Pioneer1 Posted June 7 Author Report Posted June 7 frankster Quote discovered that the heart has its "little brain" or "intrinsic cardiac nervous system." This "heart brain" is composed of approximately 40,000 neurons that are alike neurons in the brain, meaning that the heart has its own nervous system. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31728781/ The potential to interact with the ‘heart’s little brain’ through direct stimulation, pharmacological or ablative approaches will increase as our understanding of the fundamental science deepens. Lol.. There's a reason why they kept putting the term "little brain" in quotes. It is figurative. So it's not taken seriously; especially by people like YOU. Notice how they would speak of the "little brain" but when it came to the ACTUAL brain they say "like the neurons in THE brain". Meaning the ACTUAL brain....the REAL brain. Not this "play-tend" or "make believe" brain we're figuratively speaking of. Pubmed and the doctors did it for me. They were being figurative, thus the quotes. I think you know that. Atleast I hope you do. Thats up to you....call it what you want I'm gonna call it "a wrap" for THIS particular issue...lol. Troy Sounds like he was hallucinating. What if he wasn't? What if he actually saw and heard what he claimed? People don't hallucinate entire scenarios in crystal clear imagery like he did. ProfD Folks who claim NDE is so great and beautiful never seem to be in a rush to make it permanent. Actually many if not most of them do! Most people who have had vivid NDE's have said that they were depressed when they came back to this world and all they could think about for a long time was how beautiful it was on the other side and just going back. For many of them, the only thing that kept them FROM committing suicide to go back over there was knowing that their time in THIS world was limited....would be up soon anyway...and that their life was given to them as a gift and they didn't want to disappoint Who gave them that gift; so they spend the rest of this life looking forward to the reward of going back "home".
frankster Posted June 8 Report Posted June 8 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Lol.. There's a reason why they kept putting the term "little brain" in quotes. It is figurative. So it's not taken seriously; especially by people like YOU. It is serious....they published it in pubmed 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Notice how they would speak of the "little brain" but when it came to the ACTUAL brain they say "like the neurons in THE brain". Meaning the ACTUAL brain....the REAL brain. Not this "play-tend" or "make believe" brain we're figuratively speaking of. Yes that is why it is a brain.....because it has neurons like what's in the brain. In some ways it acts and function like the brain....hence it's called "little brain" 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Pubmed and the doctors did it for me. They were being figurative, thus the quotes. I think you know that. Atleast I hope you do. Quotes so you understand what they are specifically referring to 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Thats up to you....call it what you want I'm gonna call it "a wrap" for THIS particular issue...lol. See you around...
Pioneer1 Posted June 8 Author Report Posted June 8 frankster It is serious....they published it in pubmed Again, the term was meant to be taken figuratively which is why they put "little brain" in quotes. And YOU know this too, which is why you said: Yes that is why it is a brain.....because it has neurons like what's in the brain. You didn't say: "like what's in the OTHER brain". You didn't draw a distinction; because you recognized that in actuality the human body only has ONE brain. In some ways it acts and function like the brain....hence it's called "little brain" Ok, now look at what you just said (typed...lol) In some ways it acts and functions like THE brain. You yourself know it's not THE brain or even A brain, but just something similar or kind of like one. Other parts with groups of neurons that may act as control mechanism may simulate certain aspects of the brain but it's not the same as THE brain. It doesn't govern sight, smell, taste, or have a spinal cord attached to it. It doesn't have a Pineal gland. ...because it's not actually a brain. See you around... Aight den....holla.
frankster Posted June 9 Report Posted June 9 On 6/8/2025 at 9:47 AM, Pioneer1 said: frankster It is serious....they published it in pubmed Again, the term was meant to be taken figuratively which is why they put "little brain" in quotes. And YOU know this too, which is why you said: Yes that is why it is a brain.....because it has neurons like what's in the brain. You didn't say: "like what's in the OTHER brain". You didn't draw a distinction; because you recognized that in actuality the human body only has ONE brain. Of course they drew a distinction....they said it was in the heart - the little brain in the heart. On 6/8/2025 at 9:47 AM, Pioneer1 said: In some ways it acts and function like the brain....hence it's called "little brain" Ok, now look at what you just said (typed...lol) In some ways it acts and functions like THE brain. You yourself know it's not THE brain or even A brain, but just something similar or kind of like one. Yes....that why it is considered a brain - it acts and functions like the brain On 6/8/2025 at 9:47 AM, Pioneer1 said: Other parts with groups of neurons that may act as control mechanism may simulate certain aspects of the brain but it's not the same as THE brain. It doesn't govern sight, smell, taste, or have a spinal cord attached to it. It doesn't have a Pineal gland. ...because it's not actually a brain. Do you have any post and link to back up those statements are are they just pure pablum On 6/8/2025 at 9:47 AM, Pioneer1 said: See you around... Aight den....holla. see ya
Pioneer1 Posted June 9 Author Report Posted June 9 frankster Of course they drew a distinction....they said it was in the heart - the little brain in the heart. In quotes mind you. Because it's not to be taken literally. Yes....that why it is considered a brain - it acts and functions like the brain Oh, so it's not THE brain...just A brain, lol. Do you have any post and link to back up those statements are are they just pure pablum Do you need to see a link to believe me when I say the the "little brain" in the heart doesn't have a pineal gland nor is it attached to the spinal cord?
frankster Posted June 10 Report Posted June 10 21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Of course they drew a distinction....they said it was in the heart - the little brain in the heart. In quotes mind you. Because it's not to be taken literally. Quotations are used to define exactly what is being spokne of... See below...no quotes The heart’s little brain: shedding new light and CLARITY on the ‘black box’ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7610721/ 21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes....that why it is considered a brain - it acts and functions like the brain Oh, so it's not THE brain...just A brain, lol. Of course its not the brain... Yes....the heart own brain that has thoughts and memory 21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Do you have any post and link to back up those statements are are they just pure pablum Do you need to see a link to believe me when I say the the "little brain" in the heart doesn't have a pineal gland nor is it attached to the spinal cord? Yes.... You said it doesn't...... so prove it. Or just admit you expressing feces...
Pioneer1 Posted June 11 Author Report Posted June 11 frankster Quotations are used to define exactly what is being spokne of... Quotations are used in a myriad of different ways. Quote Quotation marks are punctuation marks with several different uses. Scare quotes Scare quotes are a pair of quotation marks put around a word or phrase to indicate that a writer believes a term is inappropriate, wants to use a term ironically, or wants to call attention to a word/phrase for a certain reason. https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/use-quotation-marks/ Calling that group of neurons in the heart a "little brain" could have been seen as falling under either category as being ironic or inappropriate depending on what the author of that article was thinking, but they clearly didn't intend for the term to be taken literally. See below...no quotes See the article itself, where the term IS in quotes: Quote The arrangement of afferent, efferent and interneurons and their architecture in ganglionic plexi in the epicardial fat pads was first referred to as the ‘heart’s little brain’ in the pioneering work of J Andrew Armour https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7610721/ Yes.... You said it doesn't...... so prove it. Or just admit you expressing feces... It's not up to me to "prove" a negative. You're calling the group of coordinated neurons within the heart the heart's "little brain" and want that term to be taken literally. So if that's the case, then YOU must prove that it has a spinal cord and a pineal gland like THE brain. Since you assert the claim, the onus should be on YOU to prove that it does...not on me to prove that it doesn't. Right?
frankster Posted June 12 Report Posted June 12 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Quotations are used to define exactly what is being spokne of... Quotations are used in a myriad of different ways. Calling that group of neurons in the heart a "little brain" could have been seen as falling under either category as being ironic or inappropriate depending on what the author of that article was thinking, but they clearly didn't intend for the term to be taken literally. It is neither....most definitely not a scar quotes as the article supports the idea of the originator of the term. When we repeat someone else’s words, it is important to give them their due using quotation marks. https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/use-quotation-marks/ “Quotation marks serve primarily to tell the reader the exact words someone used” (Hope, 2010, p. 21). https://open.maricopa.edu/eng102forhealthsciences/chapter/quotation-marks/ 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: See below...no quotes See the article itself, where the term IS in quotes: Yes ....because it his not his words nor did he coin the phrase/term and it can be considered plagiarism What is important is that I provided an example of its used without quotation marks...and I did Try again 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes.... You said it doesn't...... so prove it. Or just admit you expressing feces... It's not up to me to "prove" a negative. You stated/made negative statements as facts so the burden of proof is on you 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: You're calling the group of coordinated neurons within the heart the heart's "little brain" and want that term to be taken literally. Not me calling anything....The writers of the pubmed papers are the ones calling it "mini brain" 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: So if that's the case, then YOU must prove that it has a spinal cord and a pineal gland like THE brain. I have to prove nothing.....The Writers and Publishers did that already Neither did the PhD's claim that the ''mini brain' contains or have a spinal cord or pineal gland.. You on the other hand boldly asserted it doesn't have a pineal gland or spinal cord with no study or proof to support your claim 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Since you assert the claim, the onus should be on YOU to prove that it does...not on me to prove that it doesn't. Right? I made no such assertion or claims beyond copying and posting the claims of Doctors You on the other hand rejected and remain in denial to the findings and designations of the PhD's
Pioneer1 Posted June 15 Author Report Posted June 15 frankster Well, as I said earlier, I'm not going to keep opposing you on this issue because it comes too close to opposing my own beliefs about almost EVERY part of the human body containing a degree of consciousness. Science itself and doctors clearly distinguish the actual brain from any other "little brains" and "mini brains" mentioned in some article...lol.
frankster Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Well, as I said earlier, I'm not going to keep opposing you on this issue because it comes too close to opposing my own beliefs about almost EVERY part of the human body containing a degree of consciousness. Science itself and doctors clearly distinguish the actual brain from any other "little brains" and "mini brains" mentioned in some article...lol. I Never said they did not... All I said on this point is that.... The Heart has a minibrain and that Supports the Ancient Concepts that states that the heart is responsible for evil intolerant thoughts that modern day science is now agreeing with and now so are you.
Pioneer1 Posted June 16 Author Report Posted June 16 5 hours ago, frankster said: I Never said they did not... All I said on this point is that.... The Heart has a minibrain and that Supports the Ancient Concepts that states that the heart is responsible for evil intolerant thoughts that modern day science is now agreeing with and now so are you. I didn't agree with this. First of all..."evil" is for the most part a SUBJECTIVE term anyway. We could start a whole new discussion in a whole new thread about what constitutes as "evil" thoughts. Even if all of the cells of the body contained consciousness, that doesn't mean "evil thoughts" came from them...including the heart.
frankster Posted June 16 Report Posted June 16 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I didn't agree with this. First of all..."evil" is for the most part a SUBJECTIVE term anyway. We could start a whole new discussion in a whole new thread about what constitutes as "evil" thoughts. Even if all of the cells of the body contained consciousness, that doesn't mean "evil thoughts" came from them...including the heart. As you have seen it is not me making up these things... Ancient knowledge attest to these things... And now modern science is lending more and more credence to them....
Pioneer1 Posted June 16 Author Report Posted June 16 frankster As you have seen it is not me making up these things... Ancient knowledge attest to these things... Ancient KNOWLEDGE...yes. Ancient TEACHINGS (as you said)....not necessarily. There's a difference between knowledge and "teachings". Knowledge is true, teachings may not necessarily be.
frankster Posted June 17 Report Posted June 17 17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster As you have seen it is not me making up these things... Ancient knowledge attest to these things... Ancient KNOWLEDGE...yes. Ancient TEACHINGS (as you said)....not necessarily. There's a difference between knowledge and "teachings". Knowledge is true, teachings may not necessarily be. Knowledge is pure information Teachings are the methods use to impart knowledge and also instructions on how to use the knowledge. True Knowledge remains the same or unaffected by the methods used to share..
Pioneer1 Posted June 22 Author Report Posted June 22 frankster Teachings are the methods use to impart knowledge and also instructions on how to use the knowledge. True Knowledge remains the same or unaffected by the methods used to share.. You are SOMEWHAT correct, but not exactly. Here's the definition of what "teach" means: Quote teach verb [ I or T ] A1 to give someone knowledge or to train someone; to instruct: TEACH | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary With that definition in mind, here's why I take slight issue with you claiming that teaching means to simply impart knowledge and instruction... You can also instruct people and train them in FALSEHOOD and LIES, which is NOT knowledge. You can MIS-EDUCATE them. People can be TRAINED to be slaves or criminals. For example: If your religion is a false religion, and you are TRAINED/TAUGHT how to be a priest or clergy IN that religion... Then you are taught - LIES.
frankster Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Teachings are the methods use to impart knowledge and also instructions on how to use the knowledge. True Knowledge remains the same or unaffected by the methods used to share.. You are SOMEWHAT correct, but not exactly. Here's the definition of what "teach" means: teach verb [ I or T ] A1 to give someone knowledge or to train someone; to instruct: TEACH | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary So we agree on what to teach is 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: With that definition in mind, here's why I take slight issue with you claiming that teaching means to simply impart knowledge and instruction... You can also instruct people and train them in FALSEHOOD and LIES, which is NOT knowledge. You can MIS-EDUCATE them. People can be TRAINED to be slaves or criminals. For example: If your religion is a false religion, and you are TRAINED/TAUGHT how to be a priest or clergy IN that religion... Then you are taught - LIES. Religions are false.....because they are political and no longer serve the Spiritual Aspirant Knowledge is True....repeatable and predictable etc What is called false knowledge is error...fallacies and or lies
Pioneer1 Posted June 22 Author Report Posted June 22 frankster So we agree on what to teach is If you also agree that to "teach" means to either: 1. Impart knowledge AND/OR 2. Train/instruct (regardless as to whether it's true or false information) ...then we agree. What is called false knowledge is error...fallacies and or lies If it's false, it's not knowledge at all....mere information.
frankster Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 20 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster So we agree on what to teach is If you also agree that to "teach" means to either: 1. Impart knowledge AND/OR 2. Train/instruct (regardless as to whether it's true or false information) ...then we agree. Yes... Though the word you used is "Teachings" 20 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What is called false knowledge is error...fallacies and or lies If it's false, it's not knowledge at all....mere information. Yes...Lies
Pioneer1 Posted June 23 Author Report Posted June 23 frankster Though the word you used is "Teachings" Because this is the word YOU chose to use to make your assertion.
frankster Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Though the word you used is "Teachings" Because this is the word YOU chose to use to make your assertion. True.... Teachings is Knowledge.
Pioneer1 Posted June 26 Author Report Posted June 26 On 6/24/2025 at 12:29 PM, frankster said: True.... Teachings is Knowledge. Teaching is simply relaying information and having it successfully retained. Whether or not it's actually "knowledge" depends on whether or not it's TRUE information.
frankster Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 19 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Teaching is simply relaying information and having it successfully retained. You missed the distinction between "teaching" and "teachings" 19 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Whether or not it's actually "knowledge" depends on whether or not it's TRUE information. Yes
Pioneer1 Posted June 27 Author Report Posted June 27 5 hours ago, frankster said: You missed the distinction between "teaching" and "teachings" You may be missing the distinction between "information" and "knowledge". Whether someone is being TAUGHT by someone else; or is studying a particular type of "teachings" or philosophy on their own....it's irrelevant if the information is false.
frankster Posted June 28 Report Posted June 28 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You may be missing the distinction between "information" and "knowledge". Whether someone is being TAUGHT by someone else; or is studying a particular type of "teachings" or philosophy on their own....it's irrelevant if the information is false. No....i did not i agreed with your second statement
Pioneer1 Posted June 30 Author Report Posted June 30 frankster However there is still a difference between KNOWLEDGE and TEACHINGS. There are a lot of "teachings" out there. And most of them contain SOME knowledge, but many of them are saturated with falsehood. The wise learn how properly DISCERNE the information they get for the truth.
frankster Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster However there is still a difference between KNOWLEDGE and TEACHINGS. There are a lot of "teachings" out there. And most of them contain SOME knowledge, but many of them are saturated with falsehood. The wise learn how properly DISCERNE the information they get for the truth. We agree... 1
Pioneer1 Posted July 2 Author Report Posted July 2 17 hours ago, frankster said: We agree... Maybe Troy should lock this thread on a positive note while we still ARE in agreement....lol. 2
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