Re: ABR article: "the heart does think"

On 5/17/05, Hon Wai Lai <honwai@bumble.u-net.com> wrote:
>
> Is there any scientific basis for the physiological claim below?
>
> ...........................................
> ABR ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER
> Vol. 5, Issue 5
> May 15, 2005
> http://www.biblearchaeology.org
>
> "Does the Heart 'Think'?"
>
>
>
> ...that the heart is no mere pump, as some physicians still insist, but
> a sophisticated participant in the regulation of emotion. The heart has
> a mind of its own: It secretes its own brainlike hormones and actively
> partakes in a dialogue among the internal organs-a dialogue on which
> cardiac researchers are only beginning to eavesdrop. The heart likewise
> undergoes all manner of organic change inflicted on it by the
> tempestuous brain and its neurochemicals. As one doctor explains, people
> do suffer heartbreak, literally. (Burdick 2004: 72).

Yes, I have seen this claimed, in a different source .. not by any means a
creationist, or even a Christian. It is written about extensively in the
popular medicine book "Healing without Freud or Prozac" by David
Servan-Schreiber. The book deals with "alternative" approaches to treatments
for depression. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say whether S-S is a
reputable source, though he seems to quote many published papers. At least
one of the techniques (EMDR) described by Schreiber is questioned by
Skepdic.com <http://Skepdic.com>. Schriber talks a lot about the evolution
of the brain, with the interplay between the inner brain which is similar to
a reptilian brain, and is the "emotional brain" and the outer part, which
developed later, and is the cognitive part. He also states that the heart
has its own neural network that interacts with the brain. He writes (p45):

"We experience emotions in our body, not in our head. As long ago as 1890,
William James, a Harvard professor and the father of American psychology,
wrote that an emotion was first of all a physical state and only accesorily
a perception in the brain. He based his conclusions on the ordinary
experience of emotions. Don't we speak of fear as "having your heart in your
mouth", or of gaiety as feeling "lighthearted", or of bad temper as "bile"?
It would be a mistake to consider these expressions as mere figures of
speech. They are fairly exact representations of what we experience when we
find ourselves in different emotional states.

In fact, it was recently discovered that the digestive system and the heart
have their own network of tens of thousands of neurons that act like "small
brains" in the body. Like individual regions in the brain itself (so-called
'nuclei'), these local brains have their own perceptions. Though their
processing capacities are limited, these groups of neurons are also capable
of adapting their behaviour according to these perceptions, and even of
changing their responses as a result of their experience - that is, in a
certain sense, creating their own memories".

He cites a couple of papers on this in an endnote to the book.

Later, p49 there is a figure with diagrams of the neural pathways between
the heart and the brain, with the following caption:

"The semi-independent network of neurons that constitutes the 'small brain
in the heart' is closely connected with the brain itself. Together, they
make up a true 'heart-brain system'. Within this system, the two organs
constantly influence each other. Among the mechanisms connecting the heart
and the brain, the autonomic nervous system plays a particularly important
role. It has two branches, the 'sympathetic' branch speeds up the heart and
activates the emotional brain, the 'parasympathetic' branch acts as a brake
on both."

I would have to qualify the above by saying that I'm not sufficiently
familiar with this branch of science to know whether the above is science or
pseudo-science, but it does seem to agree with some of the claims given in
the ABR article.

Iain
Received on Fri May 20 13:57:00 2005