mind and body

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs Gee, I guess only time will tell then, eh?

It would be nice if more people took that attitude instead of jumping to conclusions about such things as "souls" and "gods" and other immaterial explanations that are not even in principal verifiable.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname It would be nice if more people took that attitude instead of jumping to conclusions about such things as "souls" and "gods" and other immaterial explanations that are not even in principal verifiable.

But like I said before, neither of us can prove the other wrong.

[loseyourname]

My claims are provable, yours are not. My claims do not include any claim that there is no god or that there is no soul, just that whether or not they exist is irrelevant and that all things observed in the natural world have a natural explanation. I don't go around inventing invalid hypotheses to explain that which I cannot explain. I leave my mind open.

[sSsflamesSs]

If you oppose my claim, then that automatically implies that you claim the opposite of my claim (duh). So I still do not see how your claim is 'provable'.

[loseyourname]

Never mind. You obviously don't understand. I've explained this a million times in a million threads.

[violette829]

Sex is always the perfect resolution!!

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname Energy efficiency. If we used it all, we'd require much more food than we currently require. Because of this, creatures that only used a small portion of their brain at a time were favored by natural selection. We still have an enormous brain capacity, which is what makes us as intellectually advanced as we are, but are still able to get by on the amount of food that we can feasibly consume in a day while still being able to actually undergo intellectual pursuits.

And if Anonymouse jumps in here to say that no, natural selection had nothing to do with it, it makes no difference. Even if the human brain was designed this way, my reason is almost certainly the reason it was designed this way.

Flames?

did you buy this?


------------------------

Here's what I think. It makes no sense to say that we only use 10% of our brains. That's pretty lame, only sleuth would say something like that.



Some chic asked the same question in a Bio Psych class I had last year ("do we only use 10% of our brains?"), and the professors response was "10% at a time". and that's how I understood that.

But, it still doesn't make sense to me.

Now, our brain stem, which controls breathing, digestion,and heart rate alone, is about 10% of the brain itself. So by breathing and heart beat alone, we're using 10%.

another question would be, "at a time" how is this "time" measured. What's the time frame for "at a time".

Which leads me to the conclusion that... There is no validity to the theory.

as for what lose said... he's talking about soemthing else.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by spiral Flames?

did you buy this?


------------------------

Here's what I think. It makes no sense to say that we only use 10% of our brains. That's pretty lame, only sleuth would say something like that.



Some chic asked the same question in a Bio Psych class I had last year ("do we only use 10% of our brains?"), and the professors response was "10% at a time". and that's how I understood that.

But, it still doesn't make sense to me.

Now, our brain stem, which controls breathing, digestion,and heart rate alone, is about 10% of the brain itself. So by breathing and heart beat alone, we're using 10%.

another question would be, "at a time" how is this "time" measured. What's the time frame for "at a time".

Which leads me to the conclusion that... There is no validity to the theory.

as for what lose said... he's talking about soemthing else.

No, I did not buy it, but I never argue/debate unless I am completely knowledgable of the topic.

As far as I could tell, he was just babbling.

[sleuth]

Originally posted by spiral Flames?

did you buy this?


------------------------

Here's what I think. It makes no sense to say that we only use 10% of our brains. That's pretty lame, only sleuth would say something like that.



Some chic asked the same question in a Bio Psych class I had last year ("do we only use 10% of our brains?"), and the professors response was "10% at a time". and that's how I understood that.

But, it still doesn't make sense to me.

Now, our brain stem, which controls breathing, digestion,and heart rate alone, is about 10% of the brain itself. So by breathing and heart beat alone, we're using 10%.

another question would be, "at a time" how is this "time" measured. What's the time frame for "at a time".

Which leads me to the conclusion that... There is no validity to the theory.

as for what lose said... he's talking about soemthing else.

you don't know who is sleuth,so don't assume things around....don't make posts that you are superior...i can back up my point...and prove how lame you are... take a deep bearth and relax.

brain facts:Average number of neurons in the brain = 100 billion
Average brain width = 140 mm
Average brain length = 167 mm
Average brain height = 93 mm
Volume of the brain of a locust = 6mm3
i can go on but facts are boring...my point is we all have the same brain,,but thoughts are different... why you are not NEWTON...or someone else??/ you use 100% of your brain..how come?

Science has come to some definitive conclusions on what certain portions of the brain are used for, i.e. the occipital lobes, temporal lobes, frontal lobes, etc. Yet, there are vast areas of the brain that are still a mystery to science, i.e. the pineal gland, the full potential of the pituitary gland, and portions of the midbrain limbic system to name a few. Thus to evaluate how much of our brain's capacity we are using when we are still unclear as to what vast areas are capable of is purely speculative.
Did you get the point??/
The fact that human use 100% of brain capacity has not been not proven yet...

First, have there been any definitive surgical studies on the human brain that test all physical aspects of the brain with the intention of mapping total brain usage? No! Nor could such tests exist, nor would they prove the point.
I have looked at all of the information I could find regarding this presumption and have come to the following personal conclusion. My reasoning may not satisfy those bent on empirical data, (for none exists) but it is the best my research can offer. I concur with the concept that we use only a fraction of our potential brain capacity
btw i am not so lame like you...so i won't label you .. i am up to debate not armo style bashing ok??

spiral sleuth can fry your little kiwi brain...

Which leads me to the conclusion that... There is no validity to the theory.

you can't even back up your point )) how cool is that...if you were awere of unvality of your theory don't label ppl around...that's my point..

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral Now, our brain stem, which controls breathing, digestion,and heart rate alone, is about 10% of the brain itself. So by breathing and heart beat alone, we're using 10%.

I'm pretty sure it means 10% of the synapses are firing at a time, not 10% of the volume is active. Neurons in the stem are far larger than elsewhere in the brain.

another question would be, "at a time" how is this "time" measured. What's the time frame for "at a time".

At any given moment. It's not a frame at all. It's at an instant.

as for what lose said... he's talking about soemthing else.

I'm just hypothesizing as to how it would be advantageous to only use 10% at a time. The only reason we would do so is if there were some advantage to it. It would be nice if you could actually offer some critique of the hypothesis.