Clutch

Ah, 10% of our brains.

I'm getting tired of playing Jenga with fundie belief sets: try to pull out one urban legend and a whole closetful falls out on your head.

Daggah

But isn't that what creationists do?

Albion

I've been around these sorts of discussions long enough to know that some people have a rather narrow view of "Christian," but if the Church of England counts as Christian in your frame of reference, here's an opinion from one of ots (more liberal) bishops:

<a href="http://www.oxford.anglican.org/docs/101618522743334.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.oxford.anglican.org/docs/101618522743334.shtml</a>

This paragraph probably explains his position best on the topic you were interested in:

Badfish

People don't use 100% of their brain, that is not an urban legend, that is a known, the human brain is capable of a lot more than what normal people use.

I thought I had heard we use like 5% but that won't fly here.

I thought everyone knew that there is a good portion of our brain that most people do not know how to utilize.

So what pecentage of our intellect does the average person use? Guestimates?

Badfish

<a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html" target="_blank">http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html</a>
Ought Naught, who says this is correct information? I just know there are parts of the brain some do not know how to tap into.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: GTX ]</p>

Badfish

<a href="http://www.h2net.net/p/nslade/Papers/how.html" target="_blank">THIS</a> says we use 10% or less. This is from reknowned neurologists.

I believe the capacity of the brain is infinite, it is a matter of knowing how to unlock its power.

Stupid argument anyway, I mean really, who believes normal people use ALL there brain power?

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: GTX ]</p>

Cutter

GTX: The 10% myth isn't so much about how much of our brain we use at anyone time, AFAIK no one really knows, and I don't think anyone makes the claim that we do use 100% of our brains.

Most brain functions, as I understand the explanations, are autonomous, stuff we have no direct control of.

To put it simply, the 10% myth isn't so much about how much of our brains we use at any one time but the erroneous belief that there's a huge untapped reserve of brain power in there.

Stephen T-B

GTX understandably disliked being called very VERY simple, but GTX, to believe the Genesis creation story requires simplicity; indeed, simplicity is regarded as a virtue by many Christians and instead of being insulted you should, perhaps, have taken it as a compliment.
Basically, it is a mistake for Christians to engage in discussions about god’s role in creation, or indeed in any physical, worldly phenomena because it just leads them into blind alleys, to get out of which requires all sorts of mental gymnastics which exercise the brain, but have no spiritual value, and if Christianity isn’t spiritual then what is it?
Faith does not have an intellectual dimension; true, it is a product of our intellectual powers, but it operates outside them. Christians should therefore allow their emotional being - or ‘heart’- to dwell on the mystery and love of god and try to understand how that love should be reflected in their lives. Reading the Scriptures has a part to play, but they should be discerning because quite clearly many of the OT stories are not in the least bit edifying. They should therefore take Christ’s interpretation of the nature of god - they are, after all Christians - and pay serious attention only to those parts of the Bible which describe god in accordance with that interpretation.
Above all, they should disconnect their belief from their reason because the two things are in opposition to each other. Inner turmoil and conflict should not be allowed to interfere with a Christian’s central desire to emulate Christ and dwell in the majesty, glory, power and love of god.
But having said that, it would be tragic for Infidels if they were to withdraw as one from these discussions because without them, the forums would become very dull indeed. And it is just so wonderful to come across people who ACTUALLY believe everything in the Bible happened as described.

excreationist

GTX:
I think we have the potential to store many life-times of information in our brains. At any given moment in time, most of our associative memories wouldn't be searched through so there wouldn't constantly be brain activity in all areas of our brain.
And during IQ tests and normal experience, there would be thousands or millions of associative memories that you wouldn't be using so if you had part of your brain removed and things seemed normal, you might have lost some memory fragments that you just aren't aware of. Or there might be partial memory loss or distortion/corruption that you aren't aware of.

<a href="http://www.h2net.net/p/nslade/Papers/how.html" target="_blank">Your link about hydrocephalics</a> says Sir John Eccles' found that their *intelligence* stayed the same in those people, but <a href="http://web.syr.edu/~sndrake/oview.htm" target="_blank">this link</a> says:
from <a href="http://www.enidreed.com/serv01.htm" target="_blank">Is Your Brain Really Necessary?</a>:
About white and gray matter:
<a href="http://www.gmt.com.au/gmatt.html" target="_blank">Grey Matter and the Brain</a> - "Grey matter provides the actual processing capacity while the white matter links and facilitates the integration of the various regions of the brain."

<a href="http://www.spjc.edu/SPG/Science/Lancraft/BSC1085/bsc1085notes/cns.htm" target="_blank">Human Anatomy and Physiology Notes</a> - "conduction via white matter and decision making (association) via gray matter".

So maybe the white matter could be thought of as network cables and the grey matter is like the networked computers... with less cables it would be harder for the computers to communicate with each other.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

NeilUnreal

The apparent redundancy of the brain is probably a result of how it develops. In anything other than the simplest organism, it would be impossible to hardwire the connectivity of the brain into the genome and subsequent development. So the approach complex organisms seem to take is to develop lots and lots of more-or-less random connections, with subsequent pruning and connectivity adjustments occurring during development and learning*. This also allows a plasticity of function which is superior to simpler forms of reflex action and learning. There are additional side benefits, like immunity from some types of damage.

This randomness, coupled with the developmental contingency and the neural nature of brain computation, means that less than the total capacity of the brain is used than it would be if the neurons were hardwired. On the other hand, it may be that this random, highly-connected structure is what requires – and maybe makes possible -- the development of consciousness. Much of this is pure speculation, of course, but I’d rather have a inefficient brain that allows consciousness than a 100% efficient brain that is just a giant reflex box.

-Neil

*Obviously, the brain is not totally random, there is a great deal of organization. It just doesn't extend to the level of the individual neuron in most cases.