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.

 

PLEASE read this - what is really going on now

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
OP, for what its worth, thanx for bringing the site EARTHCLINIC to my attention!!!




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
That brain % thing is definitely a myth. We use all of our brain, just at different times and for different reasons. Maybe at any exact moment, we only use some percentage, but the whole "Humans only use 10%, imagine if they used 100%." thing is BS.


No - sorry, it isn't a myth.
(And nothing the current state of science dares to talk about is "definite" anyway.)

If it were a myth, then certain chemicals (NOT illegal drugs) would have no effect on the scope and speed of brain activity - but they do. And I am not talking about "hallucinations" (which is a suspect term in itself).

I am in no position to offer "proof", especially not over the internet, on a public forum, nor am I inclined to do so in any case.
And besides, why would I?
Those who deny it also do so without presenting any "proof", no?


I just wanted to say that there is DEFINITELY no evidence that this is a myth; but there is substantial body of evidence to the contrary.

And that's without counting the fact that people like to confuse the brain with the mind - which is not the same thing, never was, never will be.




[edit on 29-9-2008 by AdAstra]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAstra

No - sorry, it isn't a myth.
(And nothing the current state of science dares to talk about is "definite" anyway.)


Actually, it IS a myth: See?

If you don't trust that source, do a simple Google search and you can find scores of other links.




If it were a myth, then certain chemicals (NOT illegal drugs) would have no effect on the scope and speed of brain activity - but they do. And I am not talking about "hallucinations" (which is a suspect term in itself).


Your deductions are illogical. What on earth do chemicals affecting the brain have to do with how much of it you use?



I am in no position to offer "proof", especially not over the internet, on a public forum, nor am I inclined to do so in any case.
And besides, why would I?
Those who deny it also do so without presenting any "proof", no?



Of course you can't, or won't. Why would you? After all, it's much easier to breeze in here making unsupported claims, and then refuse to back them up. Oops, look like I provided my own evidence, so I must not fit your assumption.



I just wanted to say that there is DEFINITELY no evidence that this is a myth; but there is substantial body of evidence to the contrary.


Really? The irony here is that I've provided the evidence you claim doesn't exist, and you refuse to provide the evidence you say does.

You're off to a great start here!



[edit on 29-9-2008 by thrashee]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AdAstra
 


Unfortunately, this modality of thought does not come easy to many people. I accept that the reason you are not elaborating is because it cannot be expressed in such mediums as this.

However, that, in and of itself renders the point moot.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Unfortunately, this modality of thought does not come easy to many people. I accept that the reason you are not elaborating is because it cannot be expressed in such mediums as this.

However, that, in and of itself renders the point moot.



No, that renders it an unsupported and completely untrue conclusion.

There is only one reason evidence cannot be provided to back up this myth: it simply doesn't exist.




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join