The problem is the oft-repeated "we only use 10% of our brains" meme simply isn't true.
Yup.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Because during the Civil War, when doctors would experiment on brains with electrodes, they'd only get a "response" 10% of the time. Hence, the myth.
Do you have any further info on that? It's such a weird myth because it's not clear where it comes from or even what it's supposed to mean, but it really holds tight.
Because during the Civil War, when doctors would experiment on brains with electrodes, they'd only get a "response" 10% of the time. Hence, the myth.
Really? I always wondered were that number came from.
Here is a thought. If the human brain differs from all others in its ability for abstract thought, what other things could a brain do that have yet to evolve?
Really? I always wondered were that number came from.
Here is a thought. If the human brain differs from all others in its ability for abstract thought, what other things could a brain do that have yet to evolve?
I, for one, an holding out for the power to make my enemies heads swell up and burst.
There seem to be no mysteries any more. We have it all sorted out.
As someone actually doing science, I can assure you this is not the case. Biology in particular is almost a fractal set of mysteries. Every problem you think you get a handle on only reveals several even more remarkable ones underneath. Aside from assuring our job security, it can be enough to drive a thoughtful person mad. By the time it percolates out from the scientist, to the textbook, to the classroom, to the media, it's been papered-over enough to seem irrationally simplified to the guy doing the work.
So I find it incredible and mysterious that we can pretend to understand anything at all. And yet we *do* understand just enough things, just deeply enough, to make our lives unrecognizably more comfortable (from a medical standpoint) than any generation of humans who ever lived. With even better things to come. That's incredible. Maybe it's testament to our brains' remarkable ability to "understand fractally".
Edit: I think, however, that education in this country fails to prepare anyone - except those who actively seek it out - to understand and appreciate science. Especially biology. In some ways, there is better popular appreciation for relativistic physics than basic molecular biology. Both cause and side effect is that popular media - the most common form of adult education - prefers sensational "New cure!" stories lacking any detail to actual discussions of science. As a biologist, I find appalling the level of adult illiteracy about the most basic principles of how our own organism works. If we gave every kid just a little real biology in grade school, we'd all have a much better appreciation of the challenges and mysteries still out there.
Do you have any further info on that? It's such a weird myth because it's not clear where it comes from or even what it's supposed to mean, but it really holds tight.
Here, for starters. I was told it by a neuro guy when I was in grad school.
Here, for starters. I was told it by a neuro guy when I was in grad school.
Do you know anything about this civil war study? My understanding was that the only kernel of truth in that is that most of the cortex is not mapped out as to function: You can't point to a specific area and say what it does, with a few exceptions. Even that's probably wrong, because with these fMRIs and other technology we're starting to be able to find that most of these areas do have specific functions, but they just hadn't been previously identified.
And there's simply no way that we'd even have these big brains that take up so much of our metabolic resources if we didn't use them. They would simply die off through inactivity. It's nice to believe that we all have potential, but physiologically it just doesn't make sense that we don't use but 10% of this huge resource hog on top of our shoulders.
Do you know anything about this civil war study? My understanding was that the only kernel of truth in that is that most of the cortex is not mapped out as to function: You can't point to a specific area and say what it does, with a few exceptions. Even that's probably wrong, because with these fMRIs and other technology we're starting to be able to find that most of these areas do have specific functions, but they just hadn't been previously identified.
And there's simply no way that we'd even have these big brains that take up so much of our metabolic resources if we didn't use them. They would simply die off through inactivity. It's nice to believe that we all have potential, but physiologically it just doesn't make sense that we don't use but 10% of this huge resource hog on top of our shoulders.
Nope. It seems like I read it somewhere else, though, after the guy told me. But really, I have no idea about it other than that the myth ain't true. I do know that I only use about 10% of the hairs on my head, which is likely why they're dying off.
You know, now that I think on it, I think I've misremembered this. I don't think the guy actually said the Civil War. I think he just said that when we first started poking brains with stuff, there was only a visible response 10% of the time.
The moon. There are so many "coincedences" that someone must have put it there (Moon=Spaceship). For instance:
Quote:
Our moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon?s center of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric center (which should cause wobbling), but the moon?s bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. "Something" had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.
Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds, "There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."
And if you want awe, drink half a bottle of red wine, smoke a spliff and watch Fantasia. They did that shit by hand.
Awe - Colors, nature and that I survived my college years.
Colors. Do you ever wonder if our perception of colors is entirely subjective? Like, how our brain sees a given wavelength is an accident of our personal neuroanatomy, and my "green" may well be your "blue". Yet we all have the same associations (red=stop,angry,etc.; green=nature) because we all experience those wavelengths in the same contexts.
Colors. Do you ever wonder if our perception of colors is entirely subjective? Like, how our brain sees a given wavelength is an accident of our personal neuroanatomy, and my "green" may well be your "blue". Yet we all have the same associations (red=stop,angry,etc.; green=nature) because we all experience those wavelengths in the same contexts.
Consider something like aphasia, too. And I'd argue that those associations are NOT universal. JUst Western.
Colors also have depth and texture. So a person with 20/20 vision will see different parts of a color than someone that is wearing perscription sunglasses. bergz mentioned Fantasia. That was one of my favorite combinations of color and sound. Anytime Disney came out with a movie, we would take the kids but it was more for us. I cann't wait for the releases of some of those movies in high def. This xmas we will be completing a home theater room with a very nice sound system. I can see spending a couple of late nights watching some classics.
I can see spending a couple of late nights watching some classics.
You mention the "classics" which I would assume to be titles like Fantasia and the Jungle Book, or even Alice in Wonderland and 20,000 Leagues. But nowadays, as soon as Lilo and Stitch of the Jungle Book 2 comes out on video it's a "Disney Classic". Just wait for The Incredibles 2 to come out at the same time as Pixar's 7th movie, and you'll see what the Walt Disney Co. can do for a "classic."
I hate semantics, but Disney has done so much damage that I must say, "let's define our terms here".
My classics include a lot of B/W movies, North By Northwest, Casablanca etc. Jimmy Stewart was one of my favorite actors and lots of his were in B/W. Yet it is the animated stories that draw me in and amaze me at how good the artist are. I watched Finding Nemo 3 times the day I picked up the DVD because of how good it was and how each time I was able to pick something out that I missed the time before. We have most of the Disney films and less than half would be considered very good. Still they provide good entertainment and that is what I look for in a movie.
Colors. Do you ever wonder if our perception of colors is entirely subjective? Like, how our brain sees a given wavelength is an accident of our personal neuroanatomy, and my "green" may well be your "blue". Yet we all have the same associations (red=stop,angry,etc.; green=nature) because we all experience those wavelengths in the same contexts.
Well it would have to be more complicated than that...
We would have to associate pairs of complimentary colors with each other...
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
The problem is the oft-repeated "we only use 10% of our brains" meme simply isn't true.
Yup.
Originally posted by midwinter
Because during the Civil War, when doctors would experiment on brains with electrodes, they'd only get a "response" 10% of the time. Hence, the myth.
Do you have any further info on that? It's such a weird myth because it's not clear where it comes from or even what it's supposed to mean, but it really holds tight.
Originally posted by midwinter
Because during the Civil War, when doctors would experiment on brains with electrodes, they'd only get a "response" 10% of the time. Hence, the myth.
Really? I always wondered were that number came from.
Here is a thought. If the human brain differs from all others in its ability for abstract thought, what other things could a brain do that have yet to evolve?
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Really? I always wondered were that number came from.
Here is a thought. If the human brain differs from all others in its ability for abstract thought, what other things could a brain do that have yet to evolve?
I, for one, an holding out for the power to make my enemies heads swell up and burst.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
There seem to be no mysteries any more. We have it all sorted out.
As someone actually doing science, I can assure you this is not the case. Biology in particular is almost a fractal set of mysteries. Every problem you think you get a handle on only reveals several even more remarkable ones underneath. Aside from assuring our job security, it can be enough to drive a thoughtful person mad. By the time it percolates out from the scientist, to the textbook, to the classroom, to the media, it's been papered-over enough to seem irrationally simplified to the guy doing the work.
So I find it incredible and mysterious that we can pretend to understand anything at all. And yet we *do* understand just enough things, just deeply enough, to make our lives unrecognizably more comfortable (from a medical standpoint) than any generation of humans who ever lived. With even better things to come. That's incredible. Maybe it's testament to our brains' remarkable ability to "understand fractally".
Edit: I think, however, that education in this country fails to prepare anyone - except those who actively seek it out - to understand and appreciate science. Especially biology. In some ways, there is better popular appreciation for relativistic physics than basic molecular biology. Both cause and side effect is that popular media - the most common form of adult education - prefers sensational "New cure!" stories lacking any detail to actual discussions of science. As a biologist, I find appalling the level of adult illiteracy about the most basic principles of how our own organism works. If we gave every kid just a little real biology in grade school, we'd all have a much better appreciation of the challenges and mysteries still out there.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yup.
Do you have any further info on that? It's such a weird myth because it's not clear where it comes from or even what it's supposed to mean, but it really holds tight.
Here, for starters. I was told it by a neuro guy when I was in grad school.
Originally posted by midwinter
Here, for starters. I was told it by a neuro guy when I was in grad school.
Do you know anything about this civil war study? My understanding was that the only kernel of truth in that is that most of the cortex is not mapped out as to function: You can't point to a specific area and say what it does, with a few exceptions. Even that's probably wrong, because with these fMRIs and other technology we're starting to be able to find that most of these areas do have specific functions, but they just hadn't been previously identified.
And there's simply no way that we'd even have these big brains that take up so much of our metabolic resources if we didn't use them. They would simply die off through inactivity. It's nice to believe that we all have potential, but physiologically it just doesn't make sense that we don't use but 10% of this huge resource hog on top of our shoulders.
Originally posted by BRussell
Do you know anything about this civil war study? My understanding was that the only kernel of truth in that is that most of the cortex is not mapped out as to function: You can't point to a specific area and say what it does, with a few exceptions. Even that's probably wrong, because with these fMRIs and other technology we're starting to be able to find that most of these areas do have specific functions, but they just hadn't been previously identified.
And there's simply no way that we'd even have these big brains that take up so much of our metabolic resources if we didn't use them. They would simply die off through inactivity. It's nice to believe that we all have potential, but physiologically it just doesn't make sense that we don't use but 10% of this huge resource hog on top of our shoulders.
Nope. It seems like I read it somewhere else, though, after the guy told me. But really, I have no idea about it other than that the myth ain't true. I do know that I only use about 10% of the hairs on my head, which is likely why they're dying off.
Our moon is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon?s center of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric center (which should cause wobbling), but the moon?s bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. "Something" had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.
Moon Diameter: How does one explain the "coincidence" that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds, "There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion."
And if you want awe, drink half a bottle of red wine, smoke a spliff and watch Fantasia. They did that shit by hand.
--B
Originally posted by jesperas
Where do all the socks that I lose in the wash end up?
Ever cracked open your dryer?
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Ever cracked open your dryer?
Yeah, once in a drunken rage. It didn't work out so well.
Awe - Colors, nature and that I survived my college years.
Mystery - That my kids have turned out to be good people (so far).
reg
Originally posted by reg
Awe - Colors, nature and that I survived my college years.
Colors. Do you ever wonder if our perception of colors is entirely subjective? Like, how our brain sees a given wavelength is an accident of our personal neuroanatomy, and my "green" may well be your "blue". Yet we all have the same associations (red=stop,angry,etc.; green=nature) because we all experience those wavelengths in the same contexts.
Originally posted by Towel
Colors. Do you ever wonder if our perception of colors is entirely subjective? Like, how our brain sees a given wavelength is an accident of our personal neuroanatomy, and my "green" may well be your "blue". Yet we all have the same associations (red=stop,angry,etc.; green=nature) because we all experience those wavelengths in the same contexts.
Consider something like aphasia, too. And I'd argue that those associations are NOT universal. JUst Western.
reg
Originally posted by reg
I can see spending a couple of late nights watching some classics.
You mention the "classics" which I would assume to be titles like Fantasia and the Jungle Book, or even Alice in Wonderland and 20,000 Leagues. But nowadays, as soon as Lilo and Stitch of the Jungle Book 2 comes out on video it's a "Disney Classic". Just wait for The Incredibles 2 to come out at the same time as Pixar's 7th movie, and you'll see what the Walt Disney Co. can do for a "classic."
I hate semantics, but Disney has done so much damage that I must say, "let's define our terms here".
--B
reg
Originally posted by Towel
Colors. Do you ever wonder if our perception of colors is entirely subjective? Like, how our brain sees a given wavelength is an accident of our personal neuroanatomy, and my "green" may well be your "blue". Yet we all have the same associations (red=stop,angry,etc.; green=nature) because we all experience those wavelengths in the same contexts.
Well it would have to be more complicated than that...
We would have to associate pairs of complimentary colors with each other...