Început de Sch, Sâm 29 sep 2007 · 597 răspunsuri · 51.283 vizualizări
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:Eu gandesc ca daca s-ar dovedi ca folosim doar 10-15-50 la suta, na, din capacitatea creierului, Teoria Evolutiei e contrazisa imho.
La posibilităţile tehnologice actuale, nu văd cum s-ar putea determina ce procent din capacitatea creierului folosim. Orice cifră ar avansa cineva, 12 % sau 92%, nu se bazează dec
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:In primul rand, la fel cum Moskba nu crede in lacrimi, nici eu nu cred in cei 15%.Nici in chestia asta cu capacitatea infinita a creierului nu o cred, desi, spre deosebire de cercetatori, nu stiu nici cat de finita e.
cei 15% care initial erau 3 (folositi in sens peiorativ), apoi au devenit 5...10 % si acum vad ca s-a ajuns la 15%. partea amuzanta e ca ideea de baza ramane aceeasi. 
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:Dar revenind ON, numai gandindu-te la cat de vast si complex e creierul, e cu atat mai greu de crezut in evolutia dintr-o nevertebrata imho.
ale naibii de nevertebrate... ca tocmai ce vazui o chestie legata de caracatite...foarte, foarte tare ! sunt niste mici "extraterestri"... 
asa ca as fi onorata sa aflu ca am evoluat din moluste...
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:Deci ai fost foarte tare. Nu am vazut-o pana acum...
culmea e ca nici eu... 
Enki a scris:"Myths About the Brain - Page 2Where Did the 10% Statement Begin?
The origin of the belief that we use only a small part of our brain is unclear. Perhaps the belief is derived from debates during the early 1800s between those who believed that brain function could be localized to particular regions of the brain and those who believed that the brain acted as a whole. These debates centered around Franz Joseph Gall (1757-1828) and Johann Spurzheim (1776-1832) who developed the field of phrenology: the idea that specific human behaviors and characteristics could be deduced by the pattern and size of bumps on the skull. Not everyone agreed with Gall and Spurzheim. Marie-Jean-Pierre Flourens (1794-1867), an outspoken critic of phrenology, believed that although the cerebral cortex, cerebellum and brainstem had separate functions, each of these areas functioned globally as a whole ("equipotential"). Flourens supported his theories with experiments in which he removed areas of the brain (mostly in pigeons) and showed that behavioral deficits increased with size of the ablation. Although the work of Gustav Fritsch (1838-1927), Eduard Hitzig (1838-1907), Paul Broca (1824-1888) and Karl Wernicke (1848-1904) in the late 1800s provided strong data to counter the theory of equipotentiality, some scientists in the early 1900s appeared to once again favor the notion that the brain acted as a whole.
One prominent researcher who promoted the theories of equipotentiality and "mass action" was Karl Spencer Lashley (1890-1958). Lashley believed that memory was not dependent on any specific portion of the cerebral cortex and that the loss of memory was proportional to the amount of cerebral cortex that was removed. His experiments showed that the ability of rats to solve simple tasks, such as mazes and visual discrimination tests, were unaffected by large cerebral cortical lesions. As long as a certain amount of cortex remained, the rats appeared normal on the tests he administered. For example, in 1939 Lashley reported that rats could perform visual discriminations with only 2% of the visual thalamocortical pathway intact. He even estimated that this behavior required only 700 neurons. In another experiment in 1935, Lashley found that removal of up to 58% of the cerebral cortex did not affect certain types of learning. It is possible that overinterpretation and exaggeration of these data led to the belief that only a small portion of the brain is used. For example, although Lashley's rats may have been able to perform the simple tasks, they were not tested on other more complicated paradigms. In other words, the brain tissue that was removed may have been used for tasks that Lashley did not test. Moreover, Lashley was interested primarily in the cerebral cortex, not in other areas of the brain. Therefore, these data should not be extrapolated to other parts of the brain.
Several public figures have made reference to the 10% brain use statement. American psychologist William James wrote in 1908: "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources". Some famous people without training in neuroscience, such as physicist Albert Einstein and anthropologist Margaret Mead, are also attributed with statements regarding human use of only a small portion of the brain.
Regardless of its origin, the statement that we use only 10% of our brains has been promoted by the popular media for many years. Indeed, many advertisers have jumped on the statement to sell their products. According to these advertisements, if we buy their products, devices, or programs, we will be able to tap into the brain's unused powers and enrich our lives.
What does it mean to "use only 10% of your brain?" Does this statement imply that only 10% of the brain's neurons is active at any one time? If so, how could this be measured? Does the statement assume that only 10% of the brain is firing action potentials at one time? Even if this was true, the discharge of action potentials is not the only function of neurons. Neurons receive a constant barrage of signals from other neurons that result in postsynaptic potentials. Postsynaptic potentials do not always result in the generation of action potentials. Nevertheless, these neurons, even in the absence of generating action potentials, are active. "
Din ce am gasit eu pe net, se pare ca e o idee propagata de ocultisti, care sustin ca restul de 85% serveste... capacitatilor paranormale!
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/prin...n=fa/brain-myth
harald a scris:La posibilităţile tehnologice actuale, nu văd cum s-ar putea determina ce procent din capacitatea creierului folosim. Orice cifră ar avansa cineva, 12 % sau 92%, nu se bazează dec
Editat Lun 10 dec 2007 18:26
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:
hai nu da cu rosii ti-am zis ca habar nu aveam ce sa iti raspund! 
Enki a scris:hai nu da cu rosii
Yeah but still, you're making my eyes sore, Data.
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:Yeah but still, you're making my eyes sore, Data.
Hai ma Kontro, asa rau ai ajuns sa folosesti aceiasi imagine de 2 ori
dark_light a scris:cei 15% care initial erau 3 (folositi in sens peiorativ), apoi au devenit 5...10 % si acum vad ca s-a ajuns la 15%. partea amuzanta e ca ideea de baza ramane aceeasi.
Ma rog, e o prostie.
Ma gandeam ca in eventualitatea in care 'teoria' e veridica si au reglat corect azimutul tensiometrului de folosirea creierului in conditii vitregi - recte Terra, sa consideri ca omul a ramas in viata desi foloseste numai 15%, este contra principiului evolutiei. Voi ce ziceti? Hipotetically speaking, you primates...
dark_light a scris:ale naibii de nevertebrate... ca tocmai ce vazui o chestie legata de caracatite...foarte, foarte tare ! sunt niste mici "extraterestri"...asa ca as fi onorata sa aflu ca am evoluat din moluste...
Dislexia nu ma lasa sa vad din textul asta decat ca ai evoluat din molusca in...femeie?
Credeam ca esti dude. WTF.
Anonymus Kline a scris:Hai ma Kontro, asa rau ai ajuns sa folosesti aceiasi imagine de 2 ori
Pai este mai mult decat expresiva si eminamente custom-made pentru aria asta.
Deci clementa...
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:Ma rog, e o prostie.Ma gandeam ca in eventualitatea in care 'teoria' e veridica si au reglat corect azimutul tensiometrului de folosirea creierului in conditii vitregi - recte Terra, sa consideri ca omul a ramas in viata desi foloseste numai 15%, este contra principiului evolutiei. Voi ce ziceti? Hipotetically speaking, you primates...
pai, daca e sa ne gandim la creier ca la un super-computer bio (ma rog, asta si e...
), sa spui ca foloseste 15% e foarte, dar foarte :
1. zgarcit.
2. generos.
culmea e ca cele doua variante sunt adevarate in acelasi timp...pentru ca nu se cunoaste capacitatea creierului. 
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:Dislexia nu ma lasa sa vad din textul asta decat ca ai evoluat din molusca in...femeie?Credeam ca esti dude. WTF.
oh, man, don't tell me... da, stiu ca gandesc precum un barbat, dar...dude, WTF ?! mereu am scris corect dpdv gramatical, am respectat timpuri si sexe... 
dark_light a scris:pai, daca e sa ne gandim la creier ca la un super-computer bio (ma rog, asta si e...1. zgarcit.
2. generos.
culmea e ca cele doua variante sunt adevarate in acelasi timp...pentru ca nu se cunoaste capacitatea creierului.
Ok, but you're not dancing to the beat anymore: am trecut de aberatia cu whatever la suta si am pus o intrebare ipotetica.
dark_light a scris:oh, man, don't tell me... da, stiu ca gandesc precum un barbat, dar...dude, WTF ?! mereu am scris corect dpdv gramatical, am respectat timpuri si sexe...
Desi nu m-am prea dus pe topicul metafizic cu 'Sex cu forumisti', nu ti-am remarcat pe acolo prezenta. Drept pentru care ma gandeam ca poate esti un barbat decent, desi stiam ca asa ceva nu exista. Stiintific probat.
So, I stand corrected.
K0ntr0VerSy a scris:Ok, but you're not dancing to the beat anymore: am trecut de aberatia cu whatever la suta si am pus o intrebare ipotetica.
daca, ipotetic vorbind, omul foloseste X % din creier, poate sa insemne ca:
(si aici aberez)
1. poate la inceputuri folosea (X-1)%...si a evoluat.
2. peste un milion de ani o sa foloseasca (X+1)% din creier...deci va evolua.
3. de cand a aparut si pana in prezent, tot X % foloseste...deci omul n-a evoluat natural pe planeta asta => in aparitia omului s-a intervenit din exterior, ori prin prelucrarea unei specii existente, ori prin "implant" de specie.
ti-am zis ca aberez...