We only use 10% of our brain power: It's true!

[Christian]

I want to have a discussion on this topic because I believe the statement is true.

Please, I'm not saying that I think it is exactly 10%. What I'm saying is that the general notion is correct, mainly, that we use very little of our brain power.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Christian
I want to have a discussion on this topic because I believe the statement is true.

Please, I'm not saying that I think it is exactly 10%. What I'm saying is that the general notion is correct, mainly, that we use very little of our brain power.
Actually, It's not true. (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm) Just another myth.

[Monketey Ghost]

What is it that makes you believe the statement is true? Popular opinion? Research?

[Nyarlathotep]

It's an Urban Legend (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm). To make a long story short there is no evidence that 90% of your brain just sits there doing nothing and there is plenty of evidence that your whole brain is used. The 10% of your brain myth is one that has no basis in fact.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by No Answers
What is it that makes you believe the statement is true? Popular opinion? Research? Actually, popular opinion is that the 10% myth is true. Research is much better. Unfortunately, I can't find what I would consider prime sources for such research, but these links do reference such.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html[/url
[url]http://www.rense.com/general16/myth10.htm

[Christian]

Tricky, I'm well aware of the notion that it is a myth. This is why I posted the thread. I want to argue that it might actually be true.

No Answers wrote:
What is it that makes you believe the statement is true? Popular opinion? Research?

Yes, research. But not the one you might be thinking of.


Recently, I have been reading about the subject of weight training. I came accross the book Beyond Brawn.

The principles in the book got me thinking about this idea.

Do we use 100% of our muscle power. According to the book, we do not. Most people's muscles are underdeveloped. With weight training, it is possible to increase muscle mass and strength substantially. So, someone who has not trained, is not using 100% of the muscle power.

The same reasoning should apply to brain power.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Christian
Tricky, I'm well aware of the notion that it is a myth. This is why I posted the thread. I want to argue that it might actually be true.

No Answers wrote:
What is it that makes you believe the statement is true? Popular opinion? Research?

Yes, research. But not the one you might be thinking of.
Well, then point out the research youe WERE thinking about.



Recently, I have been reading about the subject of weight training. I came accross the book Beyond Brawn.

The principles in the book got me thinking about this idea.

Do we use 100% of our muscle power. According to the book, we do not. Most people's muscles are underdeveloped. With weight training, it is possible to increase muscle mass and strength substantially. So, someone who has not trained, is not using 100% of the muscle power.

The same reasoning should apply to brain power.

I do not think that it is a good idea to compare the brain to muscles. They develop in different ways. Muscles develop by being torn down and rebuilt, we learn new things (which is the closest thing I can think of to "developing" the brain) by making new connections between neurons. I don't think that they are close enough to really be comparable.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
I want to have a discussion on this topic because I believe the statement is true.

Please, I'm not saying that I think it is exactly 10%. What I'm saying is that the general notion is correct, mainly, that we use very little of our brain power.

Christian - It might be an idea to ask this thread to be moved to the Science section?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Christian
Tricky, I'm well aware of the notion that it is a myth. This is why I posted the thread. I want to argue that it might actually be true.

No Answers wrote:
What is it that makes you believe the statement is true? Popular opinion? Research?

Yes, research. But not the one you might be thinking of.


Recently, I have been reading about the subject of weight training. I came accross the book Beyond Brawn.

The principles in the book got me thinking about this idea.

Do we use 100% of our muscle power. According to the book, we do not. Most people's muscles are underdeveloped. With weight training, it is possible to increase muscle mass and strength substantially. So, someone who has not trained, is not using 100% of the muscle power.

The same reasoning should apply to brain power.

Confusing quantity with quality, potential with kinetics, the ability to do physical work with mental aptitude and comprehension.

[hgc]

I don't think it can be any higher than 12%. That's what my research shows. I've consistently come in between 2% and 12%.

My laboratory:
http://www.ipdirect.co.uk/images/dice.jpg

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I do not think that it is a good idea to compare the brain to muscles. They develop in different ways. Muscles develop by being torn down and rebuilt, we learn new things (which is the closest thing I can think of to "developing" the brain) by making new connections between neurons. I don't think that they are close enough to really be comparable. I'm not that familiar with neurophysiology, but I was under the impression that the brain didn't atrophy either. At least, not in the sense that it grows smaller with lack of use.

[Christian]

Nyarlathotep wrote:
Well, then point out the research youe WERE thinking about.

I thought I did, weight training.

I do not think that it is a good idea to compare the brain to muscles. They develop in different ways. Muscles develop by being torn down and rebuilt, we learn new things (which is the closest thing I can think of to "developing" the brain) by making new connections between neurons. I don't think that they are close enough to really be comparable.

Obviously thats not the way both would be comparable. They are comparable in terms of growth. And this is the key point. Some who only knows how to speak one language is sub-using his or her brain. It is possible for any normal human to learn to speak two or three languages.

If he only speaks one, he is using less than the total he could. Anybody can learnt to play an instrument, and so on, and so on.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not that familiar with neurophysiology, but I was under the impression that the brain didn't atrophy either. At least, not in the sense that it grows smaller with lack of use.

I think you are right. Someone with a medical background would, I am sure, know better htan either of us, but I have always had a strong laymans interest in the way the brain works. I have never heard of the brain atrophying like a muscle either, it can fail to "grow" (i.e. you don't learn anything new) but to me that isn't quite the same thing.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Christian
...
Some who only knows how to speak one language is sub-using his or her brain. It is possible for any normal human to learn to speak two or three languages.

If he only speaks one, he is using less than the total he could. Anybody can learnt to play an instrument, and so on, and so on. I don't have any reason to think that there's a part of the brain set aside specifically to learn more languages. Someone could be utilizing that part to remember souffle recipes or calculate the nth digit of pi or whatever. Also, some people have a better facility for languages than others. It is possible for some people to learn 10 languages and for others to not be able to learn any other than their native language. What does that tell us about generalized brain capacity and use? Not much.

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
Christian - It might be an idea to ask this thread to be moved to the Science section?

Thanks, it is in the perfect place right here. I'm interested in the philosophical/moral implications of this.


Suezoled wrote:
Confusing quantity with quality, potential with kinetics, the ability to do physical work with mental aptitude and comprehension.

See, what I mean Darat? Mental aptitude and comprehension. Does this mean that most people with 100 IQ can't possibly be physicists?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Christian
If he only speaks one, he is using less than the total he could. Anybody can learnt to play an instrument, and so on, and so on. I think you're oversimplifying. There has been research that shows that after a certain stage of development (somewhere around the age of 12, I think) that if a person has not learned a second language, it is significantly more difficult to learn new languages than before this stage.

In muscle training, there really isn't a stage of development that, if you haven't trained before that point, it is significantly harder to begin training.

I think you're really stretching with this analogy.

[shecky]

Somehow, I'm beginning to think this thread will never get anywhere. :hit:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Christian
Nyarlathotep wrote:

I thought I did, weight training.

You're not serious are you? Weight training and the brain are two differnt things. It is an apples and oranges comparison


Obviously thats not the way both would be comparable. They are comparable in terms of growth. And this is the key point. Some who only knows how to speak one language is sub-using his or her brain. It is possible for any normal human to learn to speak two or three languages.

If he only speaks one, he is using less than the total he could. Anybody can learnt to play an instrument, and so on, and so on.

Of course one always has the potential to learn new things. That is entirely differnent than only using X% of your brain, though. One's whole brain still sees use.

Let me ask you this. would you feel comforatble if someone proposed taking out, say, 50% of your brain? That ought to leave a pretty comfortable margin of error to preserve the mere 10% you claim we use.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not that familiar with neurophysiology, but I was under the impression that the brain didn't atrophy either. At least, not in the sense that it grows smaller with lack of use.

The brain does in fact atrophy....with the onset of age, as a result of nutritional deficiencies, from ingestion of toxic substances, as a result of neuro-degenrative diseases....but not as a result of use (or lack thereof).

There is a psychological principle somewhat akin to "use it or lose it." But this is about specific skills, usually neuro-motor functions that involve balance and coordination for complex physical tasks. Just like with anything if you pick up a guitar after 5 years of not playing, or end up in a wheel chair for two years, not walking, you're going to have to learn how to do those things again. This is not evident in a reduction in mass, or total nuerons in the affected areas, but the unused pathways established by connections between neurons and chemical recpetors begins to fade.

The problem with a statement like 10% of our brain is that it's completely unscientific in the sense that there is no working definition with which to test this sort of thing.

10% of what? Synaptic gaps?
Neurons?
Chemical receptors?
Total Tissue?
Nerve pathways?

In some ways you would have to isolate those things to test them, and in other ways, trying to examine brain function without looking at the complex interplay between all those parts is almost impossible. You also have to involve large sections of the spine and nervous system.

If you want to phrase it differently yes, theoretically you could say we only take advantage of a limited portion of our cognitive processing power. That's in the same sense, though that I can say had I gone to med school I could have been a physician, or had I learned Karate, I could have been a martical arts champion, or had I sent in that matchbook I could be a famous artist.

There is always untapped potential in what we can achieve given unlimited time and resources, and a desire to learn new skills. But to assign a number like 10% is specious reasoning because to do so you would have to divide by infinity.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Andonyx

The brain does in fact atrophy....with the onset of age, as a result of nutritional deficiencies, from ingestion of toxic substances, as a result of neuro-degenrative diseases....but not as a result of use (or lack thereof).Well, that's why I tried to be specific by saying, "At least, not in the sense that it grows smaller with lack of use."

Ignore me. I'm just being defensive. The rest of your post was very interesting.

[Christian]

Upchurch wrote:
I think you're oversimplifying. There has been research that shows that after a certain stage of development (somewhere around the age of 12, I think) that if a person has not learned a second language, it is significantly more difficult to learn new languages than before this stage.

I know for a fact that learning a new language can be done at any (almost) age. I live in a country where migrations cause this effect.

In muscle training, there really isn't a stage of development that, if you haven't trained before that point, it is significantly harder to begin training.

I think you're really stretching with this analogy.

I believe this to be the case for brain power too.

Of course one always has the potential to learn new things. That is entirely differnent than only using X% of your brain, though. One's whole brain still sees use.

Let me ask you this. would you feel comforatble if someone proposed taking out, say, 50% of your brain? That ought to leave a pretty comfortable margin of error to preserve the mere 10% you claim we use.

So, if we take a complete bone out, say, that being 40%-50% of the body part. We could still lift 50%-60% of what we originally could?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, that's why I tried to be specific by saying, "At least, not in the sense that it grows smaller with lack of use."

Ignore me. I'm just being defensive. The rest of your post was very interesting.

Oh golly, I wasn't trying to correct you or refute you, just use your statement as a jumping off point to add some information.

[Suezoled]

Hypothetically, if you are only 95 lbs and you are lifting/pushing/pulling/dragging/ with all your might, you are using 100% of your physical strength. If you work out and get muscle and weigh 200 lbs. and you lift/push/pull/drag you are using 100% of your physical strength.

=Poor analogy.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Christian


I know for a fact that learning a new language can be done at any (almost) age. I live in a country where migrations cause this effect.

He didn't say impossible, he said more difficult. There is a difference.

So, if we take a complete bone out, say, that being 40%-50% of the body part. We could still lift 50%-60% of what we originally could?

My point exactly. If you only used 10% of that bone, you should easily be able to remove 50% without ill effects.

[Christian]

Andonyx wrote:
If you want to phrase it differently yes, theoretically you could say we only take advantage of a limited portion of our cognitive processing power. That's in the same sense, though that I can say had I gone to med school I could have been a physician, or had I learned Karate, I could have been a martical arts champion, or had I sent in that matchbook I could be a famous artist.

I wish I could put it this way.

There is always untapped potential in what we can achieve given unlimited time and resources, and a desire to learn new skills.

And like this.

But to assign a number like 10% is specious reasoning because to do so you would have to divide by infinity.

Well, at the beginning I wrote this:

Please, I'm not saying that I think it is exactly 10%. What I'm saying is that the general notion is correct, mainly, that we use very little of our brain power.

Sorry for quoting myself.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Christian


I know for a fact that learning a new language can be done at any (almost) age. I live in a country where migrations cause this effect.



You're not addressing his point, which is that it is significantly more difficult as an adult to learn a new language.

I can't find the study, but if someone can help me look for it, it began with accents of immigrants. Reserachers found that if someone moves to a second language speaking country before the age of 18 they have an 80% chance of eventually speaking the language with no accent, over 18, that chance drops to around 40%. (Approximate statistics...I've got ot pull out my old Psych books.)

Further studies along this line show a marked increase in the typical amount of time it takes for adults to become fluent in a language versus children and adolescents.

The prevailing theory is that we evolved to be born hardwired to learn to speak using complex verbal symbols, as such our ability to learn them in different sets is extremely high as children. However, following adolescance that ability fades significantly as the brain pathways that allow for this facility fade.


[b]In muscle training, there really isn't a stage of development that, if you haven't trained before that point, it is significantly harder to begin training.

I think you're really stretching with this analogy.

I believe this to be the case for brain power too.

There are many things harder to do and learn with age.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Christian
...

So, if we take a complete bone out, say, that being 40%-50% of the body part. We could still lift 50%-60% of what we originally could?

Wow! Please allow me to jump in on this one point.

I seriously doubt that one could do the lifting that Christian outlined since the breaking strength of anything (including bone) is substantially related to its cross-sectional area.

In broad terms, if the diameter is reduced by 50%,
then the cross-sectional is reduced by 75%,
thus the strength will be reduced by at least 75% as well.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Christian
Upchurch wrote:
Of course one always has the potential to learn new things. That is entirely differnent than only using X% of your brain, though. One's whole brain still sees use.

Let me ask you this. would you feel comforatble if someone proposed taking out, say, 50% of your brain? That ought to leave a pretty comfortable margin of error to preserve the mere 10% you claim we use.Please be careful about your formating. I didn't write this.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Wow! Please allow me to jump in on this one point.

I seriously doubt that one could do the lifting that Christian outlined since the breaking strength of anything (including bone) is substantially related to its cross-sectional area.

In broad terms, if the diameter is reduced by 50%,
then the cross-sectional is reduced by 75%,
thus the strength will be reduced by at least 75% as well.

You woo-woo and your Physics laws! :D :p ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Please be careful about your formating. I didn't write this.

Maybe he assumes that people can tell that I wrote it by the typos.

[LFTKBS]

Christian - would you be willing to put this to the test? Please indicate what areas of your brain you'd be willing to have removed. Let's only take out 20%. Unless you think that you use all of it whereas the rest of us don't, I don't see how you could object.

We'll have another Type-a-thon to raise funds for your surgery. Yes or no?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Christian
Andonyx wrote:


I wish I could put it this way.

And like this.

But to assign a number like 10% is specious reasoning because to do so you would have to divide by infinity.

Well, at the beginning I wrote this:



Sorry for quoting myself.

No not at all, it makes the discussion easier to read.

I have a feeling that from a practical standpoint, we are actually proposing the same things. That, the total possible resources of human cognitive ability, whatever they may be, are explored by a very very few if anyone.

I think the part of the reaction you are getting here is that this statistic is bandied about by so many proponents of the paranormal, and psychic / ESP ability to conlude (erroneously) that those abilities must be possible.

It's as if they say, "Well, we have a whole big chunk of brain sitting around doing nothing. Since we don't know what it does...it MUST be there for ESP!"

Which I'm sure you can see the resoning flaws with that line of logic.

But Nyar...la...trixie..boom bop, or whatever his name is put it well, that if someone is using all of his effort to do something, they are by definition using 100%. And we can show very clearly with fMRI studies that even if we cannot pinpoint the exact area responsible for a specific memory, or muscle impulse we can show that barring injury or illness, human beings in fact do have all of their avilable brain tissue functioning at different times dpending on the activity they are engaged in.

But yes, I would think you are correct to suggest that with training and practice you can always add to the list of skills and abilities avilable for use in your particular brain, and then when you engage in those activites, you will be using 100% of your new and improved brain. For instance one day I could be able to write and pronounce that poster's name.

What we all bristle at is the suggestion that by some sort of arcane ritual, or accident of birth some people have found a way to use their brain tissue to do things that brain tissue cannot physically do...like move distant object with no physical intermediary, or talk to dead brains.

Since we're being touchy about this lately...I fixed a missing space and a missing 'e' in the last paragraph.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Andonyx


(snipped)

But Nyar...la...trixie..boom bop, or whatever his name is put it well, that if someone is using all of his effort to do something, they are by definition using 100%. (snipped) .[/SIZE]

I'm just saying it for reference purposes: since we're all touchy, I think I'm the one who said that.... if it's not, don't mind me.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Suezoled


I'm just saying it for reference purposes: since we're all touchy, I think I'm the one who said that.... if it's not, don't mind me.

We both said it, in differetn ways. Though you were the one who said it outright.

Nyar..la..trixie..boom bop. I don't know whether I am insulted or amused.:D

[Suezoled]

ah then, sorry about that Elder God. :)

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Suezoled


I'm just saying it for reference purposes: since we're all touchy, I think I'm the one who said that.... if it's not, don't mind me.

Woops, sorry if I shafted anyone on that.

My apologies to Nyar-Nyar-bo-byar-fananna-fanna-fo-fyar-fee-fi-mo-myar, and Squeegeelord.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Suezoled
ah then, sorry about that Elder God. :)

Actually it's Andonyx who might find himself getting carried off by some nameless winged horror with a three lobed burning eye;)

[Christian]

Upchurch wrote:
Please be careful about your formating. I didn't write this.

Sorry, Upchurch.


LFTKBS wrote:
Christian - would you be willing to put this to the test? Please indicate what areas of your brain you'd be willing to have removed. Let's only take out 20%. Unless you think that you use all of it whereas the rest of us don't, I don't see how you could object.

We'll have another Type-a-thon to raise funds for your surgery. Yes or no?

The point was made, but please follow the thread, maybe a new perspective can be found.


Andonyx wrote:
have a feeling that from a practical standpoint, we are actually proposing the same things. That, the total possible resources of human cognitive ability, whatever they may be, are explored by a very very few if anyone.

I can agree with this.

Which I'm sure you can see the resoning flaws with that line of logic.

Yes.

But Nyar...la...trixie..boom bop, or whatever his name is put it well, that if someone is using all of his effort to do something, they are by definition using 100%.

This is where I think my analogy fits. When I exert my physical force to the fullest, I'm using 100% of my muscle force. But, that isn't quite true. If I train my muscles, that 100% stops being it. And, with muscle strength, I can exactly say what % of increment I have acquired.

The fact that I can't do that exact measurement with the brain, does not mean I cannot conclude the same as I did with muscle strength. That is that I didn't not use 100% of its capacity.

But yes, I would think you are correct to suggest that with training and practice you can always add to the list of skills and abilities avilable for use in your particular brain, and then when you engage in those activites, you will be using 100% of your new and improved brain.

Aha, but you see what you are doing? I started with 100% and then I get a higher 100%. The NEW AND IMPROVED BRAIN, for me, has always been there. The point is that that capacity had not been used before.

Either 100% means 100% or it does not.

[LFTKBS]

Christian, your sig "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions" is just killing me here. There is no evidence for your assertion other than a really crappy analogy. Are all these neurologists lying to us? Why can brain damage have such devastating effects? Why do we waste such extraordinary amounts of oxygen and energy on a brain that's so inefficient? do you think that there are mystical powers that can be accessed through that 90%?

Further, have you considered the possibility that just because you want it to be true does not necessarily make it so?

Look, doing just about anything remaps one's brain: reading the paper, playing a video game, having a conversation, people watching, etc etc. There is a finite amount of data that can be processed, and there are no people who have this ability to a factor of ten better than the rest of us. Not possible, not happening. I'm not sure if you understand evolution or biology - sorry, basing this on your user name and your aguments in this thread - but increasing brainpower tenfold without requiring a proportionately larger amount of fuel. In an average person, the brain requires about 100g of glucose every day. Your theoretical superperson working at 10x capacity would need a KILOGRAM of glucose. Every day.

Please let me know how this is possible.

[Suezoled]

I love it when the talking cup gets down to business :D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Christian

This is where I think my analogy fits. When I exert my physical force to the fullest, I'm using 100% of my muscle force. But, that isn't quite true. If I train my muscles, that 100% stops being it. And, with muscle strength, I can exactly say what % of increment I have acquired.

[/B]

But, as has been pointed out to you several times, in several ways, by several people, this analogy is incorrect. You always can use 100% of your muscles capabilities. If you work out you gain more strength but that does NOT mean you had X% of your muscles going to waste, just sitting there doing nothing. An outside stimulus (exercize) made you gain more muscle mass from an outside source (food)

Likewise, I don't speak Chinese. If I were to go and learn the language I would have increased the capabilities of my brain. Just like the muscle comparison this does not mean that I ever had X% of my brain sitting idle. I gained a new capability, an outside stimulus (chinese lessons) made my brain make more connections powered by an outside source (food again) to store my new skill.

If all you are saying is that everyone ahs the capability to learn more than they presently know, well that's pretty obvious and you might as well start a thread staing that the sky is blue. Saying "We only use X% of our brains" has a whole different meaning and carries other connotations.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by hgc
I don't have any reason to think that there's a part of the brain set aside specifically to learn more languages. Someone could be utilizing that part to remember souffle recipes or calculate the nth digit of pi or whatever.

Not so. Prevailing linguistic thought is that language is at least partially supported by innate structures. Some supporting evidence:

Language is focused in the left hemisphere, the planum temporale and other areas, which are disproportionatly larger at birth than the right hemispherical structures, indicating innate structure.

At birth, infants can perceive many different sounds, and later lose the ability to perceive those sounds not used in their language (Chomsky's universal grammar).

Language aquisition follows the same patterns across all cultures, indicating nature rather than nurture is partially responsible.

The idea of innate structure may make more sense if one thinks of language as a broader "complex communication activity". Sign language uses most of the same brain areas as spoken languages (although there are differences).

Additionally, there are very isolated areas of the brain (Wernicke's and Broca's) which, when lesioned, produce language-specific deficiencies (aphasia).

Luckily for you I was recently was reading up of language aquisition. :)

[hgc]

Originally posted by aerosolben


Not so. Prevailing linguistic thought is that language is at least partially supported by innate structures. Some supporting evidence:

Language is focused in the left hemisphere, the planum temporale and other areas, which are disproportionatly larger at birth than the right hemispherical structures, indicating innate structure.

At birth, infants can perceive many different sounds, and later lose the ability to perceive those sounds not used in their language (Chomsky's universal grammar).

Language aquisition follows the same patterns across all cultures, indicating nature rather than nurture is partially responsible.

The idea of innate structure may make more sense if one thinks of language as a broader "complex communication activity". Sign language uses most of the same brain areas as spoken languages (although there are differences).

Additionally, there are very isolated areas of the brain (Wernicke's and Broca's) which, when lesioned, produce language-specific deficiencies (aphasia).

Luckily for you I was recently was reading up of language aquisition. :) Thanks for the explanation. I've heard about this before. Of interest are the experiments showing how children after a certain age (something like 2) lose the ability to even hear sounds that aren't in their language. I also know that the googling of baby-talk is basically putting out a wide range of sounds and seeing which get a response from Mommy, which are then repeated. This isn't about not using all the brain, but when it comes to learning a language (or more than one) at that age, you have to focus your cognitive energies and screen out what isn't necessarily useful.

Now the search continues for the recipe card file area of the brain, which I underutilize.

[Christian]

LFTKBS wrote:
Christian, your sig "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions" is just killing me here.

Sorry, I've been using that sig since 2001.

There is no evidence for your assertion other than a really crappy analogy.

I am comfortable that you attack the reasoning. Sound reasoning constitutes evidence. If you believe my reasoning to be faulty, that is fine.

Are all these neurologists lying to us? Why can brain damage have such devastating effects? Why do we waste such extraordinary amounts of oxygen and energy on a brain that's so inefficient? do you think that there are mystical powers that can be accessed through that 90%?

Ok, but this is not attacking my argument. I understand exactly what you are aluding to. And I agree 100% with what it means.

Here let me show you. I agree that at this day I have been using 100% of my brain with all the faculties it has. I haven't been using 10% or 20% of it, I have been using 100% of it.

As I have been using 100% of my muscular strength this day 100% of it.

Now, the question, is that its full capacity? If I'm using 100%, then I can't access any more brain power, right?

This is clearly not true. Personally, I'm better mentally than I was 10 years ago. If I was using 100% capacity then, how can I have more capacity now?

Maybe the problem is that, we are in agreement that instantly I can't access that capacity. If I used 100% today, tomorrow morning there is no more than that. But, if we don't think of it instantly, say a year from now (like taking two snapshots), we can see the difference in capacity.

My only truly controversial assertion, really, is that I did not increase my capacity, all I did was awaken it. To me, like any physical system, capacity is a constant. Why would I suspend that assumption with regards to the brain, this being a physical thing.

Look, doing just about anything remaps one's brain: reading the paper, playing a video game, having a conversation, people watching, etc etc. There is a finite amount of data that can be processed, and there are no people who have this ability to a factor of ten better than the rest of us. Not possible, not happening.

I beg to differ. I believe my mental abilities are better (I'm 37) today than when I was 20 for sure and maybe more than 10 times better. The problem is the argument from ignorance. The fact that there is no consensus of how to measure that increment is not reason to say, the increment does not exist.

I'm not sure if you understand evolution or biology - sorry, basing this on your user name and your aguments in this thread -

Do you understand where this comment comes from? Stupid people can't help but be stupid right. Oh, yes religious people can't help having low mental capacity or abilities. So, if one day, I might happen to understand evolution or biology, would that be my new 100%?

but increasing brainpower tenfold without requiring a proportionately larger amount of fuel. In an average person, the brain requires about 100g of glucose every day. Your theoretical superperson working at 10x capacity would need a KILOGRAM of glucose. Every day.

Yes, I see the argument. Again, your premise is based on the idea that we can access additional capacity in an instant. Why do we have to adhere to this premise?

100% capacity should mean 100% capacity. Here another crappy analogy: A car's top speed is a car's top speed. If I do nothing to enhances the car's power, why would the top speed change?

Please address this arguments. The arguments, I have presented. If they are faulty, they are and you can point how so, and I will learn something new and increase my knowledge and maybe then I might get closer to my full capacity.

Please let me know how this is possible.

Yes, I want to know how is it possible to change the capacity of closed system.


Nyarlathotep wrote:
But, as has been pointed out to you several times, in several ways, by several people, this analogy is incorrect. You always can use 100% of your muscles capabilities. If you work out you gain more strength but that does NOT mean you had X% of your muscles going to waste, just sitting there doing nothing. An outside stimulus (exercize) made you gain more muscle mass from an outside source (food)

Using this logic, one could assume that add more outside stimulus and source (as you put it) I could increase the muscle capabilities indefinately (you are talking about an open system here) This is clearly not the case. There is definite limit (a specific limit) to muscle growth and strength for each individual (even with steroids or the like). That limit, I call 100% of possible capacity. Before that point, even if at that instant I'm using 100% of what is there, I'm not using 100% of capacity.

This is why I thing the analogy works. It shows exactly what I'm trying to explain.

Likewise, I don't speak Chinese. If I were to go and learn the language I would have increased the capabilities of my brain.

How can you increased the capabilities of your brain. That is impossible. Either you had the capabilities or you do not. I can flap my arms all I want, I can't fly on my own.

Just like the muscle comparison this does not mean that I ever had X% of my brain sitting idle.

This is correct. But you are using the premise that capacity must be available in an INSTANT. What is the justification for this premise?

I gained a new capability, an outside stimulus (chinese lessons) made my brain make more connections powered by an outside source (food again) to store my new skill.

See, even you use my same analogy for the brain. And again, you are saying it is an open system. I say that there is a limit. There has to be because it is a closed system. The real limit, we cannot measure as we do muscle strength, yet.

[Nyarlathotep]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
[B]

This is correct. But you are using the premise that capacity must be available in an INSTANT. What is the justification for this premise?
QUOTE]

Simple. Because saying that you are only using some percentage of your brain implies that at that time you have some percentage sitting idle. The premise that it is available comes from the very way you have chosen to put it.

Let me use a different example. If I have a gallon of water I can fill up a gallon container, further that one gallon container is the only one I have at the time. I am using it at 100% capacity right? Later, suppose I have two gallons of water. I now have to go get a two gallon container. Once I have done so I now have two gallon container, also at 100% capacity, right?

Now does this mean that at first, when I only had a gallon, the first container was actually only at 50% capacity? No, because at that instant it was full. The fact that I was later able to aquire a two gallon container does not change the fact that when I only had a one gallon container it was full (i.e. utilized 100%)

Do you see what I am trying to say?

[Loki]

Hi Christian,

Glad to see your still working on your theory - something about us all having the same 'potential', but reaching levels wasn't it? God making us all equal, or something? I'm sure you'll get around to your main point eventually!

How are the girls, by the way?

As I have been using 100% of my muscular strength this day 100% of it.

Now, the question, is that its full capacity? If I'm using 100%, then I can't access any more brain power, right?
Well, this entire discussion is probably tainted by poorly defined terms like "brain power".

Rather than your 'muscle' analogy, I've been thinking about this in computer terms. Let's (for simplicity) talk about a computer's 'power' as being the sum of it's CPU speed, it's 'working storage' (RAM), and it's 'persistent storage' (harddisk). These three elements, when viewed together, consitute the 'power' or 'capacity' of the computer. Is this something similar to how you see 'brain power'? Is it a single measurable metric, or a collection of interrelated abilities?

This is clearly not true. Personally, I'm better mentally than I was 10 years ago. If I was using 100% capacity then, how can I have more capacity now?
Well, one possible explanation is that you are simply using your 'raw capability' better.

Using the computer analogy again, lets assume that today you have exactly the same CPU, RAM and harddisk 'maximums' as you did 10 years ago. You're trying to say "yes, that's correct, and I now use far more of my 'available power' than I did 10 years ago".

However, there's another (possible) explanation for an apparent increase in performance. You may be using exactly the same amount of 'available power', but simply running better software. Instead of running "LanguageTranslator V1.0", which only handled English and Spanish, you are now running "V2.0", which also handles French. No increase in 'raw capabilities', but simply a 'software upgrade' that gives you more apparent capabilities.

How would you propose to differentiate between these two theories?

[Christian]

Nyarlathotep wrote:
Simple. Because saying that you are only using some percentage of your brain implies that at that time you have some percentage sitting idle. The premise that it is available comes from the very way you have chosen to put it.

Yes, some % is sitting idle. The premise you want me to accept is that if something is sitting idle it must be available INSTANTLY. There is no justification for this premise. It is intuitive but incorrect.

Let me use a different example. If I have a gallon of water I can fill up a gallon container, further that one gallon container is the only one I have at the time. I am using it at 100% capacity right?

Let's use your analogy. Suppose you didn't know how much the container can hold. And you decide to pour until you see it fill. You manage to fill it with one gallon of water (please also suppose you have no reference to the size of what can hold a gallon of water.[this would be the actual case of the brain]). From this, can you conclusively say the capacity of that container is one gallon?

What if the material used to make this container is not rigid but expands. The catch is that it takes time for the material to expand. So, when you fill it up, you must wait some hours for the container to stretch to pour some more water in (like a balloon) Did the capacity expand? No, it did not. The capacity of the material is finite, eventually it will expand no more.

But, if we did not wait for it to expand, two people could be arguing that the capacity is only one gallon.

Now does this mean that at first, when I only had a gallon, the first container was actually only at 50% capacity? No, because at that instant it was full. The fact that I was later able to aquire a two gallon container does not change the fact that when I only had a one gallon container it was full (i.e. utilized 100%)

The difference is that you now have introduced an open system. This is where your analogy falls apart. In your example, there is no way to measure capacity because it is infinite. I can bring in an infinite amount of containers. Do you see that the brain is not an open system.

And thanks for the analogy, in a million years I could have thought it up to explain myself.

[bpesta22]

This may help, if you consider just perception, and specifically, word recognition.

Has anyone ever heard of parallel distributed processing / neural networks / spreading activation?

The idea is that we recognize things based on the overall pattern of neural activation they create.

Your mother's face causes a certain 100 million (or whatever number) neurons to fire in certain places all over the brain and at certain rates.

No other perception causes this exact pattern of neural activity.

Hence, when your brain experiences this specific pattern of activity, you are predisposed to recognize your mother, as oppossed to any other person you know.

So, if I asked where in your brain is the memory of your mother's face, the answer would be nowhere and everywhere.


Same thing with any word we know:

CAT

The pattern of neurons firing by reading the above word is different than for any other word we know. It's that unique pattern of activation that lets us conclude the above is the word "cat."

But, it doesn't stop there. The pattern of neural activation for Dog is probably very close to that for cat (at a semantic level). Hence, just perceiving the word cat in isolation would make you also retrieve semantically related concepts like meow, dog, furry, etc....

In any situation-- given that we have far more info stored in our brains right now than is relevant to understand our current reality-- it's an efficient system
that retrieves only related concepts from memory (it's useful to know about claws when you come across a kitty, but not about tires).

In fact, that's what the brain is geared for-- comprehension. Making sense of current experience by retrieving relevant memories and concepts.

It's so powerful, it even leads to false memory. A simple example is to read a list of words like: bed rest nap tired, doze, slumber, pillow, etc. But, leave out the theme word that connects them-- i.e., the word sleep.

Most people when given a memory test for the list will misremember hearing the word sleep. Why? because they retrieved-- versus perceptually experienced-- the word sleep in an attempt to make sense of the words they were hearing in the memory test

So, really the question "how much of our brains do we use" doesn't make sense in this context.

It's not like with weight lifting, where you have to use a certain amount of force to lift stuff, and the heavier the stuff, the more the force that's needed.

It's all about neural connections, and patterns of neural activation.

Given we have billions of neurons, there's probably a near infinitie number of possible "active states". In that sense, we use some very tiny fraction of those states throughout our lifetimes.

But this is different from the sort of woo woo notion that there's some untapped potential in our brains, and if we could just turn it on, gee whiz what we'd be able to do.

Hope this makes sense

B

[chance]

Christian To clarify, are you of the opinion that our ‘brain power’ is distinct from the physical brain tissue.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
How are the girls, by the way?

Hi Loki, they are fine thank you.

Rather than your 'muscle' analogy, I've been thinking about this in computer terms. Let's (for simplicity) talk about a computer's 'power' as being the sum of it's CPU speed, it's 'working storage' (RAM), and it's 'persistent storage' (harddisk). These three elements, when viewed together, consitute the 'power' or 'capacity' of the computer. Is this something similar to how you see 'brain power'? Is it a single measurable metric, or a collection of interrelated abilities?

If I'm a materialist, I have to see it as hardware, right?

Using the computer analogy again, lets assume that today you have exactly the same CPU, RAM and harddisk 'maximums' as you did 10 years ago. You're trying to say "yes, that's correct, and I now use far more of my 'available power' than I did 10 years ago".

Correct.

However, there's another (possible) explanation for an apparent increase in performance. You may be using exactly the same amount of 'available power', but simply running better software. Instead of running "LanguageTranslator V1.0", which only handled English and Spanish, you are now running "V2.0", which also handles French. No increase in 'raw capabilities', but simply a 'software upgrade' that gives you more apparent capabilities.

Again, the problem here is that you (meaning the posters you included) insist in using an open system analogy. Hipothetically, I could introduce an infinite amount of software (outside source) that can improve the capacity. But this analogy is incorrect because the brain is not an open system. I can't make software upgrades. Can you see that?

The correct computer analogy would be say that using the same software and same hardware, 10 years later the computer runs better and faster. What would you conclude? The only possible conclusion is that it had not used its full capacity.

How would you propose to differentiate between these two theories?

Do you see the flaw in your analogy?

bpesta22 wrote:
But this is different from the sort of woo woo notion that there's some untapped potential in our brains, and if we could just turn it on, gee whiz what we'd be able to do.

See the problem. Again the premise is that idle capacity must be available at an INSTANT. (the on or off switch analogy.)

chance wrote:
Christian To clarify, are you of the opinion that our ‘brain power’ is distinct from the physical brain tissue.

For this discussion, I say there is nothing more than the physical world. In this sense, [for this discussion alone] the brain is like a CPU and it has a top speed. No dualism here.

[bpesta22]

bpesta22 wrote:
But this is different from the sort of woo woo notion that there's some untapped potential in our brains, and if we could just turn it on, gee whiz what we'd be able to do.

See the problem. Again the premise is that idle capacity must be available at an INSTANT. (the on or off switch analogy.)



Not familiar with the on/off analogy, but here's another analogy:

The "what % of our brain" question is like asking if a big screen TV will show more channels than a smaller TV because, well, you can fit more little people in the big screen.

The question itself illustrates that the asker doesn't know much about how the system works.

[Yahweh]

We use 100% of our brain. However, an average of 10% of our brain may be being used at any given time.

[/oversimplified]

(Note: I have no research, no information, no data to back up any of the crap I just typed...)

[Loki]

Christian,

Again, the problem here is that you (meaning the posters you included) insist in using an open system analogy. Hipothetically, I could introduce an infinite amount of software (outside source) that can improve the capacity. But this analogy is incorrect because the brain is not an open system. I can't make software upgrades. Can you see that?

No, I'm afraid I can't see why we cannot have "software upgrades". In essence, I'd see that as being exactly waht education is - a chance to 'rebuild' the internal thinking processes to enable newer (and better) informaton processing.

The correct computer analogy would be say that using the same software and same hardware, 10 years later the computer runs better and faster. What would you conclude? The only possible conclusion is that it had not used its full capacity.

I think you typed in haste here - if the computer has the same software and hardware as it did 10 years ago, yet it runs faster today, then the only conclusion I can draw is "magic". You impreove computer performance by either (a) increasing raw capacity or (b) upgrading software. I'm simply asking why you think it must be (a), and can't be (b).

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
No, I'm afraid I can't see why we cannot have "software upgrades". In essence, I'd see that as being exactly waht education is - a chance to 'rebuild' the internal thinking processes to enable newer (and better) informaton processing.

No, no, no. A software upgrade to a computer is a physical process. You must insert some sort of media to some sort of drive. It is a physical thing that is inserted that was not there before.

Explain how you insert a physical thing to the brain to upgrade it?

And I'm the one who does not understand how the brain works.

If you were correct, an idiot (used in the clinical term) would only have to be educated to get an upgrade.

think you typed in haste here - if the computer has the same software and hardware as it did 10 years ago, yet it runs faster today, then the only conclusion I can draw is "magic".

No, no, no. There is no magic or supernatural remember. You would have to conclude that the machine was not working at full capacity. Simple, a program had been installed that made the machine run slower. At the 10 year mark, the program is instructed to unistall itself.

You impreove computer performance by either (a) increasing raw capacity or (b) upgrading software. I'm simply asking why you think it must be (a), and can't be (b).

Clearly not.

I think the analogy that worked best was the container that expands given enough time. Did you read that?

[abiogenesis]

Originally posted by Christian:
No, no, no. A software upgrade to a computer is a physical process. You must insert some sort of media to some sort of drive. It is a physical thing that is inserted that was not there before.Although the process for upgrading computer software is a physical process, the upgrade itself is just a reconfiguration of the data stored on the hard drive. No new "capacity" is obtained, just a reorganization of ones and zeros.
This is analogous to the brain in that you may need to use text books, physical objects, to learn a new skill but the new knowledge is just a reconfiguration of the synapses in the brain. No new neurons are created - the connections are just reconfigured.Originally posted by Christian:
No, no, no. There is no magic or supernatural remember. You would have to conclude that the machine was not working at full capacity. Simple, a program had been installed that made the machine run slower. At the 10 year mark, the program is instructed to unistall itself.Again, you are exhibiting a misconception of how the system works. Software is incapable of making the CPU run slower. It is incapable of making the hard drive smaller. It can use these devices inefficiently but it has no effect on their capabilities. A software upgrade may make use of more efficient algorithms or introduce entirely new operations that provide increased functionality, but you can never go from a 2GHz processor to a 3GHz processor with a software upgrade.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

Edited because I quoted the wrong paragraph.

[Loki]

Christian,

I think the analogy that worked best was the container that expands given enough time. Did you read that?
Yes, and I think it's a good point. However, I think you're missing the point behind the computer analogy. You need to stop for a moment a consider what the parts of the analogy really relate to - you are moving too quickly I think.

Explain how you insert a physical thing to the brain to upgrade it?
How does 'information' get from a silicon disk into a computer? It gets 'read' by a translation unit that converts from one medium to another. The brain has several such translation units that allow 'information' from the outside world to get into it - eyes and ears for starters. Surely you aren't claiming that no information can get into the brain from the outside world? If information *can* get into the brian, then why can't that information be used by the brain to 'upgrade' it's inforamtion processing rules?

After all, that's precisely the way a computer works - it recieves data from an outside source, it recognises this data as being 'executable', and it installs this new data as new functinality, or as an upgrade of existing functionality.

I fail to see why the idea of "upgrading the information processing rules" is inapplicable to the human brain.

You must insert some sort of media to some sort of drive.
No - a computer can recieve data from a number of sources. A digital camera can transmit a signal to a computer than can be recognised as a typed document, and the text extracted. How does this differ from the human eye?

If you were correct, an idiot (used in the clinical term) would only have to be educated to get an upgrade.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just posting in a hurry? If the reason a person is an 'idiot' is a "hardware failure" then simply installing new software (education) will not help (much). If the reason a person is an 'idiot' is poor quality sofware, then education *would* be the answer. What's the issue here?

You would have to conclude that the machine was not working at full capacity.
I'm not following you. First you say "nothing changed, except the measurable output". Now you're saying "the measurable output increased, and some software changed (was uninstalled)". Which is it?

The point here is that *if* the measurable output of a system has increased over 10 years, then is this due to (a) hardware changes, (b) software changes, or (c) other? If the only metric you have available is the "change in output", how can you determine what the reason was?

But we are talking past each other slightly here. You don't believe that the hardware has changed - you believe that 10 years ago the software was using 10% of the hardware raw capacity, and now the software is using 100% of the raw hardware capacity. So the software has changed. If you start from that point, then the question really becomes a choice between :

(a) (your theory) the increase in output is due to the software getting bigger, and using more of the unused raw capacity. Ten years ago = 10% capacity; now = 100% capacity.

(b) (My alternative) the increase in output is due to the software getting smarter and using the raw capacity more efficiently. Ten years ago = 100% capacity; now = 100% capacity.

If you like, I can write you a program that will use 100% of your machine's capacity, will calculate the average winning margin in all world cup soccer finals, and will take 5 minutes to do it. Then I'll write another that will also use 100% capacity, and will do the calculation in 5 seconds.

How do you propose to prove that the difference in output between the two programs is due to "increased use of raw capacity" rather than "increased efficiency"?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
Loki wrote:
No, I'm afraid I can't see why we cannot have "software upgrades". In essence, I'd see that as being exactly waht education is - a chance to 'rebuild' the internal thinking processes to enable newer (and better) informaton processing.

No, no, no. A software upgrade to a computer is a physical process. You must insert some sort of media to some sort of drive. It is a physical thing that is inserted that was not there before

....snip...

Not necessarily true. There are many computer systems that can "reconfigure" or rewrite their own software in response to inputs i.e. external stimulus and therefore “upgrade” themselves.

(I've even dabbled in some "learning" systems that start off with some basic rules, and have the ability to reuse and recombine these in new ways to "improve" their output.)

And why do you keep saying the brain is a closed system? It certainly is not, it receives inputs and outputs from the "outside" all the time.


Originally posted by Christian
…snip…
If you were correct, an idiot (used in the clinical term) would only have to be educated to get an upgrade.

....snip...

Not at all. If a computer’s hard disk was faulty apart from the areas required to boot you may be able to boot up the computer and even run a word processor but no matter what you do if the hardware is faulty you won’t be able to save your data.

But the brain is much more sophisticated then any current computer and can cope with immense amounts of “hardware” failure and still function, but that doesn’t mean it can cope with every failure. (And there are computer systems that are like the brain and can reroute or reconfigure their internal programming to cope with hardware failures.)

For an example of the type of "hardware failure" we can see in people look at people who have no long-term memory and only remember the last 15 minutes. We can tell them all about their problem, explain the consequences and they intellectual and emotionally understand it and even talk about it. Yet 15 minutes later they have no idea they suffer from this terrible affliction, all because some “hardware” in the brain is faulty. Yet the basic functions of the brain can continue to work – the brain like most organic systems has evolved to be incredibly fault tolerant.

I would suggest you be careful about using the brain = computer analogy too much, it is certain the brain is not a computer in the same sense out current generations of digital “PC”s are computers.

[Yahweh]

Quite an usual argument...

Maybe the solution would be not trying to literalize the analogy so much...

[Zep]

Perhaps coming at the original proposition from another direction...

Assume, for sake of argument, that we do NOT use 100% of our brain. And yet we are capable of language, fine and coarse motor function, vision, hearing, etc, etc, all those things that branes do.

OK, then what MORE or DIFFERENT is going to happen if we then get to use 100% of our brains?

Start to be able to speak more languages? Already done by the 10%-brain people - children in mixed language cultures do this as a matter of course and yet they are likely to be just as "dumb" and do just as dumb things and can be just as clumsy as the next person. You might also consider the situation of a defiantly monolinguistic person who can also program computers - is that not "another language skill"? So I would suggest equating multiple language skills to "brane power" is mistaken.

Start to solve incredible problems? High-level mathematics? Remarkable memory feats? Idiot savants do this already, and yet they are sometimes incapable of even dressing themselves or being coordinated enough to kick a football otherwise. Again, I would suggest that equating superior mental ability in some areas to overall "brane usage" is a mistaken notion.

So to me, in general, the idea of somehow having only a fraction of the physical brain in use, while the remainder is somehow dormant, simply doesn't start to hold up against reality.

But why are some people smarter than others? Hmmmm..... Define "smarter" for a start!

[chance]

Christian One of the problems then is to define a set of parameters where by we can measure gain or loss of brain power. You admit that this is a measure of hardware activity.

That being the case then there must be a finite amount of brain activity that is possible. Currently your brain will be involved in reading this text, say 100%, if you look out the window you brain will be being useing 100% for looking at the scenery. If your involved in a task that requires recalling a memory then the same principle applies.

Learning new tasks (remembering more stuff) however, could be seen as using more brain power, but again there should be a finite amount of storage space for such things. Learning one thing could cause you to forget something else.

[MetalSeagull]

Originally posted by Darat



I would suggest you be careful about using the brain = computer analogy too much, it is certain the brain is not a computer in the same sense out current generations of digital “PC”s are computers.

I would like to second this. The brain as a computer is an analogy of limited use.

I also don't understand why you are assuming that the brain is a closed system. To reiterate what many others have said, it is not. Everything you see, hear, touch, etc, and every time you think or move your body you activate the brain and potentially change the neural pathways (or the software, using the computer analogy.)

Are you thinking that the brain is a closed system because people have a (presumably) fixed IQ?

If that's the case, I would point out that the brain is not limited in function to that which is measured on an IQ test. Someone with an average, or even low IQ, may still be a virtuoso musician or an athlete of professional ability.

As a child, I learned how to play crappy piano and even crappier clarinet. I quit when I realized that I had a shallow well of ability to draw from. But that need not have prevented me from continuing to create new neural pathways related to playing an instrument (changing my software). I could have dug a new well for the saxaphone, guitar, and bagpipes.

The brain in this analogy is not the well, limited to a single use, but the aquifer.

Even if I learned twenty instruments, learning a twenty-first would require re-wiring the brain yet again. The basic musical talent remains the same, but now I have invested vast amounts of time and attention to music. In the meantime, I have not studied quantum physics, because there is only so much time in the day.

[Voob]

Luckily for you I was recently was reading up of language aquisition.
Is this "universal grammar"?:p
Given we have billions of neurons, there's probably a near infinitie number of possible "active states".
There is no near infinite. It's either infinite or it's not.
Which is it? If it were infinite, that would nullify the 10% argument---Antonyx mentioned this earlier:
But to assign a number like 10% is specious reasoning because to do so you would have to divide by infinity.

Theoretically, a finite number of neurons would indicate a finite number of "active states" (granted an extremely high number).

I usually joke that the 10% of the brain BS is only true among those who believe it.
But I'm just wondering about the infinite/finite question.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Voob
Is this "universal grammar"?:p

Yes. I call it "Lazinese".

[epepke]

Originally posted by Christian
I want to have a discussion on this topic because I believe the statement is true.

Please, I'm not saying that I think it is exactly 10%. What I'm saying is that the general notion is correct, mainly, that we use very little of our brain power.

While, of course, this is mostly wrong, it's a bit true. We use all of our brain, but we don't use all of it at once.

There are people who do use more of their brain at once. They're called epileptics. Trust me: you don't want all of your brain on at once.

[neutrino_cannon]

Hang up a bit there man, do we actually know enough about the brain to define what "x%" operating actually means?

Without that knowlege, it would seem the statement has about as much meaning as "Politicians only earn about 50% of what they make".

BTW, Is there any evidence that "smarter" people have more active brains?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


BTW, Is there any evidence that "smarter" people have more active brains?

I think if that were true, stimulants would make you smart instead of hyper.

[athon]

I once formulated a hypothesis that we only use 10% of our brains so we could drink alcohol.

Think about it - alcohol kills brain cells. We rely on our brain cells more than most organisms (as we are so smart). Hence, since there are toxins that can kill brain cells at random, using only 10% of it means there is only a 1 in 10 chance of killing a brain cells that is used for something.

I think I was about 12 when I came out with that idea. Man, I could have won a Nobel Prize for that...

Athon

[Christian]

Abiogenesis wrote:
Although the process for upgrading computer software is a physical process, the upgrade itself is just a reconfiguration of the data stored on the hard drive. No new "capacity" is obtained, just a reorganization of ones and zeros.

Yes, this is correct but adding new software is entering a special kind of new data (a new set of zeros and ones that was not there before). If you think about it, you are adding a new capability to the machine, a new way to reorganize (your term) information that was not there before. You simple can’t do this with the brain. If I’m able to reorganize information in my brain, that capability has been there all along.

Let me show you. My eyes will never have the ability to see below certain light frequencies. That is simply a capability I don’t have or ever will. I will never be able to think instantaneously about three or four things. Not so with a computer, if you upgrade the software you can multitask, even though we're talking about the same hardware but now with this special software you're able to do two, three or more processes at the same time.

This is analogous to the brain in that you may need to use text books, physical objects, to learn a new skill but the new knowledge is just a reconfiguration of the synapses in the brain. No new neurons are created - the connections are just reconfigured.

But the ability to reconfigure, the capacity to reconfigure is already there. In a computer, in a given example, until you install a software no such capacity exists.

Again, you are exhibiting a misconception of how the system works. Software is incapable of making the CPU run slower.

We’re splitting hairs here. With the slowing software I, as a user, can experience the computer running slower.

A software upgrade may make use of more efficient algorithms or introduce entirely new operations that provide increased functionality, but you can never go from a 2GHz processor to a 3GHz processor with a software upgrade.

Of course, and you are showing evidence that supports what I’m saying. A software upgrade can produce capabilities that were not there before.

Loki wrote:
Yes, and I think it's a good point. However, I think you're missing the point behind the computer analogy. You need to stop for a moment a consider what the parts of the analogy really relate to - you are moving too quickly I think.

Ok.

How does 'information' get from a silicon disk into a computer? It gets 'read' by a translation unit that converts from one medium to another. The brain has several such translation units that allow 'information' from the outside world to get into it - eyes and ears for starters. Surely you aren't claiming that no information can get into the brain from the outside world? If information *can* get into the brian, then why can't that information be used by the brain to 'upgrade' it's inforamtion processing rules?

After all, that's precisely the way a computer works - it recieves data from an outside source, it recognises this data as being 'executable', and it installs this new data as new functinality, or as an upgrade of existing functionality.

I fail to see why the idea of "upgrading the information processing rules" is inapplicable to the human brain.

This part is tricky. Ok, if the data entering the system does not alter the capabilities of the computer then yes, it acts like the brain. But consider a system that has the DOS operating system, and then (if the hardware platform allows it) you install a Windows XP instead. Now the computer can do things it was not capable of doing before (multitasking for one). This is simply not possible with the brain, you cannot upgrade the brain this way.

Another thing that you are taking for granted is that the computer has the hardware to accept the new capability.

No - a computer can recieve data from a number of sources. A digital camera can transmit a signal to a computer than can be recognised as a typed document, and the text extracted. How does this differ from the human eye?

This is an example of the taking for granted thing. For the computer to accept information from the digital camera it needs physical drives or similar. If indeed it has those drives, it already had this capability. But consider that if it did not have such capabilties, it would be impossible for the computer to hold the images.

And another thing, a computer storing an image, does not constitute an execution of anything new. Not all data are programs.

If you like, I can write you a program that will use 100% of your machine's capacity, will calculate the average winning margin in all world cup soccer finals, and will take 5 minutes to do it. Then I'll write another that will also use 100% capacity, and will do the calculation in 5 seconds.

How do you propose to prove that the difference in output between the two programs is due to "increased use of raw capacity" rather than "increased efficiency"?

This is the most important argument against mine (and it a strong one). Am I better now because I’m using more of my capacity or am I simply being more efficient with what I have?

Is this it? If I’m getting this right, then I will address it, just confirm.

Darat wrote:
Not necessarily true. There are many computer systems that can "reconfigure" or rewrite their own software in response to inputs i.e. external stimulus and therefore “upgrade” themselves.

So, I would say the capability was always there.

And why do you keep saying the brain is a closed system? It certainly is not, it receives inputs and outputs from the "outside" all the time.

It is a closed system in terms of hardware and software not data. I hope you can see what I mean.

Yahweh wrote:
Maybe the solution would be not trying to literalize the analogy so much...

I agree.

Zep wrote:
Start to be able to speak more languages? Already done by the 10%-brain people - children in mixed language cultures do this as a matter of course and yet they are likely to be just as "dumb" and do just as dumb things and can be just as clumsy as the next person. You might also consider the situation of a defiantly monolinguistic person who can also program computers - is that not "another language skill"? So I would suggest equating multiple language skills to "brane power" is mistaken.

The problem here is that you are talking about different brains. Einstein had his top speed. Suppose he had not grown up in an environment where we could develop it? How many Einstein’s are there that we will never know about.

I contend that most humans never achiever more than a fraction of their potential. And thus this make valid the 10% claim.

Chance wrote:
Learning new tasks (remembering more stuff) however, could be seen as using more brain power, but again there should be a finite amount of storage space for such things. Learning one thing could cause you to forget something else.

Does our brain work this way? Our storage capacity is so vast as to, for all intent and purposes, never fill up in our lifetimes.

MetalSeagull wrote:
I also don't understand why you are assuming that the brain is a closed system. To reiterate what many others have said, it is not. Everything you see, hear, touch, etc, and every time you think or move your body you activate the brain and potentially change the neural pathways (or the software, using the computer analogy.)

Are you thinking that the brain is a closed system because people have a (presumably) fixed IQ?

I’m assuming it is a closed system because there is literally nothing I can add to it. I cannot add anything PHISICAL thing to it. Of course, it is an open system in terms of data. But that is totally different. If I say, the rule is that you can’t modify the motor of the car, then it is a closed system, even though I have to constantly add gas for it to run.

A brain cannot do anything more than what it is designed to do.

Even if I learned twenty instruments, learning a twenty-first would require re-wiring the brain yet again. The basic musical talent remains the same, but now I have invested vast amounts of time and attention to music. In the meantime, I have not studied quantum physics, because there is only so much time in the day.

The ability to play twenty instruments has always been there. Only humans can compose symphonies and invent music systems (scales, harmonies, etc.) The point is that when we don't learn to play 20 instruments and we could have, does this mean we underused our capacity?

Voob wrote:
If it were infinite, that would nullify the 10% argument

Yes.

[Loki]

Christian,

But consider a system that has the DOS operating system, and then (if the hardware platform allows it) you install a Windows XP instead. Now the computer can do things it was not capable of doing before (multitasking for one). This is simply not possible with the brain, you cannot upgrade the brain this way.

Okay, this is probably an example where the analogy starts to confuse rather than clarify. You're arguing that we can upgrade/install some new applications, but we can't upgrade/modify the base operating system software? Humans are born running 'DOS', so we can (via learning) in theory eventually run any DOS application - but we can't change to Linux? Okay, I can sort of agree with that assumption.

Am I better now because I’m using more of my capacity or am I simply being more efficient with what I have?
That's the core of the point I was trying to make.

Perhaps it would be better if you explained what you mean by "capacity" and "brain power", and how you intend to measure it. First you need to establish that you are in fact using more "brain power" at age 37 than you were at age 27. Once you explain to me how you know this - how you measured it - I might have a better idea of what the cause of this "change in brain power" might be.

[Soapy Sam]

I only use about 2- 4% of mine. Otherwise the mere humans get confused. Also I get these headaches...

Kidding apart, there is no case here. The brain is a compartmentalised and highly specialised device. If every neuron was firing all the time the result would not be clearer or faster thinking,- it would be something like a super epileptic fit.
Likewise, a car would not enhance it's power output by firing on all cylinders at the same time.
Right now my computer's CPU usage is 3%, according to Sysmon.
Yes, the PC could be running 30 times as many programs, but it doesn't need to in order to achieve what is required of it. Efficiency is about doing least to achieve most. Nature excels at this.

If what Christian means is that we could all think more effectively instead of dreaming about sex, watching TV and chewing gum, of course that's true, but that's a matter of training and education. Just "thinking harder" is no good. And there would be lazy, smart types who would let you do their thinking for them, then claim the results as theirs, thus saving brain wear and getting the prizes.

Actually, that sounds kind of familiar...

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
That's the core of the point I was trying to make.

Ok, got it. Your version of the 7 Habits.

Let's get away from the computer analogy, ok?

Perhaps it would be better if you explained what you mean by "capacity" and "brain power", and how you intend to measure it. First you need to establish that you are in fact using more "brain power" at age 37 than you were at age 27. Once you explain to me how you know this - how you measured it - I might have a better idea of what the cause of this "change in brain power" might be.

This is good. Ok, I define capacity as the ability to perform or produce, and the innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment, faculty.

Brain power is the ability to perform. How do we measure this capacity? The IQ test is a good example. There are multiple tests that show the brains ability to perform.

Another way is actual work. If before I did not know economics and now I do, then I have increased output.

We must be in agreemen that our capacity is finite, so now we come to the choice of conclusions you present.

How do I know it is not a more efficient use of what I have and not using more capacity that was idle?

Isn't this a moot point?

If you say I'm using now more efficiently what I did not before, aren't you saying that the ability to perform better was idle?

As I said before, I'm not saying (or did ever say) that we don't use all of the PHYSICAL components of the brain. It has been pointed out that we don't. And even if we could measure PHYSICAL brain activity to be 100% (energywise) still, it would not mean that we are using 100% of brain capacity. We are using 100% of brain activity but not capacity.

My point is that whomever said we only use 10% of your brain was dead on target meaning that the brain has the ability to perform 10 times better. (don't fuzz about the numbers please)

If I study for IQ tests and the way they are made, in time I could significantly better the scores.

People who do contantly do puzzles and math exercises must do better at IQ tests than those who don't. [I took that out of a hat]

[Loki]

Christian,

How do I know it is not a more efficient use of what I have and not using more capacity that was idle?

Isn't this a moot point?

If you say I'm using now more efficiently what I did not before, aren't you saying that the ability to perform better was idle?

Okay - perhaps it is just a case of saying essentially the same thing two different ways.

Brain power is the ability to perform. How do we measure this capacity? The IQ test is a good example.
So if I score "100" on an IQ when I'm 25, and "120" when I'm 35 then I always had the "capability" of scoring "120" even at age 25?

Another way is actual work. If before I did not know economics and now I do, then I have increased output.

Yes, you've increased output in one area (economics), but how can you be sure you've increased your overall output? Perhaps you used to be very good at listing Oscar award winners, but now you find that you can't recall them as easily as you once did?

Anyway, what's the point here? No one denies that as we grow from child to teenager to adult that we develop stronger and better (more efficient) mental processing. I certainly read better now that I did when I was 5 years old. And at some stage the process withh probably start to reverse, and my "mental skills" will deteriorate.

If what you're really saying is "our brain power (as measured by output/abilities) changes over time, increasing and decreasing under the influence of a variety of factors including age and education" then I don't think anyone's going to argue with you.

"We only use 10% of our brain power" seems to be a poor way of expressing it if what you really mean is "for many people, spending time/effort can result in increased mental performance".

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
So if I score "100" on an IQ when I'm 25, and "120" when I'm 35 then I always had the "capability" of scoring "120" even at age 25?

Only if the conditions (time) were available.

Anyway, what's the point here? No one denies that as we grow from child to teenager to adult that we develop stronger and better (more efficient) mental processing. I certainly read better now that I did when I was 5 years old. And at some stage the process withh probably start to reverse, and my "mental skills" will deteriorate.

If what you're really saying is "our brain power (as measured by output/abilities) changes over time, increasing and decreasing under the influence of a variety of factors including age and education" then I don't think anyone's going to argue with you.

But the implications of accepting this idea are huge Loki. Most people live and express themselves like brain power cannot be increased.

When someone says, this is your IQ. The assumption is that the score cannot be improved. The assumtion is that you cannot improve intelligence. I dispute this.

We only use 10% of our brain power" seems to be a poor way of expressing it if what you really mean is "for many people, spending time/effort can result in increased mental performance".

Ok, that is fair. Maybe I should have said, Anyone can be 10 more intelligent than what they are now As measured by multiple intelligence tests.

But the when I have heard the 10% statement, it has been in that spirit.

[Loki]

Christian,

When someone says, this is your IQ. The assumption is that the score cannot be improved. The assumtion is that you cannot improve intelligence. I dispute this.
Right off the bat you need to show that variations in a person's (or nations) IQ over time is not a reflectoin of inherent problems in the concept of IQ tests.

1. IQ scores never change = (a) A person's 'brain power' can't increase; or (b) IQ tests have a inbuit 'flaw'.

2. IQ scores can change (increase/decrease) over time = (a) A person's "brain power" is variable; or (b) IQ tests have a build in 'flaw'

How do you propose to prove any conclusion based on IQ tests is not revealing something aout IQ tests rather than about underlying human IQ?

[chance]

christian Learning new tasks (remembering more stuff) however, could be seen as using more brain power, but again there should be a finite amount of storage space for such things. Learning one thing could cause you to forget something else. Does our brain work this way? Our storage capacity is so vast as to, for all intent and purposes, never fill up in our lifetimes. It might work that way, could you tell? An analogy to a glass of water could be as valid as your mussel analogy.

[abiogenesis]

Originally posted by Christian:
Yes, this is correct but adding new software is entering a special kind of new data (a new set of zeros and ones that was not there before). If you think about it, you are adding a new capability to the machine, a new way to reorganize (your term) information that was not there before. You simple can’t do this with the brain. If I’m able to reorganize information in my brain, that capability has been there all along.I disagree. It appears that this is precisely what the brain evolved to do. It is, the original, biological neural network (not to harp on the computer science analogy, but I think it fits)
The purpose of the brain is to comprehend. The way it accomplishes this is through rapid adaptation. Literally everything we do, every "input" we percieve, restructures the neural pathways in the brain, modifying it's "output". The network is constantly changing to better understand the input.Originally posted by Christian:
But the ability to reconfigure, the capacity to reconfigure is already there. In a computer, in a given example, until you install a software no such capacity exists.Wrong again. The space on the disk is fixed. No "capacity" is added or removed. Just the contents are modified.
In the brain, these contents aren't represented by a binary sequence of different voltages, but rather by the particular configuration of synapses. The neurons are the same, just the connections change.
It is really a facinating process. Maybe you should read about neural networks in computer science. It's a technique designed specifically to imitate the brain and a very simple implementation can produce complex and unexpected output. It is a data structure that learns.Originally posted by Christian:
We’re splitting hairs here. With the slowing software I, as a user, can experience the computer running slower.But this is a subjective observation - and I think that's the problem. It is an arbitrary metric. It makes no sense to say that my brain functions "better" now than it did ten years ago. Better for what? For writing C++ programs? Maybe, but I've trained it to do that. I haven't trained it to play piano or speak russian, so I am just as bad at those tasks now as I was then.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[JMEJAM]

There is one (convoluted) way that one can make a legitimate claim that only 10% of the brain is used.

Only ten percent of the brain is made up of neurons. The other 90% are glial cells. The function of glial cells is somewhat murky.

If one limits brain "use" to passing of signals from neuron to neuron, then yes, only ten percent is "used".

Certainly the glial cells are "used", but not for what most people would consider the main functions of the brain.

[Prospero]

In case anyone's still curious, the original myth actually originated in the incorrect interpretation of an experiment on rats. In the 20s, some scientists started taking out chunks of a rats brain (starting with the front and working back which will explain a lot in a moment) and then observing the rat after each successive chunk removal. After removing all of it's cerebrum, the rat still "functioned", though at that point it was basically a moving vegetable, which, for a rat, is not easily discerned. When the researcher finally started hacking into the cerebellum, where all kinds of autonomous systems are run from and thus vital, the rat finally started to show significant deficits. The researcher then measured the chunks of the brain he'd taken out and found that the rat still "functioned" up until it only had 10% of its brain left, which he interpreted to mean that only 10% of the brain is used, specifically the cerebellum. You don't have to be a neurologist to see the flaw in this research.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Right off the bat you need to show that variations in a person's (or nations) IQ over time is not a reflectoin of inherent problems in the concept of IQ tests.

So, if now we teach someone (prepare them) for increasing the IQ score by teaching them the rules and parameters of the test, you would call that cheating?

So, if my vocabulary is only X and within a year it increases to x+500, you would call that cheating?

1. IQ scores never change = (a) A person's 'brain power' can't increase; or (b) IQ tests have a inbuit 'flaw'.

(c)People that have taken the test and don't increase their score haven't learned to increase their brain power.

2. IQ scores can change (increase/decrease) over time = (a) A person's "brain power" is variable; or (b) IQ tests have a build in 'flaw'

Why (b). All fair tests (meaning tests that do have problems with plausible/correct under specific standards solutions) have a built in bias. All you do is train for the specific bias.

How do you propose to prove any conclusion based on IQ tests is not revealing something aout IQ tests rather than about underlying human IQ?

If the test use a specific unchanging standard, there is no reason why we should not assume an increase in brain power. Unless you consider studying extensively for the parameters of the test cheating.

Chance
It might work that way, could you tell? An analogy to a glass of water could be as valid as your mussel analogy.

Indeed.

abiogenesis wrote:
The purpose of the brain is to comprehend. The way it accomplishes this is through rapid adaptation. Literally everything we do, every "input" we percieve, restructures the neural pathways in the brain, modifying it's "output". The network is constantly changing to better understand the input.

Yes, but this ability/capacity/capability is there for the brain to do. The brain cannot make things levitate or it cannot hold 3 thoughts as exactly the same instant, no matter how well it reorganizes information. Do you see the distinction?

Wrong again. The space on the disk is fixed. No "capacity" is added or removed. Just the contents are modified.

The word capacity has different meanings. One is space/holding. The meaning I'm using (I already explained it) is ability/capability, I defined capacity as the ability to perform or produce, and the innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment, faculty.

A computer needs a modem to have the capability to send faxes, (for example)

In the brain, these contents aren't represented by a binary sequence of different voltages, but rather by the particular configuration of synapses. The neurons are the same, just the connections change.
It is really a facinating process. Maybe you should read about neural networks in computer science. It's a technique designed specifically to imitate the brain and a very simple implementation can produce complex and unexpected output. It is a data structure that learns.

This all well said. You are missing the point I'm trying to make.

It is an arbitrary metric. It makes no sense to say that my brain functions "better" now than it did ten years ago. Better for what? For writing C++ programs? Maybe, but I've trained it to do that. I haven't trained it to play piano or speak russian, so I am just as bad at those tasks now as I was then.

So if I now hold a X+1000 vocabulary than I did ten years ago, you don't consider this better. If I can now solve complex puzzles (which I can't by the way) that I could not before, am I not better?

What would satisfy you to say some is better in terms of brain power?

[Loki]

Christian,

So, if now we teach someone (prepare them) for increasing the IQ score by teaching them the rules and parameters of the test, you would call that cheating?
Not sure why you say "cheating". This is the same old question of whether "maths/science" students have higher IQs because (a) you need a high IQ to succeed at Maths/science or (b) IQ tests have a bias towards maths/science.

Anyway, rather than get stuck in a sematic argument about any of this, why not present your evidence? You've said that there are two measures you think can be used to make your case that a persons "raw mental power" can be increased over time - IQ test results, and "observed output" (such as demonstrating greater knowledge about economics now than you did 10 years ago).

What's your evidence that IQ can be permanently raised ?

What's your evidence that "total output" can be raised, rather than simply increasing some areas of output at the expense of others?

So far, the only thing you've offered is an analogy to muscles. You seem to be trying to show the existence of something by explaining how it could be possible - why not show it's existence by pointing to some data?

Perhaps more importantly, even if we were to agree that humans *can* raise their "mental power" through study or practise, why is this revolutionary? Are you still working on the "we all have the same maximum" idea?

Model 1 : All human have the same "maximum possible IQ" ( say 200). At age 25, your IQ is 120. At 35, your IQ is 140. At 45, your IQ is 160.

Model 2 : Every human has a a different maximum (for you, lets say 160). At age 25, your IQ is 120, At 35, your IQ is 140. At 45, your IQ is 160.

Given the data (IQ scores over time), how can we tell which of these two models is correct?

[Loki]

Christian,

So if I now hold a X+1000 vocabulary than I did ten years ago, you don't consider this better. If I can now solve complex puzzles (which I can't by the way) that I could not before, am I not better?

What would satisfy you to say some is better in terms of brain power?
The examples you give show that you are "better" at the nominated things - but are you also "worse" in some areas? I'm a better C++ programmer than I was 10 years ago (IMO - no proof offered!), but I'm a far worse Cobol programmer than I was 20 years ago. I play guitar better than 20 years ago, but worse than 10 years ago. I play chess dismally now compared to 20 years ago. I type faster, but handwrite poorer. Is there a way top determine the difference between "better overall" and "better in some areas"?

[abiogenesis]

I think the whole problem with your approach (I'm still not sure where you're going with this), Christian, is that you're trying to objectify something that is inherently subjective. It doesn't make any sense to say that, after four years of college, my "brain power" has increased. If I spend the time and make the effort to learn a skill, I can become an expert in that skill, but my brain still just learns. "Brain power" doesn't mean anything.

The purpose of the brain is to learn. That's all it's ever done. That's all it'll ever do. There is no hidden potential to unlock. Evolution doesn't work that way.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[evildave]

Actually, I could certainly come up with a measure, even one as high as 90% for brain mass that is never actively "thinking".

After all, there's all those blood vessels, carrying blood (very dense). And a lot of other brain structure, even fat bodies in there. Lots and lots of meat that doesn't do any switching or swapping proteins/chemicals or anything.

Of course, that 90% would never, ever be capable of directly participating in thought, control, sensory processing, etc, except in being there to keep the whole structure from collapsing into lifeless goo.

And the remaining 10% (give or take) wouldn't be able to operate without the rest.

Now as for measuring brain capacity for storage or calculation, such measurements are highly subjective. After all, of all the billions of people out there, the grandest majority use less than the tiniest fraction of one percent of the POTENTIAL they might have had if they had been properly encouraged and educated and trained to use from a very early age.

MOST people are utter retards compared to what they might have been, given ideal circumstances and dedication to producing the very best possible people from the POTENTIAL that they held as very young children.

Instead, MOST people get religion and decide they're geniuses for kissing their special invisible friend's butt all their lives hoping for a special prize after they're dead, so why bother being anything but a good <s>leech</s>, er suck-up.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Anyway, rather than get stuck in a sematic argument about any of this, why not present your evidence?

This is going to be anticlimactic (sp??) But, I don't have the evidence you want. Think about it, how could I. Maybe the evidence is there, many lots, but really, I'm lazy for that.

You seem to be trying to show the existence of something by explaining how it could be possible - why not show it's existence by pointing to some data?

True. I would have to let my fingers do the walking. Listen, I think I have expressed what I wanted to and good stuff came out of it. I'm satisfied with the discussion.

Perhaps more importantly, even if we were to agree that humans *can* raise their "mental power" through study or practise, why is this revolutionary? Are you still working on the "we all have the same maximum" idea?

Right, it shouldn't be revolutionary but somehow people reject it a priori.

Maybe not the same maximum but the maximun is so high that it levels out the playing field.

Model 1 : All human have the same "maximum possible IQ" ( say 200). At age 25, your IQ is 120. At 35, your IQ is 140. At 45, your IQ is 160.

Model 2 : Every human has a a different maximum (for you, lets say 160). At age 25, your IQ is 120, At 35, your IQ is 140. At 45, your IQ is 160.

I think Model two is correct. But I would say this:

Model 2 : Every human has a a different maximum (for you, lets say a range of 170-200). To accomplish the most difficult mental feats, the most you need is 140.

Given the data (IQ scores over time), how can we tell which of these two models is correct?

Yes, I understand it's all speculation.

The examples you give show that you are "better" at the nominated things - but are you also "worse" in some areas? I'm a better C++ programmer than I was 10 years ago (IMO - no proof offered!), but I'm a far worse Cobol programmer than I was 20 years ago. I play guitar better than 20 years ago, but worse than 10 years ago. I play chess dismally now compared to 20 years ago. I type faster, but handwrite poorer. Is there a way top determine the difference between "better overall" and "better in some areas"?

Yes, this point is valid. I'm sure there should be a way to determine the diffence. An overall inventory of the core competencies should suffice. Remember, Paretto always applies.

abiogenesis wrote:
I think the whole problem with your approach (I'm still not sure where you're going with this), Christian, is that you're trying to objectify something that is inherently subjective.

Ok, point taken. But, I contend it can be eventually measured objectively, even if can't yet (can't we??)

It doesn't make any sense to say that, after four years of college, my "brain power" has increased. If I spend the time and make the effort to learn a skill, I can become an expert in that skill, but my brain still just learns. "Brain power" doesn't mean anything.

Wait a second. There is a purpose to saying "I can increase my brain power": higher productivity. If we start with this paradigm, then we can take anyone from the street and make them physicist or a doctor. If this assumption is true, any human can achieve at the stardard level of most proffesions or jobs.

The implication is that to better the person, all you need is better the training. You don't have to look for the best person for the job, any person will do.

The purpose of the brain is to learn. That's all it's ever done. That's all it'll ever do. There is no hidden potential to unlock. Evolution doesn't work that way.

If a say I can take any person from the street and train them to do any profesion, am I not saying every human has that hidden potential?

evildave wrote:
After all, of all the billions of people out there, the grandest majority use less than the tiniest fraction of one percent of the POTENTIAL they might have had if they had been properly encouraged and educated and trained to use from a very early age.

MOST people are utter retards compared to what they might have been, given ideal circumstances and dedication to producing the very best possible people from the POTENTIAL that they held as very young children.

This deserves to be quoted.

Evildave wrote:
Instead, MOST people get religion and decide they're geniuses for kissing their special invisible friend's butt all their lives hoping for a special prize after they're dead, so why bother being anything but a good leech, er suck-up.

Man, do you ever let go of the grudge (against God)?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not that familiar with neurophysiology, but I was under the impression that the brain didn't atrophy either. At least, not in the sense that it grows smaller with lack of use.

Actually, the brain can atrophy, under specific conditions. The only currently known specific condition is extreme neglect in early childhood, as is the case with feral children.

According to Dr. Bruce Perry's article, The Neuroarcheology of Childhood Maltreatment (http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/Neuroarcheology.asp),


As early as 1833, with the famous Kaspar Hauser, feral children had been described (Heidenreich. 1834). Hauser was abandoned as a young child and raised from early childhood (likely around age two) until seventeen in a dungeon, experiencing relative sensory, emotional and cognitive neglect. His emotional, behavioral and cognitive functioning was, as one might expect, very primitive and delayed. At autopsy, Hauser's brain was noted to have a small cerebrum (cortex) with few and non-distinct cortical gyri. These findings are consistent with cortical atrophy (or underdevelopment), a condition we have reported in children following severe total global neglect in childhood (Perry & Pollard. 1997).

I remember seeing a documentary on the History (?) Channel about the subject of feral kids, and I distinctly recall doctors displaying comparative brain scans of normal children around age 11 and their feral counterparts, the latter showing extreme atrophy of many structures. This is because in early childhood, the brain in still undergoing a process called apoptosis. In this process, a large amount of "extra neurons" simply die off because they're not necessary anymore. Apoptosis is mostly over by age three; however, during that time - when synapses begin to form - if neurons in important developmental locations are unused, they will also be culled. That's why stimulation is so important, even in early childhood. You either use it or you lose it.

The types of structures suffering from deficiency led many clinicians to believe they had found the reason why many feral kids simply could not learn any language beyond a few basic "need" expressions (if anything at all). Such kids also often suffer, interestingly, from a lack of ability to empathize and sympathize, the inability to grasp the concept of equality or "fairness", and a complete lack of sexual drive in later life.

The differences between this "cortical atrophy" and muscular atrophy are that 1) the latter is reversible whereas the former is not beyond a certain age, and 2) that the former occurs only in early childhood. So still, the two are not comparable.

Getting back on topic, I disagree with the suggestion that anything less than 100% of your brain mass is being used at any one time. Perhaps this or that portion is not being used for thought at this or that time; but brain activity scans indicate that the entire brain is always doing something. I also reject the suggestion that any percent of "cognitive ability" is being used at any one time. There is no practical way to quantify cognitive ability, as it is constantly fluctuating, and this renders any attempt to explain that a certain "percentage" or even an "amount" of it is being used, in my opinion.

[evildave]

Man, do you ever let go of the grudge (against God)?

Christian, if you believe that having imaginary friends is good, then enjoy your rich fantasy life.

Simply understand that I will never see this trait in people as "virtue".

Any bile is not directed at a "god", "demigod" or whatever other silly fiction you have. Just to make this very clear: it's directed at people who believe their "sacred" fictional account for things (i.e. "GOD DID IT", or "GOD SEZ SO") is more important than honestly trying to find out what is really true.

That's right, people.

I don't hate them. I simply find their behavior loathesome. Like watching people stick spikes into their own children's heads due to some blindly followed ritual they learned as children with spikes sticking out of their heads. *** Don't question. Don't think. Don't ask. Only believe. Only react.

Pitiful.

(*** That's a metaphor - I don't literally believe that Christians stick spikes into children's heads. The damage they do is much more subtle and leaves few outward signs so obvious. I have to explain this sort of thing for those who really are using 10% (or less) of their brains.)

[Christian]

Evildave wrote:
Christian, if you believe that having imaginary friends is good, then enjoy your rich fantasy life.

Simply understand that I will never see this trait in people as "virtue".

I see. But you do see total arrogance (of being certain of the truth) of a skeptic to be a virtue?

...is more important than honestly trying to find out what is really true.

I'm confused, is it not the skeptic's position that the truth can never be arrived at?

I don't hate them. I simply find their behavior loathesome. Like watching people stick spikes into their own children's heads due to some blindly followed ritual they learned as children with spikes sticking out of their heads. *** Don't question. Don't think. Don't ask. Only believe. Only react.

Pitiful.

So, you can say that the quality of your life is better than the quality of a believer's life? (of anyone who believes in a deity)

That is a bold, arrogant statement IMHO.

The damage they do is much more subtle and leaves few outward signs so obvious. I have to explain this sort of thing for those who really are using 10% (or less) of their brains.)

Am I to assume you feel mentally superior?

You must believe in cause and effect, in causality. If you don't, if you believe in randomness, aren't you no better off for not believing?

[evildave]

I'm certain there is quite a lot of possible truths, the "Christian" version (i.e. the one you personally believe to be true) is but a tiny, petty subset of the realm of possibilities for what could be true or real.

Of course I don't have "all the answers". I don't know the deep dark secrets of all the universe. I don't know ***** about much of anything on a cosmic scale. I admit it with pride.

Christian, the sad tate of affairs for you and your kind is that you don't realize that you don't know *****, either. You don't know whether that god you and the Muslims borrowed from Judaism is real. You don't know whether you'll wake up one day in a heaven (or elsewhere). You don't know whether all your dead friends and relatives are really, really lost to you forever. You don't know whether there is the tiniest bit of truth in any of the fairy stories you bought wholesale from your religious sources of so-called "truth".

What you call your sacred faith, I call your opinion, and opinions are like @$$holes: everybody has one. The fact that you hold your <s>@$$hole</s> opinion to be "sacred" only comes across as absurd to me.