They say we only use 10% of our brain
Knowing that we only use 10% of our brain. Wouldn't that mean that this almighty being we worship is only 10% part of our brain. I wonder who else exists in the rest of the 90% of our brain.
Flame shield on!
August 1, 2015
24 Comments • Newest first
10% of our conscious brain 90% of our unconscious brain. The 90% is what controls the beat of your heart to the breath we breathe.
[quote=rianael]@sezbeth With all that in mind. I still find it incredibly odd as to why we've come so far and we can't completely understand the organ that allowed breakthroughs to happen. However, I can't really tell how much there is left to know; like you said earlier: "human tendency for grandiose assumption".[/quote]
Well, neuroscience is still relatively young compared to a field like physics or mammalian biology. As it currently stand, theoretical neuroscience has no real solid theories to go on, there's tons of debate over numerous aspects of cognition.
Though humans tend to assume (or at least dream) of grandiose possibilities, it's not entirely unreasonable to be fascinated by what we don't know about the brain or even the universe. What's unreasonable is presuming fact for what we only have hypothesis to go on.
[quote=sezbeth]@avatar: In some sense they are. "Genius" is technically defined as an individual with extraordinary understanding of a domain of knowledge, so you could argue either way. Of course, they often don't even understand their talents themselves, so that's another point.
On intelligence, though, the concept has been known for a while to be vastly more complex than what the previous notion of the "IQ" would suggest. One study back in 2012 involving approximately 100,000 participants which involved the testing of various types of intelligences through multiple quantitative measures pointed to some unprecedented dynamic results. Though we can categorize certain aspects of what we believe encompasses intellect, those categorizations hardly take into account.
In short, I don't think we necessarily have enough knowledge of what intelligence specifically is to really identify what it actually takes into account. I usually avoid making references to examples of greater intelligence because of those dynamic characteristics.[/quote]
@sezbeth With all that in mind. I still find it incredibly odd as to why we've come so far and we can't completely understand the organ that allowed breakthroughs to happen. However, I can't really tell how much there is left to know; like you said earlier: "human tendency for grandiose assumption".
You watched Lucy and believed that nonsense they were spewing
@tariq: You just hate me because I'm black.
@avatar: In some sense they are. "Genius" is technically defined as an individual with extraordinary understanding of a domain of knowledge, so you could argue either way. Of course, they often don't even understand their talents themselves, so that's another point.
On intelligence, though, the concept has been known for a while to be vastly more complex than what the previous notion of the "IQ" would suggest. One study back in 2012 involving approximately 100,000 participants which involved the testing of various types of intelligences through multiple quantitative measures pointed to some unprecedented dynamic results. Though we can categorize certain aspects of what we believe encompasses intellect, those categorizations hardly take into account.
In short, I don't think we necessarily have enough knowledge of what intelligence specifically is to really identify what it actually takes into account. I usually avoid making references to examples of greater intelligence because of those dynamic characteristics.
[quote=sezbeth]I would contend that it originates from a combination of human tendency for grandiose assumption of the unknown and observation of intellectual oddities like savant cases.[/quote]
Is it just me that thinks most of those called savants are incorrectly labeled as geniuses? There's no doubt that their abilities are something to marvel at like the man who could paint an entire city after one helicopter ride or those who can calculated roots of arbitrary numbers, but I feel like all of those talents stem from their heightened photographic memories and not necessarily some form of superior intelligence. I agree with you though, and another reason that I've heard of is that the majority of our brain is primitive while we only use a small part for abstract thinking.
[quote=sezbeth]I would contend that it originates from a combination of human tendency for grandiose assumption of the unknown and observation of intellectual oddities like savant cases.[/quote]
You use big words that I don't understand. I like you.
[quote=rianael]Doesn't the whole myth arise from the "belief" that humans have not been capable to use all of their brain power/capacity. Or to be more specific, I think the myth was, we as the human race probably haven't reached above 10% of our human brain's maximum potential?[/quote]
I would contend that it originates from a combination of human tendency for grandiose assumption of the unknown and observation of intellectual oddities like savant cases.
[quote=purplewaffles]This stupid "people only use 10% of their brain" myth is easily disproved by a couple MRI scans.
The people who still believe in it might be the ones using only 10% of their brain, hence why this rumor still exists.[/quote]
Doesn't the whole myth arise from the "belief" that humans have not been capable to use all of their brain power/capacity. Or to be more specific, I think the myth was, we as the human race probably haven't reached above 10% of our human brain's maximum potential?
[quote=tariq]reported for attacking[/quote]
whOAaA~ look out!
[quote=goldyboi]Stop talking about yourself man. Go home.[/quote]
reported for attacking
[quote=goldyboi]Stop talking about yourself man. Go home.[/quote]
So much for your flame shield.
[quote=purplewaffles]This stupid "people only use 10% of their brain" myth is easily disproved by a couple MRI scans.
The people who still believe in it might be the ones using only 10% of their brain, hence why this rumor still exists.[/quote]
Stop talking about yourself man. Go home.
this is true. morgan freeman had spoken. he said it in a movie. morgan freeman is god.
You use different parts at different times. You just don't have it all on at once.
"flame shield on!"
how cringe worthy
Or it means we don't understand the other 90% of this being.
bradley cooper exists in the other 90%
How can we know if we use 10% of our brain if we only use 10% of our brain?
This stupid "people only use 10% of their brain" myth is easily disproved by a couple MRI scans.
The people who still believe in it might be the ones using only 10% of their brain, hence why this rumor still exists.
We use 100% of our brain. Our visual cortex alone is less than 10% of the brain but without it we would be blind
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/ten-percent-brain/
35% apparently o.o
This has been disproven. We use all of our brain.