Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 2:54 AM
351 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,341 Year: 23,947/21,208 Month: 1,912/2,468 Week: 5/416 Day: 5/24 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Humans only use approximately 10% of their brain?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3949
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 responded

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

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 17 of 31 (634492)
09-22-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
09-22-2011 5:32 AM


Larni writes:

Not good science, at all.

Not science, at all.

Edited by Pressie, : Erased the word "even" I inserted between the words "Not" and "science".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 09-22-2011 5:32 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 18 of 31 (634494)
09-22-2011 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Larni
09-22-2011 5:20 AM


Larni.
My wife is way smaller than me. Her features are tiny. I guess that she has a smaller cranial capacity than me (with that cute little head of hers); but, boy, is she so much more intelligent than me!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 09-22-2011 5:20 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 09-22-2011 6:00 AM Pressie has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3949
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 responded

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

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 20 of 31 (634496)
09-22-2011 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
09-22-2011 6:00 AM


I don't know. Never studied any kind of brain (I'm a geologist after all, I study rocks). What you say might be true!

From my point of view, with the fossils we've discovered, it seems like the average brain capacity of our ancestors to modern Homo Sapiens is just one of the indicators of our emergence. We also have to look at the rest of the body. I think we have to look at the proportions of brains to the rest of the body, too. That's what those pesty paleontologists have been doing for some time now. They've discovered this years ago. The creationists hate facts like this. They always want to be special.

Then you also talk about brain connections. Never thought of that before this thread! Isn't it so much easier to say "Goddidit" and don't have to think about it?

Edited by Pressie, : Added a paragraph


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 09-22-2011 6:00 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 21 of 31 (634526)
09-22-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by timothy223
10-10-2008 8:27 PM


Hi all, Im new to these forums. I have a simple question that I need answered:

I have heard it from science magazines, newspapers and various people that the average human only use approximately 10% of their brain.

*Reving up a chainsaw* What 90% do you think i can cut out?

Its a myth like god

I think the mythbusters also tacled this one and even when we do nothing and think of nothing we use more then 10% of our brain.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Jesus was a dead jew on a stick nothing more


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

    
Ken Fabos
Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 05-09-2010


Message 22 of 31 (638236)
10-20-2011 6:27 PM


Just a figure of speech.
I always took the 10% claim to be an off the cuff rhetorical remark of Einstein's that referred to undeveloped mental skills and was never literally about brain function. It's always been a bit bemusing to me that many people took it literally, as if Einstein's genius extended to brain physiology. Whether Einstein was repeating something from elsewhere that may have been more literal... I'm not aware of it but it's possible.
Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2011 6:30 PM Ken Fabos has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 23 of 31 (638239)
10-20-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ken Fabos
10-20-2011 6:27 PM


Re: Just a figure of speech.
How did Einstein come into this?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ken Fabos, posted 10-20-2011 6:27 PM Ken Fabos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Ken Fabos, posted 10-20-2011 8:52 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Ken Fabos
Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 05-09-2010


Message 24 of 31 (638243)
10-20-2011 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
10-20-2011 6:30 PM


Re: Just a figure of speech.
Einstein has been attributed with saying most people only use 10% of their brain which was the context in which I first heard it. It may have been a misquote but the attribution persists and still crops up. I had the impression his remark, (real or media hyped) helped embed the idea in the public psyche.

In any case I always took it to be a figure of speech, not assertion of physical fact.

Edited by Ken Fabos, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2011 6:30 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by frako, posted 10-21-2011 7:31 AM Ken Fabos has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 25 of 31 (638252)
10-21-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
09-22-2011 6:00 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).

total size is actually less important than surface area.

If the brain were like a grape, size would be the only factor. Instead, though, the brain is like a raisin with ridges and valleys. The more wrinkles, the more surface area. A small but very wrinkly brain could easily have more surface area than a brain many times it's size.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 09-22-2011 6:00 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 10-21-2011 4:20 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3949
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 yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 27 of 31 (638274)
10-21-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Ken Fabos
10-20-2011 8:52 PM


Re: Just a figure of speech.
He probably meant that we dont "train" our brains very well and that our capacity for learning understanding reasoning and so forth could be much grater if we actually use our brains once in a while

If you compare the brain to a muscle if you dont use it it becomes weak if you use it like some train their muscles to become like Schwarzenegger your mental capacity could be 10 times grater.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Ken Fabos, posted 10-20-2011 8:52 PM Ken Fabos has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 28 of 31 (638277)
10-21-2011 8:36 AM


Origin of the myth
According to howstuffworks.com, the origin of this myth dates to early experiments on brain function in the 19th century. Researchers simulated different parts of brains to see what happened, and noted that simulating certain parts would elicit a response from certain muscles. Experimenting this way, they figured out what about 10% of the brain was involved in.

If this is true, then it appears that about 10% of the brain is involved in motor function directly, the rest it took us longer to figure out. They have a source for this little fact, but the link is broken, so I've no idea how reliable the information is.


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 10-23-2011 5:05 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3949
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 yet responded

    
dan4reason
Junior Member (Idle past 1674 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 01-03-2010


Message 30 of 31 (643915)
12-12-2011 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by timothy223
10-10-2008 8:27 PM


Wrong. Thats a myth. Humans use all of their brains.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by timothy223, posted 10-10-2008 8:27 PM timothy223 has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017