|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
 Re: 10% of brain usage myth  [Re: shroom-girlie]
#414853 - 10/05/01 12:35 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
We use 100% of our brain but only 10% of its capacity....take care
This is a paraphrasing of the myth. Your source for this statement is what?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
 oneoverzero
veteran
Registered: 01/23/00
Posts: 758
Loc: Cyber Space
Last seen: 23 years, 25 days
|
 Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414883 - 10/05/01 01:16 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I fully realize that there are people with concretized egos and hidden agendas here. My unhidden agenda is to initiate responses from you based on my initiated responses. My ego? Hey! Leggo my ego! It's mine! me me me! (only kidding)
The math you need to be doing involves quantum mechanics, which is in fact stranger than our ablitity to think about it. We can't even think about it - all we can do is run the equations.
The missing information? IS: a single neuron is now compared to the computing power of our best supercomputers today. I've worked for years programming with artificial intelligence and mathematical models of neural networks. What I've learned is the human brain model as a still, hardwired, unchanging, static, solid-state machine is far too oversimplistic.
Also I think the 10% theory holds a secret meassage to awaken Americans (God forbid that, we the people would run this place in a Thomas Jeffersonian world, rather than the Alexander Hamiltonian world we now have to fix).
To me an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging - an autonomous robot device) picture of the brain is like looking at one frame from the never ending story movie.
If I was a pro football player would I use 110% of my brain, coach? You bet coach! 110%!
Forever Never Stops
--------------------
[red]0011 0001 0010 1111 0011 0000[/red]
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414892 - 10/05/01 01:27 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>>Huh? You know absolutely nothing of my spirituality nor philosophy.
That is because you fail to show me either. The only thing I have seen from you on this board is scientific debate, which is fine, but this board is targetted towards spirituality and philosophy, not science. Although science has it's rightful place, debating other's spirituality with science theories only leads to argument. It's like fishing with an M-16.
>>This post HAS a topic, but you choose to neither affirm nor debate the point, disregarding the entire reason for a discussion.
I realize it's topic. My thoughts on it are that science knows very little about the human brain. I agree that we use 100% of our brain, but only to 10% of it's capacity. There are abilities which we have that many people choose to ignore and not use. Telepathy for example....
Edited by Shroomism on 10/05/01 02:28 PM.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#415230 - 10/05/01 09:11 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The only thing I have seen from you on this board is scientific debate, which is fine, but this board is targetted towards spirituality and philosophy, not science.
Who built the pyramids is a matter of history and not spirituality.
If the pyramids are in fact energy-focusing devices, then that is a matter of physics and not philosophy.
My thoughts on it are that science knows very little about the human brain.
And what other discipline leads to a better understanding of the human brain?
I agree that we use 100% of our brain, but only to 10% of it's capacity.
And where does the 10% number come from? What is your source?
This percentage is usually derived from the MRI study on neuronal firing and has nothing to do with potential.
As to telepathy, I have never seen an application of it. Your "insights" into me so far have been completely off mark. Randi still has his $10,000,000 offer to any one that can demonstrate it. Go for it!
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Traveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#415359 - 10/06/01 12:04 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm with swami here on the science thing. just because our science isn't developed enough to prove something doesn't mean that thing is impossible, nor does it mean that there is anything wrong with the scientific method.
damnit i want to reply but i don't have time. later.
|
Pynchon
Slow Learner
Registered: 04/28/01
Posts: 578
Loc: New Zealand
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#415382 - 10/06/01 12:30 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Shroomism, as you have helpfully pointed out, this forum is for the discussion of spirituality and philosophy ...
Philosophy is a discipline which fundamentally depends on the application of logic, and the rigid testing of that logic. A good philosopher knows he can never be certain of anything, and so treats the world around him with a degree of scepticism and intellectual distance. He is careful not to let mysticism and superstition fill the "gaps" in his knowledge. This is where the roots of science are to be found.
Swami is a bit of a prick, but everything he has said so far is appropriate in this forum and I for one would be sorry to see the naysayers pushed out (not least because I'm one of them!)
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#415398 - 10/06/01 12:51 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Each connection is made up of millions of particles, so this makes absolutely no sense.
If one brain cell (1 part), can connect to 10000 other brain cells at (10001 parts), but those 10000 other brain cells can form connections with 10000 other brain cells at once, you have 10001^10000 connections in the system, which is much larger than the number of brain cells in the system.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#415402 - 10/06/01 12:59 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> I think what he means, Swami, is that why would someone who obviously has no spirituality OR philosophy visit this board so often and tell people that their religous experiences, out of body experiences, etc., etc., are all their imagination and they are delusional?
He didn't say that. Imagination requires intent, so I'd say that rules it out as a spiritual experience immediately, unless you get as turned on as I do at imagining, say, the size of the known universe, or the possibility of time not existing.
Delusional? LOL. What's a delusion?
Spiritual, real, and delusional are all experiences. The same mode, different label.
> Because they are not proven by science?
Science isn't interested in prooving whether or not you experience what you say you experience. If you say you experience something, there's not any technology available to us to deny it or confirm it.
If you try and pass off "astral projections" as real, and then attempt to experimentally validate them, the data of your experience will definately not match that of consensus observation (eg// if you say you saw a red lamp in a room during your projection, there probably won't be any red lamp in that room).
> Remember, this board is spirituality and philosophy, not let's prove ourselves to science.
Science is a philosophy also. Certain scientific theories, are really philosophies (eg// string theory).
I hate it when people bash science because they think that science is somehow "anti-spiritual." It's not that at all.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
#415404 - 10/06/01 01:01 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> according to science OOBs, entities, aliens, God, Chi, etc. are not possible).
Nope. They're just not validated by science yet. That's the great beauty of science. It waits for the data to come in before making any judgement.
> It is as if a person just keeps coming to a mad-house just to argue with Napoleon that he is not Napoleon. Seems strange, right?
Seems strange that in your analogy you equivocated yourself to the madhouse population.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#415405 - 10/06/01 01:05 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> That is because you fail to show me either. The only thing I have seen from you on this board is scientific debate, which is fine, but this board is targetted towards spirituality and philosophy, not science.
Science is a fucking philosophy and some people happen to find science VERY spiritual.
> Although science has it's rightful place, debating other's spirituality with science theories only leads to argument.
What a shame! We might actually discuss things in reality!
> Telepathy for example....
See, but that's just your opinion. It's not a fact. Calling it a "fact" would put it in the jurisdiction of science. Don't ever forget that.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#415407 - 10/06/01 01:08 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> This percentage is usually derived from the MRI study on neuronal firing and has nothing to do with potential.
Yes. There's probably tons of factors never been looked into. It's entirely possible that if 100% of your brain cells were firing at once, you'd overheat your brain, or run out of glycogen.
The brain runs on a balance. A lower amount of raw energy than our brains could be using doesn't have much to do with a deficit in "potential."
I agree with you here.
|
missulena
enthusiast
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 251
Last seen: 22 years, 10 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
#415420 - 10/06/01 01:19 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Science is a philosophy, doesnt phd mean doctor of philosophy?
|
wintertime
enthusiast
Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 146
Last seen: 21 years, 9 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: missulena]
#415440 - 10/06/01 01:49 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
ahh.. science vs religion..
i think the reason why people regard science as being not spiritual is because there is no room for passion or feeling in science, it is based on facts. and i think conversely with religion, there is no facts, just faith and belief. neither is right or wrong by any regard, maybe even a fusion of the two would result in something more balanced.
religion and science are often not disagreeing though, for instance the "big bang" and "God". they are really just different words to explain the same thing.
|
MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
#415549 - 10/06/01 04:41 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>That's the great beauty of science. It waits for the data to come in before making any judgement.
However, if you know how to manipulate scientific data, you could technically use it to confirm or deny nearly anything. That's a flaw in science(probably why I prefer math, specifically geometry. Nothing left up to interpretation because it's a complete system.). For years, they didn't have the ability to test some of Einstien's theories, yet many of these were accepted blindly. Now that we have the data, it seems to fit with Einstien's theories, but is it because they're ignoring part of the data or is it because he was right? Science doesn't prove facts, it shows repeatable results and we conclude that it must be fact. How do we know that we're not simply misunderstanding the results and fiting models to the results when other models might work just as well. It's kind of like the whole gobal warming thing. Currently the earth is warming; however, the way the earth is warming doesn't fit into our current models, so it must be man's fault. If you look at how much the sun has warmed recently(amount of energy released), it fits almost exactly with the amount the earth has warmed. So it must be the sun's fault. Yet we've only got a very limited sample from something that's been changing for millions of years(admitedly as we study the ice and other hints that have been left from the past, our sample is growing). Is it realistic to claim that either of these are correct simply because they fit or don't fit our models? Perhaps our models are wrong? And if our models are so perfect how is it that weather reports are only correct 65% of the time given 24 hours(this percentage decreases greatly for anything over 24 hours)? I'm not taking a stand on this, I've got my opinion, but it's irrelavent in this debate. While I support science as the best thing we've got and tend to agree with you that science and spirituality aren't at odds(if you'd have said that to the Christians of Darwin's time, you'd have likely found yourself lynched(Christians killing people, talk about hypocrisy)). I think we should be far more careful as what we believe as "fact". Personally, I find facts to be something that I can indisutably name as true, ie it's raining outside and I say it's a fact that it's raining outside. It is also very ignorant to claim that science has no place in a philosophy news group. The scientific metheod was developed as a philosophy to allow a greater introspection into the rhyme and reason of nature. A way to compare results and try to develop theories based on this information that was repeatable(a standarizing of a system if you will).
As for the 10% brain usage myth, I find it hard to believe that we've "optimized"(for lack of a better word) our brains. But I also would find it hard to believe we only use 10%(especially with such a complex subconscious). If you look at Einstien's brain, its wiring appears to be different. Does this represent a greater optimization or just a genetic oddity? Is there any way to really tell how much of your brain is being used with out first figuring out how hard you're thinking? What determines the difficulty or depth of thought? Is it merely the rate of neurons firing in the brain? Who knows, not I.
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
Traveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
#415563 - 10/06/01 05:32 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
last I heard mathematics was a science...
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: wintertime]
#415608 - 10/06/01 07:55 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i think the reason why people regard science as being not spiritual is because there is no room for passion or feeling in science...
In reviewing experimental data, there should be no emotion involved as it is non-essential. However, scientists themselves are full of passion and feeling. Pick any great scientific achievement, for example : putting a man on the moon. Without great passion fueling that dream, the perserverance would not have been there to make it happen.
and i think conversely with religion, there is no facts, just faith and belief. neither is right or wrong by any regard, maybe even a fusion of the two would result in something more balanced.
There may be a fusion in an individual, but will never happen as external disciplines.
Science says: show me your data and I will attempt to validate / invalidate it through experiential means.
Religion says: show me your data and I will accept or reject it based on my faith in it's source - i.e. scripture, messenger or ecstatic vision.
However, many things once in the religious domain have shifted into the scientific domain such as the erroneous idea of an earth-centric solar system much touted by the Roman Catholic church hundreds of year ago. Similarly, many diseases once thought to be a manifestation of evil spirits have been shown to be viral and biotic in nature.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: oneoverzero]
#415614 - 10/06/01 08:03 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I fully realize that there are people with concretized egos and hidden agendas here..
Please expose those dastardly people with "hidden agendas' so that we may shed light on their evil-doings.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
#415624 - 10/06/01 08:19 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>That's the great beauty of science. It waits for the data to come in before making any judgement.
However, if you know how to manipulate scientific data, you could technically use it to confirm or deny nearly anything. That's a flaw in science...
Not at all. There may be flawed scientists coming to erroneous conclusions, but this is not a flaw with the methodology. Change your interpretation of the theory of thermodynamics and your car will still start in the morning. Change your interpretation of electron theory and you can still communicate on your computer. Science is not so vague and wishy-washy as you make it sound, except in the early stages of exploratoration where there is insufficent data to form a complete picture.
For years, they didn't have the ability to test some of Einstien's theories, yet many of these were accepted blindly.
On the contrary, there have been many competing theories all awaiting the ability to test them. We read of very few of these now, because they did not stand up over time. Any of those blindly accepting Einstein's theories, were either silent because they had no alternative proposition, or accepted them based on their respect for his other work, but that only tells us about people and not methodology.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
CACA
veteran
Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 22 years, 8 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: wintertime]
#415766 - 10/06/01 12:31 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
they are not the same, because God CAUSED the big bang if indeed there was one. it did not just happen from nothing all of a sudden for no reason at all nothing was and then something decided to be from that nothing.
 .. what was i saying..? Time for a cigarette.
--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
#415909 - 10/06/01 03:01 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> That's a flaw in science(probably why I prefer math, specifically geometry. Nothing left up to interpretation because it's a complete system.).
That's not a flaw in science. That's a flaw in scientists (humans). Science tends to correct itself, and correct scientists, even if it takes a while.
> Science doesn't prove facts, it shows repeatable results and we conclude that it must be fact
The data are considered facts. Theories are theories. They're explanations which give us predictory power. Not many people try to pass them off as absolute fact, but when working within a system (eg// relativity), one must temporarily suspend skepticism to advance within that system. It's much more difficult to aim for a paradigm shift with each discovery.
> Currently the earth is warming; however, the way the earth is warming doesn't fit into our current models, so it must be man's fault.
What "models"? We only have one earth...
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Kratom Powder for Sale 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Swami
Xlea321
dumlovesyou
Sclorch
spud
DigitalDuality
Phluck
SHiZNO