Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Humans only use approximately 10% of their brain?
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 31 (485750)
10-11-2008 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by timothy223
10-10-2008 8:27 PM


Welcome to EvC! It's a good place to learn if you can learn.
It's a myth.
It gets bandied about because most people can't be arsed to look it up or like to think that that 'extra' 90% can be used for ESP or some such.
Brain cells such as schwann cells or glial cells don't do the business of 'thinking' as such and yet they are a big, big part of the brain; so physically they make up non neuronal mass.
In other terms, balance, homeostasis, and perception take up a massive amount of 'thinking power' that does not require conscious thought.
Maybe, if you clutch at as many straws as you can find in a straw filled straw factory you could say that 10% of our brain goes towards conscious thought and decision making but that's about it.
There's tons going on 'under the bonnet'.
How do we know this? It's been proved in tests: Google them.
ABE: Sorry about the tone and the use of the word proved, I'm terribly hung over and I have to go and play Warhammer soon; good grief.
ABE: and it seems I have been slow ninja'd by bluegenes
Edited by Larni, : Acknowledging being slow ninja'd.
Edited by Larni, : Welcome note.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by timothy223, posted 10-10-2008 8:27 PM timothy223 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 12 of 31 (634239)
09-20-2011 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert Byers
09-20-2011 3:31 AM


Yet if our brains were only 10% used then racial/sex theories would have no basis. tHese theories are based of coarse on evolutionary presumptions.
What race/sex based evolutionary theories would these be?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 09-20-2011 3:31 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:58 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 15 of 31 (634489)
09-22-2011 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:58 AM


Women do have, on average lower brain volume. People worry about that as if mean women are not as bright. There is no evidence that this is true and the differences in white and grey matter in the sexes also has no bearing on intelligence.
Reading maps and asking for directions though, biiig difference.
It is true that people are more stupid than they could be.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:58 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Pressie, posted 09-22-2011 5:54 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 16 of 31 (634490)
09-22-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Pressie
09-22-2011 5:12 AM


And they ignored factors that did not correlate with g.
Not good science, at all.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Pressie, posted 09-22-2011 5:12 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Pressie, posted 09-22-2011 5:43 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 31 (634495)
09-22-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Pressie
09-22-2011 5:54 AM


The suggestion is that the female brain is able to develop more conncetions than the male brain or that the connections are more efficient.
By that I mean using less tissue to get the job done: a bit like a road network that has the most efficient use of building materials to get you where you need to go.
I've always suspected that men think in straight lines where as women can think around corners (maybe one of my less scientific ideas).

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Pressie, posted 09-22-2011 5:54 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Pressie, posted 09-22-2011 6:14 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 10-21-2011 12:32 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 26 of 31 (638270)
10-21-2011 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Nuggin
10-21-2011 12:32 AM


You are right, of course.
Brain mass is not an incredibly accurate measure within species.
I seem to recall people with Autism tend to have more brain mass but it is arrayed in a less efficient manner (more roads to get to the destination and so forth).
No idea whether that's true or my faulty memory, though.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 10-21-2011 12:32 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 31 (638524)
10-23-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by caffeine
10-21-2011 8:36 AM


Re: Origin of the myth
Yeah, that's pretty similar to what I heard; that thinking uses around 10% but all the 'under the bonnet" work was not easily seen till modern times.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by caffeine, posted 10-21-2011 8:36 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024