- Brain Blast by Ready2Rapture
19 y
3,377 7 Messages Shown
Blog: Forbidden Knowledge
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/brain.asp
=========================================
Our brain - Do we use only a small portion of it?
by Carl Wieland
There is a very wide-spread belief that we humans only ever use 10 to 20% of our brain. Attributed to Albert Einstein, it is one of the ‘grab’ statements used to recruit people for the cult of ‘Scientology.’ It is also a favourite of new-agey ‘positive thinking’ gurus.
The reason for its wide acceptance may be because Dale Carnegie’s popular 1936 book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, stated that most people only use 15% of their brains—a ‘fact’ probably pulled from thin air.
There have been many recent advances in brain research techniques, including sophisticated scanners. However, we still don’t know much about how the brain works overall. We know next to nothing about how it processes information.
We know certain activities originate in the cerebral cortex, and that certain memories are stored there. But we don’t know where and how they are stored, nor how we can recall memories, or come up with new ideas, for example. The little we do know has come about largely from studying people whose brains have been damaged through accidents, strokes or tumours.
So this oft-repeated belief is just plain wrong. If it were true, things which damage the brain would not have such drastic consequences for our ability to think, speak, and remember. If you compare it to a computer, the ‘hardware’ is all there, ready to process complex or relatively simple software tasks, which can vary from time to time. No computer uses all of its processing circuitry at once—in our brain, that would be like a major epileptic seizure.
When researchers in the 1960s began to map out certain areas for certain functions, others remained unknown, which may have reinforced the myth.
But in the 1920s, experiments on mice had already shown that any removal of brain tissue caused a loss of performance. Mice were taught simple tasks (like navigating a maze), then a portion of their brain cortex was removed. The results indicated ‘that memories were stored throughout the cortex and not in one particular place: the more of the cortex was removed the worse the rats’ performance became.’
So, did Albert Einstein believe the myth? In fact, he may have ‘used it as a wry answer when asked by a journalist why he was smarter than other people.’
Many people with a blockage in the flow of brain fluid (hydrocephalus), in whom the developing brain was slowly compressed to a thin sheet, have been shown to have normal or superior intelligence. One such person obtained a first-class degree in mathematics, although his brain was thinned out from its normal 45 mm (1¾") thickness to one mm on average! Far from showing that the rest was unused, this indicates that the developing brain has a tremendous ability to compensate for such a slowly encroaching neurological problem.
Our brains have actually been designed with an amazing compensatory capacity. After a stroke, some of the lost function can be taken up by other, undamaged portions. Also, the region of the brain to do with hand control enlarges as people learn to play, say, the guitar. In people who go blind, the sense of touch is greatly enhanced to compensate.
Why should chance mutation, coupled with natural selection, favour the development of exquisite touch in blind individuals? Most blindness occurs way past the reproductive years, so from a Darwinian point of view, such ‘compassionate’ design features, useful only in case of major disaster, are hard to explain. They make sense in a body designed by an intelligent Creator to cope in a fallen world. Our brain is by far the most complex thing in the universe.
Next time you hear someone quote that urban myth about ‘only using 10% (or 20%) of our brain’, ask them—how do they know? How was this calibrated or measured? It hasn’t been, of course. It might be a useful way to get them thinking critically about other things (like evolution) which they have likewise absorbed as ‘truth.’
|
|
|
Ready2Rapture
|
|
- have to disagree by ren
19 y
2,022
| I usually agree with much of what's in the 'answers' website BUT scientists have not discovered everything there is know about the brain. I do not think we human beings really have a clue as to how complicated the brain is. I think scientists are even more clueless because they already operate with an evolutionary agenda. I don't believe for a second that we evolved from chimps and pond scum. Evolution theory is a sham.
|
|
|
ren
|
|
- Eh? by Ready2Rapture
19 y
2,072
| You seem to be saying the same thing as the article. Can you elaborate?
|
|
|
Ready2Rapture
|
|
- Re: Eh? by ren
19 y
1,988
| The article is confusing to me. Then again I'm easily confused sometimes ;-) I believe that most of us only use a very small portion of our abilities. I would not discount the whole ten percent thing as he did. I just would not ask people how do they know as a way of discounting evolution.
|
|
|
ren
|
|
- Re: Eh? by Ready2Rapture
19 y
2,122
Okay. The way your other post was worded it seemed to be agreeing with the article, thanks for clarifying what you meant.
What the article is saying is that there is no evidence that we only use a small portion of our brains, but that what we have observed supports the theory that we use many areas of the brain. No one knows the percentage, but we do know that the brain is too complex to put in a neat little box which asserts that we use almost none of it.
Their main point is that the 10% or 20% people hear all the time is not an established fact at all. Their second point is that evolution cannot account for what we have observed the brain do in terms of adapting to things like loss of sight in old age, since it has no evolutionary advantage.
Don't know if that helps, but then the subject isn't exactly elementary, so don't feel bad ;-)
|
|
|
Ready2Rapture
|
|
- thanks by ren
19 y
2,013
| I have to say that Ken Ham's site is great. This is going to be a hot issue in the coming months and years. The trend is from order to disorder in the universe anyway. Of course you know that acceptance of creation means acceptance of a power supreme to humans. We can't have that!
|
|
|
ren
|
|
- Re: have to disagree by Kerminator
19 y
2,175
I am with you Ren, 100%.... How or even why would swamp scum ever decide anything?? Much less becoming as of yet, {that moment in time} an unknown something else...
If it were so, {we are extending the argument here to include the extreme of the primesis..} what could it {swamp scum} decide anyway??? DUH!! Nothing folks... There is a key phrase here... see ya... Good post and better blogging... k
|
|
|
Kerminator
|
|
|
|
CureZone