Confirm me this:

Greetings,

1) Do we use our brain in full capacity? i mean is the 10% thing fake or not?

2) How do we use our brain cells? as a chain to get from one cell to another by jumpin from one to another? what about the dead cells?


I'm saying this just to know if we want to remember something does we "navigate" our brain, like it's used in the internet, getting from place to another, or we get what we want directly without passing by any thought, like going to a library and go directly to the book u want?

1. I have heard the 10% thing as well, but I don't know if it is true (I think it is tho)

2. Our brain cells are connected by a type of nerve (like the things that help denote heat to your body).

Your last question is answered by both: we navigate our brains for the info, but it is done so fast it is like we use no thoughts for it.

hello Vhaerun,

thanx for the reply,

So you think we navigate jumpin from cell to another instead of going to the destination without passing by other infos? if this is true in science, what happened if there's a dead cell in between?

yea, i think the 10% thing is real. the human body is a strange thing, i have no clue how they work though, and i don't really care, as long as they do!

It prolly passes it over, not paying it any mind, like a rich guy does to a homeless man in New York

1) At a time, yes. We use all of our brain, just not all at once or all for the same thing. So while we only use about 10% at a time we do at different points use all of our brain.

2) Brain cells connect by axom and dendrite, which are chemical senders and reciever on cells. A small electric impulse causes brain cells to give off chemicals which then trigger other cells.

Here is another thread on the same subject, hopefully you can get some answers from it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

according to this web site we use 100% of our braincells

faculty.washington.edu...

Originally posted by pantha
according to this web site we use 100% of our braincells

faculty.washington.edu...

Thats an intresting site.

"Perhaps when people use the 10% brain statement, they mean that only one out of every ten nerve cells is essential or used at any one time? How would such a measurement be made? Even if neurons are not firing action potentials, they may still be receiving signals from other neurons"

I have often heard it said, even in the years before such machines as PET scanners became commonplace, that humans only use 10 or 20 per cent of their brains. Can anyone tell me on what possible basis such a statement can be justified?
Henry Valier , [It can't be true but this urban myth is now so well established that it would be interesting to find out if anyone knows of its origins--Ed.]

In the 1960s and 1970s new techniques, such as staining and microelectrode stimulation, allowed the function of particular brain areas to be understood far better. This meant that, for example, the area of the brain used for vision could be delineated with some accuracy. However, some areas of the brain stubbornly refused to display such specialisation and appeared to serve no specific function. So the myth grew that a large proportion of our brains remains unused. The argument roughly translates as, "We don't know what this bit of the brain does, therefore this bit of the brain does nothing." Needless to say, the brain (in its entirety) continued to work away oblivious to some of the more far-fetched conclusions of its owner.
Marcus Munafo , Psychology Department University of Southampton

Other answers can be found here:www.newscientist.com...

If we DON'T use portions of our brain, what would stop someone from removing that portion and replacing it with some sort of biomechanical device to enhance themselves?

So do retarded people use less of their brain or do they have fewer brain cells to use? I'm not being a jerk here I'm actually curious because if the answer is that they just use less of their brain then I would presume they have the capacity to be fully functioning and thus retardation can be cured (with research). But if it is merely that they have fewer brain cells or brain damage then that is a different story.

I find the brain extremely interesting. And even more so I find the mind interesting. Are they one in the same? I think the human mind is more of a mystery than UFOs, secret societies and even God.

/start ranting

Here is my small tidbit abt that.

Retarded ppl have brain damage. that is why they are the way they are.


The brain is merely the mass of nerve endings from your body and a mixture of brain cells that create the mind.

The mind is a completely different thing. Instead of being a blob, it is the thing created BY the blob (brain, for those who didn't realize it) It has many levels (including the conscious mind, subconscious mind, among others not yet discovered) Each level has its own expertise (the conscious mind is for everyday thoughts, the subconscious mind for the dream thoughts, etc.) right now, the mind is completely "unexplored territory" for many. The mind is thought to control all things "psychic" (including telepathy) If this is true, then humanity has yet to achieve its full potential...


/end ranting

maybe the unused parts of the brain are a sixth or seventh sense that we used to have or must be unlocked.......but if those are used then forget what i said

Originally posted by EYE-YAD
Greetings,

1) Do we use our brain in full capacity? i mean is the 10% thing fake or not?

its fake. its an 'urban legend'

2) How do we use our brain cells? as a chain to get from one cell to another by jumpin from one to another? what about the dead cells?

Neurons are composed of a few parts, the most relevant of which are the body and the axon. The body (and other end) has lots of little branches that come off it. These branches are where the nerve cell interfaces with dozens and dozens of other nerve cells. The branches from the different nerve cells nearly touch one another, the space in between is the synapse When an electrical impulse travels down the axon to the body, it can cause a reaction at the branch, near the synapse. Chemicals can get released into the synapse. These chemicals can trigger another electric impulse (an action potential ) to travel down the branch, to the bdy, then to the axon, and on to other cells. The individual nerve cells can 'sum' these nerve impulses from multiple cells (no, they don't count them, a single impulse from a single cell usually won't trigger a response, sometimes it takes several at once, ie a stronger total impulse) and respond with their own impulses.

I'm saying this just to know if we want to remember something does we "navigate" our brain, like it's used in the internet, getting from place to another, or we get what we want directly without passing by any thought, like going to a library and go directly to the book u want?

To understand this i recomend you spend the next 60 or 70 years of your life researching and experimenting with neurobiology. Keep in mind tho, you might not get an answer still.

hey, cool responses!

My real intention of posting this post because of this:

Do you know the story of Adam and Eve? of course, duh!

Anyways, pretend that they really existed and they eat the fruit of knowledge, that means they know "everything"*.

And because they know "everything"*, and they were the first human beings, we might know "everything"* as well!

* "everything" = knowledge and ideas (e.g. gravity theory, math, god existence, etc )

And the knowledge of everything is stored in our brains, but we couldn't reach that info or knowledge because there are maybe cells (dead cells) blocking the road to reach, do you get my point?

Basically, all the inventions and discoveries (in terms of logic, not places or things) are already stored in our brains, and to reach that knowledge we need to traspass thus dead cells! (or anything that blocks the path)!

If you see in the history, there are "odd" things happened in terms of discovering and inventing new things, for instance, how did ancient civilazations grew up really fast compared to the other who basically were like them in few years back? how did the islamic empire grew rapidly just after the religion was founded? and the renesance? what about Isaac Newton? how did he figured the gravity out by seeing an apple falling and reading in the same time?????

Ok, for the Isaac Newton, i think he wasn't reading, he was more "smoking a pot that killed thus dead cells in his brain"?

What do u guys think??

Originally posted by EYE-YAD

And the knowledge of everything is stored in our brains, but we couldn't reach that info or knowledge because there are maybe cells (dead cells) blocking the road to reach, do you get my point?

No. This is not how neuro-transmission works. Individual cells do not store knowledge, and 'dead cells', well, brain damage would be a bad thing certianly.

Basically, all the inventions and discoveries (in terms of logic, not places or things) are already stored in our brains, and to reach that knowledge we need to traspass thus dead cells! (or anything that blocks the path)!

Ok, thats interesting. But since we don't 'only use 10% of our brains', is there any reason to think this?

how did ancient civilazations grew up really fast compared to the other who basically were like them in few years back? how did the islamic empire grew rapidly just after the religion was founded? and the renesance?

Perhaps you need to read some history in order to get the proper anwers to those questions. What makes you think that the old civilizations sprung up quickly?

The islamic empire expanded reapidly because it was effective at doing so. They were successful in military battles against their enemies and were able to prevent, one way or another, the people in those newly acquired territories from overthrowing them later on. The rennaissance wasn't quick either and took a long time to spread throughout europe, and also keep in mind that its not like people were walking around saying 'gosh, i like this rennaissance period better than that yucky dark ages we had a while ago'. One of the major stimuli for it was the 'rediscovery' of the texts from 'classical' civilization (ie greek and roman).

what about Isaac Newton? how did he figured the gravity out by seeing an apple falling and reading in the same time?????

Ok, for the Isaac Newton, i think he wasn't reading, he was more "smoking a pot that killed thus dead cells in his brain"?

Newton didn't come up with his theory of gravity by getting bonked on the head with an apple.

I really would suggest reading some history books first, and trying to explain events and situations after doing that.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by Nygdan]