Freethought & Rationalism Archive

elwoodblues · 06-10-2002, 10:10 PM

Quote:

I'm still waiting for somebody--anybody--who believes in the 10% (or 5% or whatever) figure to produce some sort of link, article, or other evidence to back it up.

ECHO...

Echo...

echo...

scigirl · 06-11-2002, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<strong>I'm still waiting for somebody--anybody--who believes in the 10% (or 5% or whatever) figure to produce some sort of link, article, or other evidence to back it up.</strong>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org" target="_blank">Here's some people who probably don't even use 5%</a>

MrDarwin · 06-12-2002, 05:02 AM

Still waiting...

Corey Hammer · 06-12-2002, 12:34 PM

IIRC, the 5%, 10%, 20%, or however many percent is stated, comes from what we know about the functions of brain regions. If you look in your physiological psychology or cognitive neuropsychology texts, a picture of the brain showing known functions will have the great majority of regions listed as "association cortex." That is, we know it does something, just not exactly what it does.

ohwilleke · 06-12-2002, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<strong>Still waiting...</strong>

pakdalian's citation strongly supports the proposition that at least half of the brain is irrelevant to IQ or normal functioning, and serves only the limited purpose of providing storage space for specialized expertise (e.g. how to play a piano or analyze hunting tracks or recall obscure securities laws), if any.

Also there appears to be a consensus that only a small portion of the brain is used at any one time.

Thus, the notion that you use "only 10% of your brain" is at least partially true. Certainly, there is no indicatation that the part you are not using is for psychic powers or that anyone can, as in the movie Phenomena, with John Travolta, suddenly become much smarter by a few simple means to gain access to this part of the brain overnight (an Scientologist notion).

But, there is a great deal of evidence that you can do without a lot of your brain.

Veil of Fire · 06-12-2002, 01:25 PM

I don't support the 10%. I'm waiting for someone else to support the 100%.

My POINT, which, if you were using 100% of your brain, you'd've picked up on:

Snopes article makes a claim. (we use 100% of our brain)
Burden of proof is on Snopes article to support claim.
Snopes article uses Appeal to Ridicule to support claim.
Claim is unsupported.
MrDarwin claims the burden of proof is on those who have problems with the article to prove it wrong.
MrDarwin is an intellectually dishonest diptard.

MrDarwin · 06-12-2002, 06:06 PM

Corey Hammer · 06-12-2002, 06:53 PM

My sentiments exactly.

The entire brain is an interconnected network of continuously firing circuits of neurons that act as a giant pattern matching device.

The only time brain cells do not function is when they are dead. 99% of functions are also accomplished non-consciously. For example, I defy anyone to correctly state how the process by which they read or do math (this has actually been tested, you can't and even trying to do so causes decrements in performance).

PET and fMRI show some level of use in areas of the brain. What else do you want?

Cutter · 06-12-2002, 10:39 PM

I can't believe no-one's said this yet:

"cause I killed the other 95% with beer!"

acampbell · 06-13-2002, 02:16 AM

I agree that the 10% idea is a myth. Worse than that, it's pretty meaningless. Does it mean that 90% of the brain is doing nothing, or that our problem-solving is at only 10% of its potential, or that our perceptual or motor activities are at only 10% of what is possible? The statement is based on a crude volumetric assumption of the way the brain works.

What is more interesting is the considerable amount of evidence, from studies of idiots savants, to show that *suppressing* parts of the brain may reveal hitherto unknown powers. There are cases on record of people who suffered strokes or brain damage and then acquired artistic or musical skills they lacked previously. The current issue of Scientific American has an article on this. Even more extraordinary, in The Symbolic Species Terrence Deacon reports the case of a harbour seal which acquired the ability to produce human speech!

Nicholas Humphreys, commenting on the case of an autistic girl called Nadia who produced astonishing drawings when young but lost the ability as her speech improved, has suggested that the palaeolithic cave paintings may not, as is often claimed, be evidence that our ancestors possessed complex language; they could have made the paintings without it. It may even be the case that they could not have made the paintings if they had possessed language.

It seems quite likely that it is impossible for all parts of the brain to function at the same level; it's necessary for certain areas to inhibit others. The very rare cases in which patients' hands function independently of their "will", so that they may even try to strangle themselves, also support this view.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2002, 05:02 AM	#43
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Still waiting...

06-12-2002, 12:34 PM	#44
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	IIRC, the 5%, 10%, 20%, or however many percent is stated, comes from what we know about the functions of brain regions. If you look in your physiological psychology or cognitive neuropsychology texts, a picture of the brain showing known functions will have the great majority of regions listed as "association cortex." That is, we know it does something, just not exactly what it does.

06-12-2002, 01:25 PM	#46
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	I don't support the 10%. I'm waiting for someone else to support the 100%. My POINT, which, if you were using 100% of your brain, you'd've picked up on: Snopes article makes a claim. (we use 100% of our brain) Burden of proof is on Snopes article to support claim. Snopes article uses Appeal to Ridicule to support claim. Claim is unsupported. MrDarwin claims the burden of proof is on those who have problems with the article to prove it wrong. MrDarwin is an intellectually dishonest diptard.

06-12-2002, 06:06 PM	#47
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140

06-12-2002, 06:53 PM	#48
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	My sentiments exactly. The entire brain is an interconnected network of continuously firing circuits of neurons that act as a giant pattern matching device. The only time brain cells do not function is when they are dead. 99% of functions are also accomplished non-consciously. For example, I defy anyone to correctly state how the process by which they read or do math (this has actually been tested, you can't and even trying to do so causes decrements in performance). PET and fMRI show some level of use in areas of the brain. What else do you want?

06-12-2002, 10:39 PM	#49
Cutter Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,805	I can't believe no-one's said this yet: "cause I killed the other 95% with beer!"

06-13-2002, 02:16 AM	#50
acampbell Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: London Posts: 9	I agree that the 10% idea is a myth. Worse than that, it's pretty meaningless. Does it mean that 90% of the brain is doing nothing, or that our problem-solving is at only 10% of its potential, or that our perceptual or motor activities are at only 10% of what is possible? The statement is based on a crude volumetric assumption of the way the brain works. What is more interesting is the considerable amount of evidence, from studies of idiots savants, to show that suppressing parts of the brain may reveal hitherto unknown powers. There are cases on record of people who suffered strokes or brain damage and then acquired artistic or musical skills they lacked previously. The current issue of Scientific American has an article on this. Even more extraordinary, in The Symbolic Species Terrence Deacon reports the case of a harbour seal which acquired the ability to produce human speech! Nicholas Humphreys, commenting on the case of an autistic girl called Nadia who produced astonishing drawings when young but lost the ability as her speech improved, has suggested that the palaeolithic cave paintings may not, as is often claimed, be evidence that our ancestors possessed complex language; they could have made the paintings without it. It may even be the case that they could not have made the paintings if they had possessed language. It seems quite likely that it is impossible for all parts of the brain to function at the same level; it's necessary for certain areas to inhibit others. The very rare cases in which patients' hands function independently of their "will", so that they may even try to strangle themselves, also support this view.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.