Why can we Ignore the body's messages?

[ffg]

As was said earlier, the heart has its own neural circuits (sinoatrial node?) This is why it can beat for example, in a headless body, or even without a body, until it runs out of blood.

Dysfunction of this neural system results in atrial fibrillation, where the heart does not stop but rather goes into spasm, with potentially life-ending results. The “shock paddles” applied to the body are designed to reset the natural rhythm.

Chronic dysfunction of the “wiring” is corrected by the use of a pacemaker.

ICXC NIKA

Excellent. Appreciate it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Certainly the brain can work on the same body part differently, like the heart, a valve might be getting signals to work normally where a muscle section is fighting to work normally (perhaps this is more of a lack of signal).

I don’t know if I could say the brain can tell, say a valve, to work normally and not, at the same time. (Or perhaps it can send the message and not complete the task, like that example above, or the message is stuck in the outbox)

The brain is amazing. The brain is working my heart, lungs, and fingers right now, while also calculating what I’m seeing and helping me develop thought, based on my current experience (reading your post), all at the same time.

At the same time I just got a hunger message from my brain (it’s close to lunch, and I am bad about not eating breakfast), I had, and have right now, the ability to ignore that message.

It’s really an honest question, I want to hear support that carrying out this act to ignore is something that can be answered in light of a ‘material only’ reality. If I was a ‘material is only’ person, I would need this answer to be such.

The common (and always) answer is ‘we haven’t figured that out yet’. There has to be a better answer and I’m most willing to listen.

It seems the puzzle is going left and right at the same time. It seems there has to be 2 things moving.

Take care,

Mike

I am sure yours is an honest question, and I want to stress that I tend to think that the concept of matter alone is not enough to explain reality (and human reality in particular). I have met many individuals who have pretended they can do it, but in the end they haven’t been able to provide solid answers to relatively simple questions (well, the questions are simple, but probably not the answers).

Coming back to your example: you describe a common experience (our ability to ignore a hunger message), and from it you want to infer the existence of two agents. I find it reasonable; but, in general, it is not logically necessary for one of those agents to be material while the other is immaterial. Both could be material. But the conscience of your hunger, for instance, cannot be explained exclusively by means of any concept of matter that I know.