Transplant memory - a related phenomenon?

[Bonteburger]

yeah seems like their antvirus software (or somesuch) is trying a bit too hard.

[caranax]

Several days ago there was a long youtube documental (transplanting memories) in which there was an interesting hypothesis. According to one interviewed scientist memories are stored as part of a electromagnetic field produced by the brain and the heart. The heart's electromagnetic field is several times stronger than that of the brain and memories are somehow stored or trapped into that field.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by caranax

Several days ago there was a long youtube documental (transplanting memories) in which there was an interesting hypothesis. According to one interviewed scientist memories are stored as part of a electromagnetic field produced by the brain and the heart. The heart's electromagnetic field is several times stronger than that of the brain and memories are somehow stored or trapped into that field.

Except that after a heart transplant we'd lose all our memories. Oops. Also, how would the heart maintain this electromagnetic field across the transplant?

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

The really interesting thing about this phenomena (assuming it is true) is that materialists assume that memories are stored as some sort of neural net. These are statistical in nature, and the encoding would be unique to every individual - so no meaningful information could be passed from individual to individual.

Clearly memories can't be literally stored in the electromagnetic field - for the reason Paul has given - I don't like a loose, vague way of discussing serious scientific questions (not referring to you, caranax, but the program you quoted)!

David

[Arten60]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Except that after a heart transplant we'd lose all our memories. Oops. Also, how would the heart maintain this electromagnetic field across the transplant?

~~ Paul

Not true and there are two reasons why according to Sheldrake and little old me.
Firstly, every cell in the body is a transmitter and we are made up of trillions of cells.
Secondly, we do not have one Brain we have two, although some people have been found who have no brain in the head. Remember the Ancient Greeks believed they thought from the heart. We believe we think from the head. I suggest this is just a cultral bias brought about by conditioning.

Is Your Brain Really Necessary?

The link above deals with the case of a guy who had no Brain lived in England and graduated with a Maths degree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/he...33600&emc=eta1

The second link shows we have a second brain in the gut and it is this brain that gives rise to the so-called sixth sense. Whatever folks enjoy!

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
our philosophy.
William Shakespeare

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Firstly, every cell in the body is a transmitter and we are made up of trillions of cells.

So the heart cells upload their memories as the donor dies and then download them after the transplant?

Secondly, we do not have one Brain we have two, although some people have been found who have no brain in the head. Remember the Ancient Greeks believed they thought from the heart. We believe we think from the head. I suggest this is just a cultral bias brought about by conditioning.

I suggest that you're ignoring the past two millennia of neurophysiology.

Is Your Brain Really Necessary?

Oh please, not this old chestnut.

The link above deals with the case of a guy who had no Brain lived in England and graduated with a Maths degree.

No brain? Try reading the article.

The second link shows we have a second brain in the gut and it is this brain that gives rise to the so-called sixth sense. Whatever folks enjoy!

That's the enteric nervous system. There is no evidence that it is a brain in the standard sense of the word.

~~ Paul

[Arten60]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

So the heart cells upload their memories as the donor dies and then download them after the transplant?


I suggest that you're ignoring the past two millennia of neurophysiology.

I suggest you are talking like a fool.


Oh please, not this old chestnut.

Don't tell me you are next going to attack Lorber which is the standard response.


No brain? Try reading the article.

I read it thanks there is no brain.


That's the enteric nervous system. There is no evidence that it is a brain in the standard sense of the word.

I see you want to engage in semantics another typical ploy of the sceptic.
Oh well.

~~ Paul

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
our philosophy.
William Shakespeare

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Arten60

I suggest you are talking like a fool.

Righty-o.

I read it thanks there is no brain.

So this part is a lie, I take it:

Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column.

Last I heard, "less than 1 millimetre" is not "zero."

I see you want to engage in semantics another typical ploy of the sceptic.
Oh well.

Calling the enteric nervous system a brain is the ploy, my friend.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Last I heard, "less than 1 millimetre" is not "zero."

~~ Paul

Do you really want to dismiss the issue of the guy with minimal brain so easily?

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Do you really want to dismiss the issue of the guy with minimal brain so easily?

What I don't want to do is assume he has significantly fewer neurons than you or I. Compression does not equal absence. Anyone counted neurons?

Note that the article says:

Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column.

while the original paper at http://www.rifters.com/real/articles...e_No-Brain.pdf says:

"When we did a brain
scan on him," Lorber recalls, "we saw
that instead of the normal 4.5-centimeter
thickness of brain tissue between the
ventricles and the cortical surface, there
was just a thin layer of mantle measuring
a millimeter or so. [bolding mine]

Later in the paper:

Commenting on Lorber's work, Kenneth
Till, a former neurosurgeon at the
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick
Children, London, has this to say: "Interpreting
brain scans can be very tricky.
There can be a great deal more brain tissue
in the cranium than is immediately
apparent." Till echoes the cautions of
many practitioners when he says, "Lorber
may be being rather overdramatic
when he says that someone has 'virtually
no brain.' " Lorber acknowledges the
problem of.interpretation of brain scans,
and he counters Till's remarks by insisting,
"Of course these results are dramatic,
but they're not overdramatic. One
would not make the claim if one did not
have the evidence."

~~ Paul