Thread: Stupid 10% of Your Brain Crap Ends Here; Read Me

Originally posted by lord soth
interesting read, (although i disagree with you on the evolution issue) <---- (OFF TOPIC!!!)

Err.. which part? Something I said?
I'm asking so that perhaps it can get its own thread...

First i must excuse my poor english and the fact that i havent read the previous posters, maybe my point has already said. And this is only my opinion, not some proved fact

Several have argued to me that the brain is the fastest \"machine\" in the world. When comparing the speed of a calculator, space shuttles, etc. the brain is obviously slower. [/b]

Well, if compared to a calculator... Calculator makes basically one process at the time using one certain formula. But our Brain, in another hand, makes millions at the time.
For example, you see a bed. The signal from your eyes reach the brain. Signal indicates a figure that looks like a bed. you know that because the sound of the word "bed" and the figure of bed has made a connection in your brain before. Now ,when the bed figure has been identified, you also see sheets and pillows with different colors on them.... again, all these factors must first be recognised. Then you search your memory section to remember what was the bed used for? sleeping? eating? making love with? And why the hell is this bed there anyway? Oh, right.. its my bed and it is supposed to be here... all these processes pass by with enormous speed resulting the acknowledgement that the bed is excatly where it should be and there's nothing to think about... well only maybe when something odd is wrong with your bed... maybe a green leprechaun is floating over it - then you start digging you memory.. "hmm, it wasn't here before"... well you get my point, theres millions of processes working in every nanosecond and we dont even feel it... So... Yeah, I'd say the brain is by far the fastest "machine" ever created.
Identifying the bed is a tiny part of the whole thing: feeling everything simultaneously with your five senses is something I'd call fabulous.... No machine can overpower it... not to mention the miracle of imagination... which is in fact nothing more than just bunch of processes eliminating the possible from impossible and mixing different aspects together to create something new.

But thats just my humble opinion
Oh, and btw.. thats my first post in the forums, so be gentle

In regard to the original topic of the thread,

Originally posted by In another thread+ I--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(In another thread &#064; I)</div>

The myth that humans only use 10% of their brain arises from this fact:

If you calculate all the possible neural connections that our brain is capable of making (ie. each single neuron connecting to every other single neuron in every possible way) we only actually have about 10-15% of those connections actually taking place. This is mostly for the purpose of efficiency and cognitive maintenance and the fact that we just don't need all of those connections.

Take an Intro Psych course, this isn't very complicated stuff.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-yazz
Well, if compared to a calculator... Calculator makes basically one process at the time using one certain formula. But our Brain, in another hand, makes millions at the time.

Good job yazz, its called parallel processing, this is why a calculator or your desktop computer cannot learn (without extremely sophisticated programming, and even that isn't technically \"learning\") and we can. I look forward to reading more posts from you.

Originally posted by Placebo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Placebo)</div>

Evolution implies a big bang, the creation of our planet, bio-chemical magic in water, crawling out the seas[/b]

NO! Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution simply describes how organisms have changed since then.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ultima
Yes. evolution happened but it is not happenING. If anything, we are degenerating as a species because natural selection no longer plays a part and there are no longer any genetic pressures to make us smarter, stronger, or better than what we are.

Extremely untrue. Evolution does not \"stop\". I'm not quite sure what you mean by \"degenerating\", but it seems to indicate that you think of evolution as a ladder with us at the top, moving downwards apparently? If over future eons we \"devolve\" into more simple primates again it would not be de-evolution. It would still be evolution. Evolution does not necessarily mean better, its simply an adaptation to an environment. Any positive or negative connatation that this change takes is purely a human label.

Originally posted by WerBurN
nowhere in all of science has it ever been found where one organism turns into another

Not true:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Discover Magazine &#064; Vol. 25, No. 11, November 2004 \\\"This Is Your Ancestor\\\": Jack McClintock)</div>

As it happens, Sogin (an evolutionary microbiologist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts) found that the sponge's immediate evolutionary predecessors are the choanoflagellates, which represent what life would have looked like just before animals in the form of sponges emerged. The similarity in names is no accident, for these are single-celled creatures, with whiplike flagella surrounded by a collar of microvilli, and they bear an amazing resemblance to the choanocyte cells of sponges. A few of them even clump loosely together into colonies, bringing evolution to the very brink of the animal age. Scientists had long suspected that the choanoflagellates could have been the nearest things to animals without actually being animals. At the University of Wisconsin in Madison, molecular biologists Nicole King and Sean Carroll recently verified Sogin's results and took the story a sentence or two further. They analysed a different genetic sequence and found \"strong support that the choanoflagellates are very close relatives of animals,\" as King says. In one species, they discovered a particular molecule previously found only in multicelled animals. They concluded that the choanoflagellates appear to contain the \"genetic tool kit\" from which the first animals were made.[/b]

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Originally posted by evangel+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(evangel)</div>

I believe that EVERYTHING is ordered by God, down to the last molecule -and that there is no chance, possibility, accident, or element of surprise for Him. I believe He knows past, present, and future (and beyond perhaps)[/b]

So you obviously don't believe in free will then.

<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer
Is it possible that there are some regions of our brain that we have yet to tap into.

No.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Placebo

Evolution implies a big bang, the creation of our planet, bio-chemical magic in water, crawling out the seas

NO! Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution simply describes how organisms have changed since then.[/b]

I tend to agree with you, thats why I say 'implies'
Most people see it all as the same thing - evolution vs creation builds this idea of 'the world started this way, or that way'
The borders of the subjects tend to fuzz away...

I tend to disagree about the crossing over of species barriers
I'll read into the sponge story first though

hey o'nus just out of curiosity are you aware that the link to your personal website tries to download spyware? Um... kinda sucks dude.

Okay, that's just playing with words, though I agree with what you're saying and it doesn't change what I said. If there are going to be any improvements to the race they'll have to be engineered (and I see this as exactly where we are going in the next few decades).

Extremely untrue. Evolution does not \"stop\". I'm not quite sure what you mean by \"degenerating\", but it seems to indicate that you think of evolution as a ladder with us at the top, moving downwards apparently? If over future eons we \"devolve\" into more simple primates again it would not be de-evolution. It would still be evolution. Evolution does not necessarily mean better, its simply an adaptation to an environment. Any positive or negative connatation that this change takes is purely a human label.
[/b]

'human survival' nowdays seems more location based and the way humans survive has changed... and we're heading towards an age where just about everyone will be able to survive and will have a chance to breed, and will probably evolve really slow, or hardly at all since people like big boobs over functional green tentacles.

Originally posted by Ultima
If there are going to be any improvements to the race they'll have to be engineered

Who are you or any of us to decide what constitutes an "improvement"? I'll leave that up to the forces of natural selection to decide. Bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter is not necessarily an improvement, there is a point where these attributes become negative. Look at the cheetah as a living example.

Originally posted by jakub
hey o'nus just out of curiosity are you aware that the link to your personal website tries to download spyware? Um... kinda sucks dude.

Wtf no it doesn't. Adware tries to download spyware by the sounds of it. Shows how much you know.

Bye.


{ohyah, i agree with techboy on the 1st page}

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Ultima

If there are going to be any improvements to the race they'll have to be engineered

Who are you or any of us to decide what constitutes an \"improvement\"? I'll leave that up to the forces of natural selection to decide. Bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter is not necessarily an improvement, there is a point where these attributes become negative. Look at the cheetah as a living example.[/b]

If we're capable of the technology, that is right enough to decide. We don't need to ask "God" or "natural selection". It doesn't mean it'll be good. Genetic engineering is kind of scary, but it's inevitable. Once people can do it, they will.

I'm not saying that we won't be able to alter ourselves with technology, I fully agree with that. I only disagree with calling these changes "improvements".

Originally posted by bradybaker
I'm not saying that we won't be able to alter ourselves with technology, I fully agree with that. I only disagree with calling these changes \"improvements\".

Well, if you had the choice to be smarter, stronger, better looking than you are now, wouldn't you be tempted to seize that opportunity? I know I would...

I believe that being able to cure genetic diseases, prevent deformities from occuring, etc... is a drastic improvement over today. Of course like any technology it can be abused until everyone looks and acts the same, which is no improvement at all.

You aren't thinking about the big picture. Sure becoming immediately stronger, faster, and bigger may be desirable in the short term. But that is an entire different topic largely dealing with psychology and social esteem theories. What you're talking about has nothing to do with evolution.

But over a large period of time (I'm not talking a week, a year, or even 100 years, but over hundreds of thousands of years), getting bigger, stronger, faster and smarter is not necessarily an advantage. Look at the cheetah, it has evolved so heavily toward speed that it is very difficult for them to defend themselves. (ie. when they catch something to eat, it is quite often stolen by another much more powerful animal suchs as a lion or a hyena and they go hungry).

hey thanks techboy... nice to have geeks like you around to prove us all wrong