The Heart

[Zzyzx]

.
The Heart is said by many individuals (and some religious literature) to be the seat of emotions / love / decisions. Is that true? I doubt it. Consider:

People with an artificial heart or those on a cardiopulmonary bypass machine. Do they lose emotion / love / decision making?

If a person has a heart transplant to they take on the emotions / loves / decision making of the donor?

If a person suffers massive brain damage but their heart is undamaged, do they retain emotions / love / decision making?

[bluethread]

The heart is no more than a blood pump, having only poetic claim to emotions.

Neither your assertion and the straw man you are arguing against are correct.


Other sources note that the heart is not just a perpetual motion machine. The heart interacts with the brain, which itself is not a singular organ, to effect, not only our existence, but our perception of it.

No idea what straw man you're talking about. As a pump of course the heart can beat; it does not have emotion in it. It was once believed that it did.

There is nothing contentious in saying this.

Sorry, for the bad nesting on the previous posts.

Though I think this tread is just another attempt to misapply scientific definitions to literary works in an effort to find fault with theists, that was not my point. I was merely pointing out that your characterizing the heart as "no more than a blood pump" seriously understates the role of the heart, even in scientific terms. It has been determined that there is a rather complicated neurological relationship between the heart and the various parts of the brain. What motivates people and effects their emotional states is also very complicated. So, though the primary function of the heart is to pump blood, emotions are often associated with the body parts effected.

[OnceConvinced]

I'm really hoping that a theist can point out even one scripture that says that emotions, deep thought, love, hate, desires to sin and anything like that comes from the brain.

If all it ever refers to is the heart, I don't see how we can claim it's a metaphor. There must surely be references to these things coming from the brain somewhere in scripture if it is indeed a metaphor?

According to the Bible Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength. No, it doesn't say brain. But I think it does indicate that people then would have understood that there were different ways to love God and they did not all originate from the "heart." Love could originate from the mind/thoughts.

Mind, thought, brain. They are all the same thing essentially.

Here is a scripture that puts Heart and Mind in as two completely different entities, but they are not, if the heart is meant as a metaphor. They are EXACTLY the same thing!

Mind: the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.

It's duplicated! Evidence once again that the heart was never intended as a metaphor!

I shall take note of that one if this topic comes up again. If the word "heart" was intended as a metaphor the scripture would say "Love the lord your god with all your heart, soul and strength." or "love the lord your god with all you mind, soul and strength." There would be no need to duplicate parts of the body here! One of those words would be redundant.

It would also make no sense to throw in a metaphor in a literal list. The mind, soul and strength were not metaphors. So why throw in one metaphor in that list? It just doesn't add up. It is clearly meant to be a literal list. We can see here that the "heart" was never meant as a metaphor. It was seen as something completely separate from the mind/brain.

[OnceConvinced]

I was merely pointing out that your characterizing the heart as "no more than a blood pump" seriously understates the role of the heart, even in scientific terms. It has been determined that there is a rather complicated neurological relationship between the heart and the various parts of the brain. What motivates people and effects their emotional states is also very complicated. So, though the primary function of the heart is to pump blood, emotions are often associated with the body parts effected.

There's nothing complicated about it at all. The brain controls every other part of the body. It dictates everything, including the heart pumping. The fact that the heart may continue to pump for a bit after the brain dies is no indication that it does anything more than just pump. It's like when a chicken has its head cut off, it can still run around for a bit.

We can say that the rest of the body can affect how we feel, but all feelings come from the brain, not from any other parts of the body. If we have no brain, then the other parts of the body are not going to affect us. We will feel no pain or fatigue or anything. In fact it's possible for the brain to be damaged and to not feel any pain at all.

Any feelings we have, whether affected by other parts of our body all come from the brain. Nothing comes from the heart, except for blood.

[bluethread]

I was merely pointing out that your characterizing the heart as "no more than a blood pump" seriously understates the role of the heart, even in scientific terms. It has been determined that there is a rather complicated neurological relationship between the heart and the various parts of the brain. What motivates people and effects their emotional states is also very complicated. So, though the primary function of the heart is to pump blood, emotions are often associated with the body parts effected.

There's nothing complicated about it at all. The brain controls every other part of the body. It dictates everything, including the heart pumping. The fact that the heart may continue to pump for a bit after the brain dies is no indication that it does anything more than just pump. It's like when a chicken has its head cut off, it can still run around for a bit.

We can say that the rest of the body can affect how we feel, but all feelings come from the brain, not from any other parts of the body. If we have no brain, then the other parts of the body are not going to affect us. We will feel no pain or fatigue or anything. In fact it's possible for the brain to be damaged and to not feel any pain at all.

Any feelings we have, whether affected by other parts of our body all come from the brain. Nothing comes from the heart, except for blood.

Under that approach much of the brain can be removed and we can still have feelings. Even a mechanistic view would recognize the symbiotic relationship between the various parts of the body. The hyper-rationalist view that all that is a person resides in the brain and that the brain is a singular organ is just not justified.

[Genevieve]

I'm really hoping that a theist can point out even one scripture that says that emotions, deep thought, love, hate, desires to sin and anything like that comes from the brain.

If all it ever refers to is the heart, I don't see how we can claim it's a metaphor. There must surely be references to these things coming from the brain somewhere in scripture if it is indeed a metaphor?

According to the Bible Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength. No, it doesn't say brain. But I think it does indicate that people then would have understood that there were different ways to love God and they did not all originate from the "heart." Love could originate from the mind/thoughts.

Mind, thought, brain. They are all the same thing essentially.

Here is a scripture that puts Heart and Mind in as two completely different entities, but they are not, if the heart is meant as a metaphor. They are EXACTLY the same thing!

Mind: the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.

It's duplicated! Evidence once again that the heart was never intended as a metaphor!

I shall take note of that one if this topic comes up again. If the word "heart" was intended as a metaphor the scripture would say "Love the lord your god with all your heart, soul and strength." or "love the lord your god with all you mind, soul and strength." There would be no need to duplicate parts of the body here! One of those words would be redundant.

It would also make no sense to throw in a metaphor in a literal list. The mind, soul and strength were not metaphors. So why throw in one metaphor in that list? It just doesn't add up. It is clearly meant to be a literal list. We can see here that the "heart" was never meant as a metaphor. It was seen as something completely separate from the mind/brain.

I disagree completely. I think the fact that there is a list at all shows that it is certainly not meant to be literal. If they meant it literally there would be no need for any list. If they believed that the "heart" was literally the seat of emotions/love/decisions (as stated in the OP) they would just say "Love the lord your God with all your heart" and be done with it, since there would be no other way to love.

If someone told you to love your significant other with all your "strength" how would you take that, as literal or metaphor? How would you go about literally loving someone with all your strength? By squeezing them as hard as you could?

No, I think this strongly supports the idea that it is not literal. Love with all your heart (emotion), mind (intellect), soul (inner being?) and strength (energy/actions).

[OnceConvinced]

I was merely pointing out that your characterizing the heart as "no more than a blood pump" seriously understates the role of the heart, even in scientific terms. It has been determined that there is a rather complicated neurological relationship between the heart and the various parts of the brain. What motivates people and effects their emotional states is also very complicated. So, though the primary function of the heart is to pump blood, emotions are often associated with the body parts effected.

There's nothing complicated about it at all. The brain controls every other part of the body. It dictates everything, including the heart pumping. The fact that the heart may continue to pump for a bit after the brain dies is no indication that it does anything more than just pump. It's like when a chicken has its head cut off, it can still run around for a bit.

We can say that the rest of the body can affect how we feel, but all feelings come from the brain, not from any other parts of the body. If we have no brain, then the other parts of the body are not going to affect us. We will feel no pain or fatigue or anything. In fact it's possible for the brain to be damaged and to not feel any pain at all.

Any feelings we have, whether affected by other parts of our body all come from the brain. Nothing comes from the heart, except for blood.

Under that approach much of the brain can be removed and we can still have feelings.

Well of course. The brain is made up of many parts, all which perform different functions. Feelings come from a particular part of the brain. If you removed that part, there would be no feelings. Other parts of the brain deal with other functions.

Even a mechanistic view would recognize the symbiotic relationship between the various parts of the body. The hyper-rationalist view that all that is a person resides in the brain and that the brain is a singular organ is just not justified.

The point is that the brain is what dictates everything that happens. It is where all feelings, emotions, thoughts come from. No other part of the body. A symbiotic relationship of course has to occur. The brain can't pump blood on its own. Yes, the brain needs blood, but the blood is just fuel.

[OnceConvinced]

I'm really hoping that a theist can point out even one scripture that says that emotions, deep thought, love, hate, desires to sin and anything like that comes from the brain.

If all it ever refers to is the heart, I don't see how we can claim it's a metaphor. There must surely be references to these things coming from the brain somewhere in scripture if it is indeed a metaphor?

According to the Bible Jesus stated that the greatest commandment was to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength. No, it doesn't say brain. But I think it does indicate that people then would have understood that there were different ways to love God and they did not all originate from the "heart." Love could originate from the mind/thoughts.

Mind, thought, brain. They are all the same thing essentially.

Here is a scripture that puts Heart and Mind in as two completely different entities, but they are not, if the heart is meant as a metaphor. They are EXACTLY the same thing!

Mind: the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.

It's duplicated! Evidence once again that the heart was never intended as a metaphor!

I shall take note of that one if this topic comes up again. If the word "heart" was intended as a metaphor the scripture would say "Love the lord your god with all your heart, soul and strength." or "love the lord your god with all you mind, soul and strength." There would be no need to duplicate parts of the body here! One of those words would be redundant.

It would also make no sense to throw in a metaphor in a literal list. The mind, soul and strength were not metaphors. So why throw in one metaphor in that list? It just doesn't add up. It is clearly meant to be a literal list. We can see here that the "heart" was never meant as a metaphor. It was seen as something completely separate from the mind/brain.

I disagree completely. I think the fact that there is a list at all shows that it is certainly not meant to be literal. If they meant it literally there would be no need for any list. If they believed that the "heart" was literally the seat of emotions/love/decisions (as stated in the OP) they would just say "Love the lord your God with all your heart" and be done with it, since there would be no other way to love.

No, it would say "Love the lord your God with all your brain".

I've never heard any Christian claim that Soul is a metaphor though. Have you? Christians claim the soul is a separate entity. Something that exists even after our brain dies.

As for strength. That's talking about loving actions! Things you physically do. In which case it's most definitely not a metaphor. If you say you love someone you will naturally want to perform loving actions, which require you to physically do them using your strength.

If someone told you to love your significant other with all your "strength" how would you take that, as literal or metaphor?
How would you go about literally loving someone with all your strength? By squeezing them as hard as you could?

Literal. It means loving actions. Doing things that require you to physically show your love. YES a hug would be considered a loving action, wouldn't you say?

In the case of God the bible tells us that what we do for others, we do for God. If we help others, we show love actions and we do them for God in the process. If we HUG others, we are hugging God! We could also show our loving actions for God by obeying his commands, going where he wants us, doing what he tells us. Loving actions done through our own strength.

There's nothing metaphorical about that.

No, I think this strongly supports the idea that it is not literal. Love with all your heart (emotion), mind (intellect), soul (inner being?) and strength (energy/actions).

Seriously Genevieve.

Heart = Brain
Mind = Brain
Soul = Some airy-fairy thing separate from our physical bodies.
Strength = Loving actions.

There is only one thing duplicated there and that is the brain.

You want to Heart to = emotion and mind to = intellect.

The Heart is more than just emotion according to the bible. It is where dark though dwells. (that's intellect). It's where deep and meaningful words come (intellect once again). Sin dwells there. Evil hearts create confusion and have no conscience or remorse (according to the bible). It holds secrets (intellect), it plans (intellect), it can be hardened, it trusts, it has desires and wishes, it holds knowledge (intellect), It even says it learns! (intellect)... all these things the bible tells us! So no, it's not just emotions.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/heart/

And how would you love someone with your intellect? Quote scientific formulas to them?

[bluethread]

Well of course. The brain is made up of many parts, all which perform different functions. Feelings come from a particular part of the brain. If you removed that part, there would be no feelings. Other parts of the brain deal with other functions.

So, where resides the man? Is that one who can not reason not a man? Is the one who can not feel a man? Is the one who can not remember a man? Is the man who can not believe a man? Each of these is primarily effected by a different part of the brain, yet one can live without any one of them. Is the man of reason better or worse without emotions, memory, or belief?

Even a mechanistic view would recognize the symbiotic relationship between the various parts of the body. The hyper-rationalist view that all that is a person resides in the brain and that the brain is a singular organ is just not justified.

The point is that the brain is what dictates everything that happens. It is where all feelings, emotions, thoughts come from. No other part of the body. A symbiotic relationship of course has to occur. The brain can't pump blood on its own. Yes, the brain needs blood, but the blood is just fuel.

No, blood is not fuel. You are being very simplistic in your reasoning. For the analogy, blood is the messenger, though it is really much more. What it delivers is the fuel that keeps the brain tissue alive, but it also sends a message, in the same way getting bread and water sends a different message than steak and eggs.

Also, the nerves in the heart send messages. If we may return to your chicken point. Though the image of a chicken with it's head cut off running around adds humor to the point, seriously, what is going on there? Why aren't they just random spasms? To the point, inert heart tissue placed in a nutrient solution will begin to beat in a pattern, not randomly. That is inherent to heart tissue. There is no brain to tell it to do that. Also, that beating is not without it's effect when the heart is in a live body. It communicates with the nerves in the chest that send messages of their own. Without these and many other messages the unique feeling of being alive is not the same. True, certain areas of the brain gather and interpret these messages for various other purposes, but the experience of living is not an exclusively rational experience.

[OnceConvinced]

Well of course. The brain is made up of many parts, all which perform different functions. Feelings come from a particular part of the brain. If you removed that part, there would be no feelings. Other parts of the brain deal with other functions.

So, where resides the man? Is that one who can not reason not a man? Is the one who can not feel a man? Is the one who can not remember a man? Is the man who can not believe a man? Each of these is primarily effected by a different part of the brain, yet one can live without any one of them. Is the man of reason better or worse without emotions, memory, or belief?

I'm not sure what relevance these questions have or even what point you're trying to make. The fact is those things don't come from the heart, they come from the brain. Every part of our consciousness, mind, thoughts, memory, personality, emotions... they all come from the brain, not the heart. That is a fact.

The bible does not talk about messages in the blood or even how the heart and brain interact. It simply talks about things that the brain does and tells us they are done in the heart.