Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Traveller]
    #415911 - 10/06/01 05:04 PM (20 years, 16 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
    #415936 - 10/06/01 05:35 PM (20 years, 16 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlineoneoverzero
veteran
Registered: 01/24/00
Posts: 758
Loc: Cyber Space
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
Re: 110% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
    #416015 - 10/06/01 07:13 PM (20 years, 16 days 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]


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
    #416290 - 10/07/01 02:26 AM (20 years, 16 days ago)

Biology is not science. Using biology to classify a type of bird is science.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
    #416303 - 10/07/01 02:41 AM (20 years, 16 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNathaniel
newbie
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 22
Last seen: 20 years, 10 days
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
    #416381 - 10/07/01 04:07 AM (20 years, 16 days 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







Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNathaniel
newbie
Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 22
Last seen: 20 years, 10 days
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
    #416382 - 10/07/01 04:07 AM (20 years, 16 days 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







Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
    #416989 - 10/07/01 04:25 PM (20 years, 15 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Nathaniel]
    #417136 - 10/07/01 06:44 PM (20 years, 15 days 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.

:frown: .. 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedimitri
pronoid

Registered: 09/05/01
Posts: 45
Loc: Altered State
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
    #417168 - 10/07/01 07:49 PM (20 years, 15 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: MokshaMan]
    #417312 - 10/07/01 10:13 PM (20 years, 15 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/19/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
    #418025 - 10/08/01 12:36 PM (20 years, 14 days 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
    #418269 - 10/08/01 03:10 PM (20 years, 14 days ago)

Eh, I'm like that too.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: gribochek]
    #418492 - 10/08/01 06:42 PM (20 years, 14 days 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinegribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/19/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
    #418578 - 10/08/01 07:46 PM (20 years, 14 days 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Swami]
    #418779 - 10/08/01 10:35 PM (20 years, 14 days 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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleKid
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 2,365
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: ]
    #419048 - 10/09/01 02:17 AM (20 years, 14 days ago)

You're funny.



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCrobih
rap-cord
Registered: 11/04/98
Posts: 2,015
Loc: cave
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: 10% of brain usage myth [Re: Kid]
    #419316 - 10/09/01 10:51 AM (20 years, 13 days 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Analyzing The Poster
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 3,061 61 08/22/04 11:23 PM
by Frog
* Enough with the logic threads!
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 2,862 26 04/27/02 10:36 AM
by Tannis
* CAN YOU CONTROL YOURSELF?
( 1 2 all )
dumlovesyou 4,171 36 04/26/02 03:00 AM
by dumlovesyou
* OBEs = Brain Misfiring?
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 5,146 39 09/24/02 11:33 AM
by Albino_Jesus
* Scientists find way to induce OOBE spud 2,094 16 09/28/03 02:44 AM
by recalcitrant
* brain chems (DMT/psychedelics) vs spritual vessels DigitalDuality 3,782 13 07/13/04 08:44 AM
by JacquesCousteau
* Suburban myths.
( 1 2 all )
Phluck 2,514 27 05/13/09 04:51 AM
by igwna
* Arent drugs proof the mind is created by the brain?
( 1 2 all )
SHiZNO 3,703 20 04/16/03 01:32 PM
by The_Clash_UK

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
5,695 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.