and it's my opinion, let's discuss, above is written what had led me to this belief. Edited January 30, 2015 by s1eep
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I think that the heart is the source of all emotion and it's my opinion, let's discuss, above is written what had led me to this belief. The chemicals that are carried by your cardiovascular system don't start at the heart, they aren't made there, and since the emotions we feel are regulated in large part by these chemicals, how can the heart be the source?
s1eep Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) I guess that it's because the heart pumps blood around the body, and in a way the blood flow and heart are connected; like an engine to a car, the heart is necessary for any form of drive/movement. If the brain senses the heart, as I asked before (I don't know if it does), then surely it can synchronize or even receive signals from the heart as if it was in the position of the heart??? A car metaphor works perfectly, that's where this opinion arose. Edited January 30, 2015 by s1eep
andrewcellini Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I guess that it's because the heart pumps blood around the body, and in a way the blood flow and heart are connected; like an engine to a car, the heart is necessary for any form of drive/movement. How did you go from this to concluding that the heart sends a "thought-prompt?"
s1eep Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 Maybe my mumbling isn't perfected, but it may be perfected by someone with expertise, and elevation can occur through discussion. The thought-prompt, I guess then, is a by-product of the brain assimilating the heart and sensing from it's position, as the two are connected almost imperfectly opposite to one another.
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I guess that it's because the heart pumps blood around the body, and in a way the blood flow and heart are connected; like an engine to a car, the heart is necessary for any form of drive/movement. If the brain senses the heart, as I asked before (I don't know if it does), then surely it can synchronize or even receive signals from the heart as if it was in the position of the heart??? But you could say the same for any major part/organ. The engine won't move the car unless it gets a spark from the starter, and the starter needs the battery. Be very careful about assigning importance to the individual pieces of a system; they're usually ALL important. The brain doesn't send synchronization signals to the heart. The heart regulates its own rhythm internally, via the sinoatrial node. The brain does signal a need for increased heart rate, like when you're running and need more oxygen. But that has nothing to do with synchronization.
s1eep Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Well let me think and educate myself on the subject of hearts and minds and come back in a month or two and further discuss this, please keep the thread unlocked, feel free to discuss, and I will respond to any discussion directed at me! I will admit, the "key" reference really ruffled my feathers. Edited January 30, 2015 by s1eep
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I will admit, the "key" reference really ruffled my feathers. I was unable to find a reference to your reference. The only instance of either key or "key" on this page is in your last post.
s1eep Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Well, spark requires a key in the ignition, no? And if not, I meant 'spark' reference. Edited January 30, 2015 by s1eep
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Well, spark requires a key in the ignition, no? If the car belongs to you, that's the preferred way. So, I mention that the engine needs the starter, and that "ruffled your feathers". Do you mean it made you question your idea, or it made you upset?
s1eep Posted January 31, 2015 Author Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Made me question my idea, sorry but I have a love for wisdom, and artistry... Maybe that's not welcome here; but exactly that last sentence is my wisdom, and I love expressing it. There are some things that can only be made clear through the use of wisdom, metaphors and such. Maybe not made correct, but clarity comes through using the car metaphor. I imagine we could debate/discuss here revolving around the car metaphor for hours. Okay, so my short-term thinking time has led to this answer: There always needs to be a secondary, equal and opposite to the car (i.e. a driver), and this is a heart and mind on a different, higher level; the person is the heart and the car as a whole is the mind (metaphorically). The driver sticks the key in the ignition, and this is where the engine starts, as I said in the original post, this is where 'hearts cross' and instinct arises. *If there is no second, the car doesn't exist, it's a singularity (there at least must be an observer; there at least needs to be you explaining about the car). **'equal and opposite'-- opposed to, in a position of relevance to the central aspects of 'a car'. Edited January 31, 2015 by s1eep
JustinW Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 The heart has nothing to do with emotion . It may affect our decision or mood in reaction to damage but the emotional response would still be the minds flight or fight nature to adapt and survive. Creating a reaction designed to initiate a response benefitting life longevity. Funny thing about the car.......I would have 1st thought about it as the heart being the motor and the driver being the mind, since they are analytically providing the same functions for their systems. Also, existence doesn't rely on observation to exist. Just because we do not observe something doesn't mean that something didn't effect something that we happened to observe afterward? Our observation of anything at all is a fare the reason for everything. Maybe.... maybe not..... Knowing the answer to the question, "Why?" is halfway to enlightenment., and there are arguably 2. Because and Why Not
Moontanman Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 People who have received mechanical hearts seem to experience emotion... 3
John Cuthber Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 People who have received mechanical hearts seem to experience emotion... An excellent point. There's also the other side of the same idea. People with "damaged" hearts have the same emotions as the rest of us. This is not always true of those with damaged brains.Also there are drugs that are known to act within the brain that affect emotion- alcohol is probably the most widely known- but have no direct effect on the heart. The whole thread is just silly. None of it ties in with well known facts.
s1eep Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) @Moontanman: People who have mechanical hearts, still have heart-like entities. @John Cuthber: I don't think it's silly, and think it does tie in with well known facts, but you have misunderstood the original post. The heart experiences nothing, it's the pumping blood organ of which, I think, creates the means for emotion, the source of, not the receptor. I agree the brain experiences emotion, however, I think it is binary with the heart and the heart is producing the means for emotion, by pumping blood and sending the chemicals in the body wild, for the brain to then harmonize (i.e. make harmony out of; make sense of). What were the Egyptians explaining metaphorically by "seat of all emotion"? Let's take a seat, then, people sit on seats so let's add the central opposing factor to the seat, the sitter, who becomes seated upon sitting. This is what I'm assuming is true, that it's the source, and not the receptor which is the human being who sits on the seat, but without this comforting chair to sit on, there is no emotion, so it's necessary. As for why it's the subconscious, I need more time to learn how to explain. Edited February 2, 2015 by s1eep
Moontanman Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 @Moontanman: People who have mechanical hearts, still have heart-like entities. Please elaborate on what you mean by this..
s1eep Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 @Moontaman: it works as a heart does and pumps blood around the body.
Endy0816 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 There's no connection to the brain for the artificial devices. there's even external ones that can move blood around. You don't necessarily need a pump inside your body. 1
Dr. Funkenstein Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 In Ancient Egypt, The heart is a metaphor for the Soul of a man. That's to say his seat of character, emotions etc. Once dominion and soveringty has been gained over the heart, then one can actuate the mind (Spirit) of eternity. So through the heart, the spirit is activated. science have found no link between the actual heart and mind, other then symbiotic control. The heart of Egypt is therefore symbolism, for a metaphysical understanding. Through complete ownership of the soul is the only way to reach the realm of the spirit. 1
s1eep Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 @Endy0816 As long as the blood is pumping around the body and the chemicals in the body are being sent wild, then it doesn't matter what causes it. I imagine someone with an artificial heart is less excitable, and thus won't be prompted so often. Perhaps I am wrong about the heart being the subconscious, but it could be a massive influence.
John Cuthber Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 I imagine someone with an artificial heart is less excitable, Reality and science don't really care what you imagine. Reality carries on regardless and science only takes an interest in the evidence. The evidence makes it quite clear that the heart has no real effect on emotion.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now