If accidental, the earth is an amazing "random" suitcase.

[zoegirl]

Again, just to clarify,

We don't just use 10% of our brain, we use all of it.

The 10 % figure has been shown false.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

[Gman]

Again, just to clarify,

We don't just use 10% of our brain, we use all of it.

The 10 % figure has been shown false.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Can we say that about everyone though?

[zoegirl]

ASking me on a friday night after a full week of school....I have some doubts about myself right now!!

[robyn hill]

Touching cloth you said: there are almost certainly limits to how large and intelligent brains can become (they overheat after a certain size, there's an optimum way in which brain tissue can be folded, and larger brains increase the time taken for signals to travel along neural pathways), if only because after a certain point a brain will need to become exponentially bigger to fuel a constant increase in intelligence


My question is why would you compare other beings' characteristics to humans. Why would you limit their evolution? Isn't the possibility of evolution occuring elsewhere in the universe a posibility without limiting its capabilities to that of humans. That seems narrow minded. Are you saying evolution exists only on our planet even though the universes size is incomprehensible as well as the amount of time it has been. Doesn't evolution contradict itself it it can't exist elsewhere in the universe?

[Proinsias]

If accidental, the earth is an amazing "random" suitcase.

Accidental or not, it's quite amazing. I do think that's quite an important bit, no mater what you believe a sense of wonder and amazement never goes amiss. People who lose it tend to be rather dull. I may be stretching scripture I don't really understand but I long thought Jesus talking about being like children was in part about not losing the awe and wonder children get from life.

[robyn hill]

Our brains are not working at full effiency. Albert Einstein was a good example of a man who thought on so many higer levels his dendrites actually produced a thicker mass, this is just an example of one man I can think of who proved that actual growth can take place when we think differently.
You no more use 90% of your brain potential than you use 90% of your muscle potential all of the time.
To say that we use all of our brain, would be like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger or Lou Firigno had as 90 pound teenagers reached the pinnacle of their muscular development.
You no more use all of your brain all of the time than you use 100% of your lung capacity sitting at your computer keyboard. You no more use all of your brain all of the time than you use all of your car all of the time; that you always drive at the full potential of your Honda; that you always drive at the top speed of your car; that your trunk and seats are always filled to capacity; that you have even figured out and daily employ every single way in which you could use your car.
To say that we use all of our brain ignores the fact that you keep losing your car keys all the time.
To say that we use all of our brain ignores the fact that you couldn't remember where you left your car in the parking garage- even though this is well within your brain potential.

[zoegirl]

Our brains are not working at full effiency. Albert Einstein was a good example of a man who thought on so many higer levels his dendrites actually produced a thicker mass, this is just an example of one man I can think of who proved that actual growth can take place when we think differently.

Of course our brains can develop. The remarkable plasticity of the brain has been shown over and over again. It's why we should keep learning. This is different, however, then saying we *only* use 10% of our brain, as if some part is locked or incapable of being used.

Average Joe can certainly improve his knowledge and skills through learning and thus increase the density and mass of his brain....but while he is Average Joe, his brain still works well and he uses quite a bit of his neurons.

You no more use 90% of your brain potential than you use 90% of your muscle potential all of the time.
To say that we use all of our brain, would be like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger or Lou Firigno had as 90 pound teenagers reached the pinnacle of their muscular development.
You no more use all of your brain all of the time than you use 100% of your lung capacity sitting at your computer keyboard. You no more use all of your brain all of the time than you use all of your car all of the time; that you always drive at the full potential of your Honda; that you always drive at the top speed of your car; that your trunk and seats are always filled to capacity; that you have even figured out and daily employ every single way in which you could use your car.
To say that we use all of our brain ignores the fact that you keep losing your car keys all the time.
To say that we use all of our brain ignores the fact that you couldn't remember where you left your car in the parking garage- even though this is well within your brain potential.

Absolutely, we don't use all of our brain all of the time. But much more than 10% of the brain is used most of the time and far more than 10% is used at some point, even among the brain's of Average Joe...now could he increase his density and mass of his brain by studying or starting the crossword puzzles, signing up for classes, or just reading more? Absolutely. But during the day, different parts of his brain are used at different times, but by thte end of the day, he has used much of his brain for the different activities.

The analogy of the muscle groups needs to be expanded. While we may not use all of our muscles all ofthe time, we will use them all throughout the day. To expand the analogy, we can develop our muscles. Now the weakling at the beach may not be strong, but he will use all of the puny muscles he has. Average Joe's brain may not compare with Einsten's, but he uses what he has. And just as the weakling can build his muscles, Average Joe can increase his learning and skills.

[robyn hill]

yeah, it isn't that we have hidden parts of our minds that we haven't tapped yet, it is more, I believe, that we can further our potential and efficiency. I think the 10% theory makes more sense if we consider we only "use" a percent of our minds at a time rather than the entire brain. I mean we would be on overload if we did. In fact I am pretty sure that is where anxiety originates, thinking of too many things at once. I just wonder how much we would change if we continue increasing the potential and efficiency.

[zoegirl]

yeah, it isn't that we have hidden parts of our minds that we haven't tapped yet, it is more, I believe, that we can further our potential and efficiency. I think the 10% theory makes more sense if we consider we only "use" a percent of our minds at a time rather than the entire brain. I mean we would be on overload if we did. In fact I am pretty sure that is where anxiety originates, thinking of too many things at once. I just wonder how much we would change if we continue increasing the potential and efficiency.

What would you consider by increasing potential and efficiency?

[robyn hill]

What I am trying to suggest here, is not that God is an alien, like science fiction might entertain, more that accoding to evolution and our huge universe with so many galaxies, we should, according to evolution, see other forms of life. The fact that we don't ,causes me to reason, along with the other "coincidences" I have mentioned, is because God didn't create the universe for all else, rather he made it for the human condition, like the bible implies, and that is why we don't see other evolved forms. I also am making the case that because of the mathematical organization and irriduceably complex systems here on earth, there seems to be an intelligent designer who is more "evolved" if you will, to create it all. I think we see things only from a human perspective. Something existing at a higer level of conciousness, and outside of what is tangible to humans, seems as a more probable explanation than that of a random accident. In addition to this, the bible and the prophesy that has come true, and continues to come true, only further makes the explanation of God more reasonable than chance.

[Gman]

ASking me on a friday night after a full week of school....I have some doubts about myself right now!!

[zoegirl]

Maybe it's the sci-fi nut in me, but it wouldn't shake my faith if there were eventually other life forms on other planets.

I think it's a bit like the God of the Gaps defense to say that because we don't any now, that this somehow shows that there couldn't be anything or that this supports the existence of God.

I'm not trying to take away from the idea of narrow conditions of the universe and earth, I'm simply saying that were God to create life on other planets, they would be thinking the same thing. Bacteria living in the hot springs in Yellowstone can live in their narrow range of extremely hot waters and they have been designed for that.

Of course, with the vastness of space, it would be unlikely to know about other life for quite some time, although it is intriguing that thereis evidence of water on Mars

[touchingcloth]

My question is why would you compare other beings' characteristics to humans. Why would you limit their evolution? Isn't the possibility of evolution occuring elsewhere in the universe a posibility without limiting its capabilities to that of humans. That seems narrow minded. Are you saying evolution exists only on our planet even though the universes size is incomprehensible as well as the amount of time it has been. Doesn't evolution contradict itself it it can't exist elsewhere in the universe?

I was referring to mammalian brains (I mentioned that either in the post you responded to or the post before that). You're correct that things may be different on other worlds.

[Proinsias]

accoding to evolution and our huge universe with so many galaxies, we should, according to evolution, see other forms of life. The fact that we don't ,causes me to reason, along with the other "coincidences" I have mentioned, is because God didn't create the universe for all else, rather he made it for the human condition, like the bible implies, and that is why we don't see other evolved forms.

We've been as far as the moon and you've concluded that the universe is therefore inhabited by life on earth only? Seems a little shortsighted to me. I could understand if we'd visited every planet in the universe and found nothing but we've barley scraped the deep seas or the nearest planet.

edit: we do see other forms of ,evolved, life. Tons of them. That stuff written by humans which claims that the universe was made for the human condition doesn't seem very surprising. How convenient. Humans discovering it's all about humans.

[touchingcloth]

accoding to evolution and our huge universe with so many galaxies, we should, according to evolution, see other forms of life. The fact that we don't ,causes me to reason, along with the other "coincidences" I have mentioned, is because God didn't create the universe for all else, rather he made it for the human condition, like the bible implies, and that is why we don't see other evolved forms.

We've been as far as the moon and you've concluded that the universe is therefore inhabited by life on earth only? Seems a little shortsighted to me. I could understand if we'd visited every planet in the universe and found nothing but we've barley scraped the deep seas or the nearest planet.

And we are severely limited in our ability to "see" earth-sized planets in our own solar system; the latest missions can just about detect the presence of earth-sized planets. but they can't discover their compositions or image them.