It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The new root of evil : Science

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

The OP is not being very specific but he goes on and on about the right side of the brain, so I guess he means communication via telepathy, astral travelling, metaphysical abilities that some believe to have been suppressed because we only ever use the left side of the brain.



A very sensible comment




posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies
A very sensible comment



Thank you. Is that what you meant, then?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: crowdedskies
A very sensible comment



Thank you. Is that what you meant, then?


Yes, but you use New Age terms which demeans it. It is a bit more tangible than that.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

But we do use both sides of the brain.
I bet the op thinks we only use 10% of it also...also incorrect.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies
Yes, but you use New Age terms which demeans it. It is a bit more tangible than that.


Then explain it. I dont' believe it as we do use the right side of the brain all the time, but I'd love to discuss it.



originally posted by: boymonkey74
But we do use both sides of the brain.
I bet the op thinks we only use 10% of it also...also incorrect.


I know, we do use both sides of the brain and we do use it all, but I would like to read the OP's explanation on how we could have advanced more without science.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

I know the answer magic!.
Paul Daniels is a super real scientist.
lol.
My bet is his answer us nowt original.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Agartha

But we do use both sides of the brain.
I bet the op thinks we only use 10% of it also...also incorrect.


Not quite. 1% more likely



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: crowdedskies

Wrong.
But if you can prove otherwise.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I know the answer magic!.
Paul Daniels is a super real scientist.
lol.
My bet is his answer us nowt original.


Paul Daniel? hahaha

Let see how the OP explains his theory.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

Not quite. 1% more likely


How do you know that, Crowded? Hunch or do you have some evidence?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Agartha

But we do use both sides of the brain.
I bet the op thinks we only use 10% of it also...also incorrect.


Not quite. 1% more likely


The 10 percent of the brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most or all humans only make use of 10 percent (or some other small percentage) of their brains. It has been misattributed to many people, including Albert Einstein.


Neurologist Barry Gordon describes the myth as false, adding, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that (most of) the brain is active almost all the time."[1] Neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein sets out seven kinds of evidence refuting the ten percent myth:[13]

Studies of brain damage: If 90 percent of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.

Brain scans have shown that no matter what one is doing, all brain areas are always active. Some areas are more active at any one time than others, but barring brain damage, there is no part of the brain that is absolutely not functioning.

The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to 20 percent of the body's energy—more than any other organ—despite making up only 2 percent of the human body by weight.[14][15] If 90 percent of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains.

It is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place; given the historical risk of death in childbirth associated with the large brain size (and therefore skull size) of humans,[16] there would be a strong selection pressure against such a large brain size if only 10 percent was actually in use.

Brain imaging (neuroimaging): Technologies such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.

Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.

Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90 percent of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.

Synaptic pruning: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90 percent of the brain were inactive, autopsy of normal adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.


Source

edit on 31.12.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

I know, we do use both sides of the brain and we do use it all, but I would like to read the OP's explanation on how we could have advanced more without science.


The scientific approach obtains so called knowledge through laboratory tests. Actions and reactions are observed, noted , logged and dogmas created. Dogmas after dogmas lead to a scientific conclusions. Conclusions then presented as scientific fact. Then manuals are written; engineers trained and so on.

A car , TV set or boiler breaks down. Engineer is called. Said engineer get dirty hands, brings out spanner, screwdriver; rolls around on floor. Yet tools of Science (spanner, scredriver, valves,engineer) may not have been necessary to fix said damaged object if only science had gone behind the concepts of atoms, electricity and magnetism.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: crowdedskies

Not quite. 1% more likely


How do you know that, Crowded? Hunch or do you have some evidence?


I would say evidence



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I get a feeling he means self realization or spirituality. If humanity would give as much meaning to self-improvement (control of emotion, desires, spiritual side of life) as does for science, then things would be better.

And in this case our brain usage is maybe even lower than his 1%...if we take into account something like all is consciousness and we can be that. Well after self realization then brains are not real and only the mind exists. So talking about percents is pointless. If you get it...

if this is his point, I agree without a doubt.
But I am not religious, just very aware and observant of intuition, thoughts and emotions becouse of meditation. And after superficial things are cleared out of the mind, than a connection with the inner side of us starts to unravel... or so the story goes : )
edit on 14515758821231December3112313115 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)

edit on 14515761611236December3612363115 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies
...Yet tools of Science (spanner, scredriver, valves,engineer) may not have been necessary to fix said damaged object if only science had gone behind the concepts of atoms, electricity and magnetism.

....I would say evidence


How do you go beyond or behind the concepts of atoms etc? Atoms are the building blocks of... everything!!

And what is the evidence?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

How do you go beyond or behind the concepts of atoms etc? Atoms are the building blocks of... everything!!

And what is the evidence?


If they are the building blocks of everything, more the reason to go behind them.

The evidence is simply that evething is subject to the will. Even the atom.

I would not be posting, if I had not experienced what I say.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: crowdedskies

Evidence requires actually evidence . Opinion does not so until you post actual evidence please refrain from calling it so when it is not.
unless you actually have evidence .



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Agartha

But we do use both sides of the brain.
I bet the op thinks we only use 10% of it also...also incorrect.


Not quite. 1% more likely

We use 100% of the brain around 10% of the time. Unless you have brain damage.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Why should I share my evidence with you if you are a non-believer. Is it not what they call throwing pearls ........



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: crowdedskies

originally posted by: Agartha

How do you go beyond or behind the concepts of atoms etc? Atoms are the building blocks of... everything!!

And what is the evidence?


If they are the building blocks of everything, more the reason to go behind them.

The evidence is simply that evething is subject to the will. Even the atom.

I would not be posting, if I had not experienced what I say.

Then why aren't all cells stem-cells? Why can some cells BECOME stem-cells, and some can BECOME cancer? The same cell that is. The same thing an ungodly amount of numbers that make up YOU, that divide themselves without your knowledge, that work without your thought, that can shut down when you don't want them to.

Are they all conscious too?




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join