>> Here, I thought of an analogy: right now I am using 50% of my limbs,
because
>> I am typing but sitting. I do not describe my legs as "dormant", even
though
>> they are not in use at this moment, nor do I say that I only use 50% of
my
>> limbs, even if I had a tendency to only use two at a time.
>>Try typing while dancing a jig... tough row to hoe. The neural dynamics
>which elicit behavior of one's legs (trunk, arms hands, head, eyes
>(everything)) are participating in one's typing by just adding what's
>necessary and, otherwise, doing as little contrary stuff as possible. In
>such, everything is 100% active, even though every dynamic that each
>thing is capable of is not being, simultaneously, output.
As I told the other fellow who pointed this out (by the way, I know someone
who undoubtedly could dance a jig and type at the same time--but not very
well), good point. I failed to think out what I myself was saying. As I
added there, though, it just seems to me to reinforce the idea that no part
of the brain is actually "dormant" as these 10% (etc.) theories have it.
>All those quiescent neurons are "just" "good soldiers", actively doing
>their parts in the manifestation of behavior's unfolding. If they
>weren't, "consciousness" would have detectable "holes" in it.
Unless, of course (Devil's advocate here) we edit these gaps out through
association, like the sound of blood in our ears. I don't really think so,
but one can't deny the possibility.
>The "% brain use" Q is the unfortunate thing, born in ignorance, that
>must be relegated to the scrap heap. ken collins
Agreed--I've been arguing *against* it all this time anyway.
--Katrina