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.

 

Half of All Science Teachers Are Completely Wrong About the Brain...

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
considering things are said like: your guts are your second brain, I'm going with the whole organism is part of the brain...
so the 10 percent thing would be just a pop confabulation

also coming from a family of science teachers ( at the top of the pay scale too) who can't do so they teach:
as long as they get paid
truth has if all to do with it

edit on 7-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Dark Ghost
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


You have it wrong.

"Use" and "utilise its full potential" are different.

To use your colour analogy:

a) One can "use" their brain to determine that blue is simply the colour somewhere between violet and green on the optical spectrum.

For example: These words are BLUE.

b) One can "utilise the potential" of their brain to determine that blue can be used in range of contexts not limited to describing a colour, but also an emotion, feeling, group affiliation etc.

For example: Peter felt sad when he saw a news story about the Bloods fighting with the Crips.




I'm not 100% certain as to why, but you seem to feel the need to be correct here. To not concede that we are basically dealing with an issue of semantics, and pretty much saying the same thing.

So.....


Let it henceforth be known that you ARE CORRECT!

I bow in your excellence, and maintain the greatest hope that some of that excellence might rub off on me.....may osmosis work in my favor here (please, pretty please!!!).....

Please, forgive me for suggesting we were possibly on the same wavelength.

Clearly, I was wrong!





posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
As the human mind has potential capabilities (developed, for example, through different forms of yogic meditation and called "siddhis") that have no parallel neurological processes, most human beings use only a minute fraction of what they would be capable of if they only trained themselves,

Now that is a far more intriguing 'fact', if I may be allowed to claim this statement as such.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
What I had learned was that there are different ways to measure the brain towards the purpose of determining the ratios. For example, in terms of brain mass the ratio is one value, but in terms of caloric energy consumption it is entirely different.

In the case of sporadic coding, the waste of having all your brain undergoing chemical traffic is minimized by intelligently controlling a number of parallel processes by engaging only those that a particular circumstance would require.

I agree to a large extent, as self-evident as it may seem to be a matter of fundamental biophysics, I propose it may not be. There is a quantum element at work within the human brain. The observer projects some manner of influence over the observed... we have a ways to go before we have that figured out.

But ultimately, the best number to say I thought was at any given time during consciousness, humans brains idle at about 20-30% in terms of electrochemical activity. In infants its like 70%.

Go figure.


edit on 7-2-2014 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


WOW...whats with the need to go all on the extreme defensive and put forth absurd notions about my intentions?

I felt that you might have misunderstood what the person you were replying to was saying, so offered what I believed was the point they were attempting to make.

I now feel confident you did misunderstand before and have again. Unless you are trying to be obtuse and drown yourself in petty sarcasm?



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Dark Ghost
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


WOW...whats with the need to go all on the extreme defensive and put forth absurd notions about my intentions?

I felt that you might have misunderstood what the person you were replying to was saying, so offered what I believed was the point they were attempting to make.

I now feel confident you did misunderstand before and have again. Unless you are trying to be obtuse and drown yourself in petty sarcasm?



Laughingly, in a word, my response is....

No.



new topics

top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join