I've read articles (mostly from religious sources) trying to say the exact same thing about the heart (because, not surprisingly, religious texts speak about the heart as the seat of the soul/mind).
It's possible that the heart is the phenomenological seat of mind for some -- either innately or culturally -- irrespective of objective anatomy. Perhaps the problem with the religious articles is that they are being overzealous in trying to link the two domains? To me it's a question of whether using a biological abstraction internally is more useful than (one of) the religious/spiritual models.
There was a programme on BBC radio several years ago called "The Heart Has Its Reasons" that stated the heart itself contains neurons. They interviewed a heart transplant recipient who claimed he could sense the birthday of the donor through his new heart.
I've read articles (mostly from religious sources) trying to say the exact same thing about the heart (because, not surprisingly, religious texts speak about the heart as the seat of the soul/mind).
So I'm a little skeptical of such claims