|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
 10% of brain usage myth 
#413327 - 10/04/01 04:53 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Once and for all may we please put this often misquoted story to bed?
How many pistons fire at the same time in a V-8 engine? Answer: one; therefore the engine only develops 1/8 of it's potential. (An internal combustion engine does not achieve theoretical potential due to heat loss, but not because only one piston fires at a time.)
This is the same misguided logic used in the 10% myth. On average, it is unusual for more than 10% of the neurons in the brain to fire at one time. This was determined doing brainscans using an MRI, if I remember correctly. More firing does not equal superhuman cognitive ability, but chaos. If every transistor in your computer fired at the same time, your machine would not be supercharged, but locked up.
One more analogy. It is like saying a pianist playing a chord of 6 notes is not using his full potential of 88 notes. Hit all the keys at once and there is no pattern, no intelligence or information transferred.
Nuff said.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
 oneoverzero
veteran
Registered: 01/23/00 
Posts: 758
Loc: Cyber Space
Last seen: 23 years, 29 days
|
 Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#413336 - 10/04/01 05:15 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The newest theories on consciosness I've been reading point to what's called "microtubules" that look like dynamically moving tree-like structures within neurons that form and un-form from a cytoskeleton state to a gel state at about 20 cyles per second according to a concept in quantum mechanics known as "quantum collapse".
Imagine the complexity of a tree. Now imagine that it's moving energy and information dynamically within 100,000,000,000 neurons each. Now imagine that each neuron is connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, some connections are eight feet long!
Marilyn Vos Savant, the highest I.Q. in the world (230) writes there are more interconnections in the human brain than particles in the known universe.
Now WTF? is 10% of THAT?
Forever Never Stops
--------------------
[red]0011 0001 0010 1111 0011 0000[/red]
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: oneoverzero]
#413411 - 10/04/01 06:56 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Marilyn Vos Savant, the highest I.Q. in the world (230)
writes there are more interconnections in the human brain than particles in the known universe.
You've got something greatly mixed up here. A part can never be greater than the whole. Each connection is made up of millions of particles, so this makes absolutely no sense.
--------------------
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: Swami]
#413412 - 10/04/01 07:02 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
? not that i want to stand up to this, but that is not possible as two human brains standing next to that one human brain he is talking about would already have more interconnections than that of a human brain.
 .. 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
|
CACA
veteran
Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 22 years, 8 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: CACA]
#413419 - 10/04/01 07:23 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
o wait lol
.. 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
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#413800 - 10/04/01 03:26 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Since you know so much about the human brain, please tell me what the grey matter is for?
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#413951 - 10/04/01 05:24 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Since you know so much about the human brain, please tell me what the grey matter is for?
Seems you are incapable of reading a post for what is actually said.
Nowhere did I claim extensive knowledge of the human brain, only awareness of that particular study and how it has been misinterpreted.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
ShroomFarmer
Level 0 zilch
Registered: 09/13/01
Posts: 39
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414124 - 10/04/01 08:02 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure about the reptillians, greys, and mantis things, but I'm sure Swami is part troll.
--------------------
crinkle crinkle
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ShroomFarmer]
#414144 - 10/04/01 08:27 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
heh
|
oneoverzero
veteran
Registered: 01/23/00
Posts: 758
Loc: Cyber Space
Last seen: 23 years, 29 days
|
 Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414573 - 10/05/01 05:36 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Relax Champion! No need to get all testy. I respect your intelligence so respect mine too. This website is all about sharing information and not prentending you already know everything - which I don't. I need your smarts, I haven't figured it all out either. Maybe we could solve some riddles if we put our heads together instead of butting them together like rams competing to be the Alpha-Male. That's animalistic behavior.
Is a Troll an animal? I dunno... who cares.
Btw, Mrs. Savant (Married to Dr. Jarvic, inventor of the artificial heart - smart guy) wrote "inter-connections". That means ultra vast fields of "connections" that assemble and dissassemble at very high speeds. Over time it adds up. Do the math champ, it's beyond astronomical!
Take a heroic dose and try to explain what 10% of your favorite color is... heh.
Forever Never Stops
--------------------
[red]0011 0001 0010 1111 0011 0000[/red]
|
gribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/18/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414638 - 10/05/01 08:04 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Swami, we are obviously mostly stupid and delusional people here. Some of us are even dangerious to society. I am warning you again. RUN!!!!!! Leave this place before it is too late! Why does a well-educated materialistic person like you keeps coming to a place where mostly everyone can't tell right from wrong and real from imaginary?
----
You punish God, not the other way around.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
#414709 - 10/05/01 09:57 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Swami, we are obviously mostly stupid and delusional people here. Some of us are even dangerious to society. I am warning you again. RUN!!!!!! Leave this place before it is too late! Why does a well-educated materialistic person like you keeps coming to a place where mostly everyone can't tell right from wrong and real from imaginary?
Ah, the shroomery spokesperson. You are warning me about what exactly? Not to point out flawed logic?
What does your post have to do with the topic? The 10% myth has been bantied about on dozens of posts and is incorrect. Do you have an opinion on this that you wish to add to the discussion?
--------------------
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]
#414719 - 10/05/01 10:14 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Alpha-male? Where do you get this stuff? It is head-butting to say that the the part can never be greater than the whole? This fact stands alone without any support from me.
Neurons are made of billions of atoms, and at at best estimates have a maximum of some 10,000 inter-connections, usually much less. The mass of the universe and hence particulate matter is almost infinite compared to a 5 pound brain.
What math specifically am I supposed to be doing? Perhaps you need to extrapolate on your point as now you have added time to the equation, but am not sure what the equation is.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414743 - 10/05/01 10:45 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? Because they are not proven by science?
Remember, this board is spirituality and philosophy, not let's prove ourselves to science.
|
shroom-girlie
addict
Registered: 01/06/01
Posts: 215
Loc: California
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414744 - 10/05/01 10:45 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
We use 100% of our brain but only 10% of its capacity....take care
"Express yourself completely then become quiet."
--------------------
"Express yourself completely then become quiet."
|
CACA
veteran
Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 22 years, 8 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#414771 - 10/05/01 11:16 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i believe it is true, because for every one physical situation that can be understood, we can understand it in more than one fashion.
.. 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
|
gribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/18/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#414814 - 10/05/01 12:05 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Swami, I am pointing out to you that you keep coming to a place where everyone is obviously delusional (after all, according to science OOBs, entities, aliens, God, Chi, etc. are not possible). I want to ask you, exactly why you do that? What is the purpose of you coming here? 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?
Oh, and I am in no way a Shroomery spokesperson, no do I _want_ you to leave, simply warning of imminent danger of becoming insane, just like us.
(Oh, Shroomism, please do not interpret me in the future. Thanks).
----
You punish God, not the other way around.
|
CACA
veteran
Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 22 years, 8 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
#414817 - 10/05/01 12:07 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
hah gribo im going to rape you
.. 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
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
#414841 - 10/05/01 12:23 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, was not trying to interpret what you were saying. Those were my words.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#414850 - 10/05/01 12:32 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think what he means...
Ah, the spokesman for the spokesman...
...Swami, is that why would someone who obviously has no spirituality OR philosophy...
Huh? You know absolutely nothing of my spirituality nor philosophy.
However, this IS a discussion board not a cheerleading board, meaning opposing points of view may be presented. Of course, believers are always afraid of different views.
This post HAS a topic, but you choose to neither affirm nor debate the point, disregarding the entire reason for a discussion.
--------------------
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: 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, 29 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, 4 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, 4 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...
|
MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Traveller]
#415911 - 10/06/01 03:04 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ask any mathematician if math is a science. They'll tell you no. Math is the system that is manipulated by science. Geometry is not a science(engineers using geometry, that's a sceince), calculus is not a science(physicists using calculus, that's a science), math on the whole is not a science. Geometry is still the only complete system that has any real practical use that I've seen. I mean think about it 5+3=8 or 5*4=20 are not science, that's math. Determining the area under a curve to figure out something of scientific value(such as strength of a joint tested in a computer simulation that gives a certain curve) is science. Math is the biggest tool of science, it's the language of science(well most science). That doesn't make it a science.Edited by MokshaMan on 10/06/01 05:49 PM.
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
#415936 - 10/06/01 03:35 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So having scientist that are only concerned with self-promotion is not a flaw in science? Once it's only done by something that has no bias, I'll retract my statement about science being flawed. So long as humans aren't perfect, science is flawed. I don't discount science, it's the best thing we've got, but that doesn't mean it's not flawed. The idea the science corrects itself tends to be true(even if it takes hundreds of years, of course how would we know if it didn't?). How is data fact? If I conduct one experiment, I have a data set, but let's say I conducted the experiment wrong, how is my data fact? Let's say I did the same experiment, conduct the experiment correctly, but only take one measurement of everything I need. I still have a data set, which may not represent the norm, how is that fact? Data, is exactly that data, raw and generally worthless in that form. There must be an interpretation(ergo people and their self promotion and manipulation). Science like I said before shows repeatable results that we conclude are fact(yes within a given system... not sure we're really disagreeing on ththe definition of science, we are on the idea that data is "fact", but I don't think about science we are). You yourself even said:"They're explanations which give us predictory power." Although I suppose that just ment theories... as in scientific theories? I'm not suggesting we need to change everything with every new system or abandon the scientific theory, I'm just saying that we're fools if we always blindly suspend skepticism. Clearly some sciences should be "blindly" accepted, for example Newtonian Physics has survived various attempts to discredit it because no other system has held up over time.
>> 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...
Possibly the scientific computer models that are being used everyday by weather men, statisticians, scientists; the reason that nearly everyone is saying the earth is going to warm to dangerous levels...(even though in North America the numbers are on average lower than these models predicite(and lower than previous averages), ie it's cooling in North America on average) I use to have a link to these numbers... I'll see if I can find it. Like I said, I'm not taking a stand on this
Just because there are no other theories, doesn't mean that the one theory has to be right. Before the idea of evolution all we had was Creationism, it was the only theory... some would argue that it still holds up. How long did it take man to figure out the concepts of genetics, evolution, physics? What else do you think we might have missed on the way up the "evolutionary ladder"?Edited by MokshaMan on 10/06/01 05:58 PM.
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
oneoverzero
veteran
Registered: 01/23/00
Posts: 758
Loc: Cyber Space
Last seen: 23 years, 29 days
|
 Re: 110% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#416015 - 10/06/01 05:13 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That's the "punch-line" of the joke. I leave it to you, to figue out what the joke is... (hehehe)
Forever Never Stops
--------------------
[red]0011 0001 0010 1111 0011 0000[/red]
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
#416290 - 10/07/01 12:26 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Biology is not science. Using biology to classify a type of bird is science.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
#416303 - 10/07/01 12:41 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> So having scientist that are only concerned with self-promotion is not a flaw in science?
No.
BTW, not all scientists are concerned solely with self-promotion. That's not a fair assumption to make.
The method of science is not flawed. In fact, if you look at the history of science, it tends to self-correct. You can't hide data.
> Once it's only done by something that has no bias, I'll retract my statement about science being flawed
That's ridiculous. You show your love of math. You clearly seem to admire it. So, if a mathematician uses math in a biased way, is that a fault of math itself? No.
> How is data fact? If I conduct one experiment, I have a data set, but let's say I conducted the experiment wrong, how is my data fact?
The data you collected is still fact, but there are environmental conditions, systematic and random errors that were either not taken into effect, or unavoidable.
The data is always correct. All the factors affecting the data is never known. Humans work with what they know.
> Let's say I did the same experiment, conduct the experiment correctly, but only take one measurement of everything I need. I still have a data set, which may not represent the norm, how is that fact?
Just because it's not normal doesn't mean it's not fact. It happened. You observed it. The data is a fact.
> Data, is exactly that data, raw and generally worthless in that form. There must be an interpretation(ergo people and their self promotion and manipulation).
Name the ten most highly paid physicists, or chemists in the USA, off the top of your head. How often do you see a scientists name on the front page of a newspaper? Scientists aren't all shameless self-promoters.
Have you ever done a scientific experiment? Part of the fun of it is figuring something out. It's not fun to falsify data just because you want to make a theory. In the end, that won't get you anywhere anyway. Like I said, science tends to self-correct.
> Clearly some sciences should be "blindly" accepted, for example Newtonian Physics has survived various attempts to discredit it because no other system has held up over time.
There are a lot of scientists who work outside the fields of the normal paradigms. The biggest problematics for them are that the terminology of their new ideas are not well known, and the mathematical concepts behind them are extremely difficult and not well developed. Scientists are always looking for ways to improve theories (eg// such as the improvement from the "Ideal Gas Law" to the "Real Gas Law").
BTW, Newtonian physics has been greatly undermined by quantuum physics and relativity. They tossed Newton out the window about a century ago. Newton, however, does work well on models for things that operate on a human scale (there's not much point in applying relativity theory in trying to engineer automobiles, it's just a waste of energy).
> Possibly the scientific computer models that are being used everyday by weather men, statisticians, scientists;
Statisticians wouldn't have anything to compare the Earth to. If we had fifty Earths and could change the variables on each of them and study them over time then maybe statistics would be helpful. The reason scientists are concerned about global warming stems from the awareness of enormous holes in the ozone layer above antartica.
> Just because there are no other theories, doesn't mean that the one theory has to be right.
That's obvious. Like I said earlier, scientists don't generally believe that a theory is absolutely true. It just happens to be a working model that works extremely well at making predictions.
|
Nathaniel
newbie
Registered: 05/12/00
Posts: 22
Last seen: 23 years, 3 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#416381 - 10/07/01 02:07 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Swami is right
It might be more appropriate to say that humans use 10% of the brain to dictate motor functions. Reasoning, language, and (I would suggest) all things mystical or pretanatural occur in the other 90%.
Brain circuitry will atrophy from disuse. If 90% lay completely dorment, brain mass would reveal this reduction.
Although Albert Einstein was once known to have quoted this figure finding the exact origins of this conjecture proves to be a challenge. This speculative assertion was probably alluding to a more general untapped potential.
Certainly the mystical does have passage in the brain, but to say that people who are not yet enlightened are unable to access the other 90% would be false.
The number of neurons, microtubules, or particles is probably irrelevant. Qualitative and specific activity within different (neural)populations may be a more poignant target.
Quantum collapse, Fourier transforms...all of these complicated methodologies to describe the processing prowess of the brain can produce tedious conversation. Detail upon intricate detail.
What a distraction...but here I am rounding the curves of this infinite circle with everyone else. Arms and legs pumping vigorously. oh well
|
Nathaniel
newbie
Registered: 05/12/00
Posts: 22
Last seen: 23 years, 3 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#416382 - 10/07/01 02:07 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Swami is right
It might be more appropriate to say that humans use 10% of the brain to dictate motor functions. Reasoning, language, and (I would suggest) all things mystical or pretanatural occur in the other 90%.
Brain circuitry will atrophy from disuse. If 90% lay completely dorment, brain mass would reveal this reduction.
Although Albert Einstein was once known to have quoted this figure finding the exact origins of this conjecture proves to be a challenge. This speculative assertion was probably alluding to a more general untapped potential.
Certainly the mystical does have passage in the brain, but to say that people who are not yet enlightened are unable to access the other 90% would be false.
The number of neurons, microtubules, or particles is probably irrelevant. Qualitative and specific activity within different (neural)populations may be a more poignant target.
Quantum collapse, Fourier transforms...all of these complicated methodologies to describe the processing prowess of the brain can produce tedious conversation. Detail upon intricate detail.
What a distraction...but here I am rounding the curves of this infinite circle with everyone else. Arms and legs pumping vigorously. oh well
|
MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
#416989 - 10/07/01 02:25 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I was not trying to imply that all scientist are concerned with their own image and finances.
> That's ridiculous. You show your love of math. You clearly seem to admire it. So, if a mathematician uses math in a biased way, is that a fault of math itself? No.
The problem with this statement is that math is either true or false. You can either conclusively prove it as an absolute, or you can't. Hard to use something in a biased way if it's only one of two things.
When I was speaking of Newtonian Physics, I was guessing you'd assume I was talking about within the sphere of earth. Where, it works and was almost 100% correct. Sorry I didn't make that clear, that was my fault.
Data is not always correct, I don't think we're going to agree on this one. Say I've got something in static equalibrium, now I measure the friction between the two. Let's say the friction to remove it from equalibrium is .05 mu, and I measure .06 mu(units might not be right, I haven't taken a physics course since 12th grade, a college course which is why I didn't take any in college). How is my data correct, clearly it's not moving. My data is not true, weather because of the instruments or because of me falsifying data. SECTION REMOVED. As far as naming the top 10 living scientists in any field, nope can't do it(maybe top 5 in a couple fields...).
> Statisticians wouldn't have anything to compare the Earth to. If we had fifty Earths and could change the variables on each of them and study them over time then maybe statistics would be helpful.
There comparing to past years, it's not only the ozone that they're concerned about. It's also the "green house" gases, which they can compare with past years since some of these gases has been trapped in ice. They also use the trunks of trees to compare the rings, this gives information about past seasons. There are a number of things that they can use. Admittedly, without other people feeding them research statisticians would be worthless.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small"><EM>Edited by MokshaMan on 10/07/01 05:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>Edited by MokshaMan on 10/08/01 03:29 PM.
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
CACA
veteran
Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 22 years, 8 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Nathaniel]
#417136 - 10/07/01 04:44 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
it might be that we do make use of all of our brain, but only 10% of its current potential is under our conscious control.
.. 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
|
dimitri
pronoid
Registered: 09/05/01
Posts: 45
Loc: Altered State
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#417168 - 10/07/01 05:49 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
There are abilities which we have that many people choose to ignore and not use. Telepathy for example....
I get a kick out of McKenna's take on telepathy:
"Language is very very mysterious, it is true magic. People run all over the place looking for paranormal abilities but notice that when I speak, if your internal dictionary matches my internal dictionary, that my thoughts cross through the air as an acoustical pressure wave and are reconstructed inside your cerebral cortex as your thought, your understanding of my words. Telepathy exists, it's just that the carrier wave is small mouth noises." - Terence Mckenna in Eros & Eschaton
Visit The Partnership for Drug Freedom in America
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
#417312 - 10/07/01 08:13 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> The problem with this statement is that math is either true or false. You can either conclusively prove it as an absolute, or you can't. Hard to use something in a biased way if it's only one of two things.
You can defy logic with algebra and infinite sums and series. Also, statistics, which is mathematical, can be misused.
|
gribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/18/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
#418025 - 10/08/01 10:36 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Seems strange that in your analogy you equivocated yourself to the madhouse population.
Well, you have to realize that we are (or at least I am) really really mad as defined by modern psychiatry. Although I do play by the rules of society and have, in fact, learned to disguize my madness very effectively, if I ever told some practicing psychiatrist my true world-view I'd probably be immediately sent to the mad-house.
I mean think about these:
* I think that nothing really matters, neither life nor death nor anything whatsoever.
* I can't tell the difference between right and wrong. WTC bombings seem both right and wrong, for example.
* I believe that scientists are delusional.
* I seriously entertain in my head such ideas as "I am God" (delusions of grandure), "I am nothing" (delusions of inferiority) and that these two are the same thing (don't know the name of that disorder).
Curious that Swami chose not to answer my last post, though, don't you think? Ahhh, those trolls, can't live with them, can't live without them....
----
You punish God, not the other way around.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
#418269 - 10/08/01 01:10 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Eh, I'm like that too.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
#418492 - 10/08/01 04:42 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Curious that Swami chose not to answer my last post, though, don't you think?
The point of this particular post was explicit. No furthur explanation was necessary. As to my responses to other posts, most notably on alien contact and end-of-world scenarios, I have made the purpose of my presence abundantly clear. Go back and read them.
Ahhh, those trolls, can't live with them, can't live without them....
And how is a a post discussing out a common misconception, a troll?
If I said fluffy, stuffed pink rabbits were about to take over the world, you would probably consider that a troll. But if I said Mantis-like entities from another galaxy were going to help us shift into the next dimension, that would be ok, right?
Your post on trolls, was itself a troll, however few people took your bait.
* I think that nothing really matters...
* I can't tell the difference between right and wrong.
* I believe that scientists are delusional.
* ... "I am God" (delusions of grandure), ...
Apathy, lack of discernment, generalization, paranoia, delusion, and you ask what I am doing here? You sound proud of your disorders, but these are not signs of enlightened or expanded thinking.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
gribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/18/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#418578 - 10/08/01 05:46 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Swami:
If one looked closely, one would soon find that "refuting a misconception or a myth" is rarely, by itself, a reason for action. I have given an example of someone who continuously comes to a nuthouse to argue with Napoleon. I am particularly fond of that image. I'd like to discuss it with you, if you don't mind, because it feels like you are doing the same thing. Do you feel like any of us (I, for one) would really change our beliefs because of your posts? Clearly, if you'd think that, you'd be very unobservant. An observant scientifically thinking person will soon notice that my delusions are so strong and deep-rooted that any attempt to change my views will fail miserably (not because I don't believe the brain is used 100%, but because I don't believe the brain exists or has any significance). But may be you think that there are other poor souls here, for whom, unlike me, there is hope for salvation? Well, far be it from me to say there aren't, but, really, has there been any indication of that? So, as an observant and clever person you must surely see how futile it is to argue with us about science. That is where the madhouse-Napoleon analogy comes from. But sure, then, there must be other reasons for your posts. May it be that you enjoy conversing with people who are clearly insane because it brings you pleasureful satisfaction knowing how smart and sane you are? That was the hidden context of my question. That is the level to which I was trying to direct your attention, understanding very clearly that it gives me pleasureful satisfaction to see my attempts fail miserably.
Oh, and a troll is a person, not a post. Please update your dictionary. Thank you.
----
You punish God, not the other way around.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
#418779 - 10/08/01 08:35 PM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>>As to my responses to other posts, most notably on alien contact and end-of-world scenarios, I have made the purpose of my presence abundantly clear. Go back and read them.
You have made your purpose abundantly clear I agree, to debunk everything I say in the name of science.
Although I feel that my purpose is not clear to you for some reason. I do not talk of end-of-the-world scenarios, I talk of spiritual ascension and physical pole shifts. Armageddon is not on my plate.
>>If I said fluffy, stuffed pink rabbits were about to take over the world, you would probably consider that a troll. But if I said Mantis-like entities from another galaxy were going to help us shift into the next dimension, that would be ok, right?
Again a misconception.
No one said anything about mantis-like entities helping us shift into another dimension. We spoke briefly of mantis like beings which others have experienced and communicated with, but no talk of them shifting our frequencies.
I will try to be as clear as possible this time, to avoid any future misunderstanding.
Shifting into the next dimension is up to US (Us meaning us HUMANS, on EARTH) Aliens cannot, and willnot effect our evolution unless we have taken responsibility for our own actions.
They are here however..observing our progress and communicating with those who want to communicate with them. They can communicate with humans, as humans can effect human evolution, but they cannot interfere with our evolution directly. It is against the rules.
|
Kid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/21/00
Posts: 2,365
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
#419048 - 10/09/01 12:17 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You're funny.
|
Crobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/03/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
#419316 - 10/09/01 08:51 AM (23 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
ATTENtION!!!! ATTENTION!!!!
Yesterday I was talpking with friend of mine who is informatician (?), and e mentioned the theory of oe guy how the bra works. He simmulated on cumputer, and all new findings back up his idea. BTW, it is cool that I came to the same conclusion by intuition >(.
The idea is next. Brain does not deal with packet informations, but by .... fuck I will have to be figrative.
Imagine pen. Well there is no idea of pen as itself, but it is a link to all others ideas such as it writes, you hold it in hand and so o. All those other ideas are again connected like...it writes is connected to pen, to informaion, to paper etc.
well we ca imagine that every neuron is a center of one idea. That neuron is connected to all other ideas by dentrites and it sends information to other cirlces by axons.
This all leads to te fact that more youknow faster you lear, becase it is much more easy to conect new idea to existing oes. Next, sleeping can be imagined such as rebalnce of the existing deas. Next, we all know that chilld wen is born it has much more brain cells than adult. But it does not mean it has higher potetnioal. Its because ts real power lies on connection not number of datas. ETC, ETC.
the inforaticians coputer model showed the same tendency...usually it would loose its bits,and spread its onections, and rarely, very rarely it would spread its bits.
Now lookig to a idea of 10%...It just seems nothing. I mean itis possible that we do not use the whole bran, but who cares. It is possible that there are some dead ends and so on wich are just potential, but it really means nothing when you say we use 10% of brai. Afterall the power of brain s not its quantity but its connections.
Shromism, grey matter are neurons, and that is your answer what are they used for.
disclaimer... ths is only the basic principle. People usually believe that neuron does not carry the conept, but agai, why should we make thigs more complicated when we know that nature doe not liket waste things.
If you think that Ralph is a cool guy, or even worse, that you support him, than you are an idiot. But from another point of view you are all good people sometimes
~Crobih
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Swami
Xlea321
dumlovesyou
Sclorch
spud
DigitalDuality
Phluck
SHiZNO