IUBio

Brain Use/40 hertz

Richard Sargent dsargent at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jan 11 13:35:39 EST 1999



DK wrote:

> >> 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.

That's because the two actions are so dissimilar as to not even belong in the
same context.

> 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.

The human mind can learn to such expertise combinations of activities that your
observations do not seem logical.  (prior comment) -- Humans cannot demonstrate
superhuman ability, obviously, by doing with proficiciency activities which
require Total body coordination ( as dancing) and one which  requires hand-eye
coordination  during performance of which a sedentary (sitting) position is
preferred.

> 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.

The human brain is only 10% functional, at best.The first to outline this
theory, later proved a fact by others, was Australian Neurology Nobel Laureate
Sir John
Eccles. (Lecture: University of Colorado, University Memorial Center Boulder,
July 31, 1974.) "The brain indicates
its powers are endless."

In England, John Lorber did autopsies on hydrocephalics. This illness causes
all but the 1/6th inch layer of brain tissue
to be dissolved by acidic spinal fluid. He tested the IQ's of patients before
and during the disease. His findings showed
that IQ remained constant up to death. Although over 90% of brain tissue was
destroyed by the disease, it had no
impact on what we consider to be normal intelligence.

> >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.

Russian neurosurgeon Alexandre Luria proved that the 1/3 bulk of frontal lobes
are mostly dormant. He did this byperforming ablation (surgical removal)
experiments on persons. He gave physiological and psychological tests before,
cut out parts and
whole frontal lboes, the re-tested after. His conclusion: removal of part or
all of frontal lobes causes no major change
in brain function, (some change in mood alteration). The frontal lobes are
mostly dormant, asleep.

> >The "% brain use" Q is the unfortunate thing, born in ignorance, that
> >must be relegated to the scrap heap. ken collins

Why is it 'born in ignorance?  because you have devised some theory that is
more appealing to your ignorant conscious self?

> Agreed--I've been arguing *against* it all this time anyway.
> --Katrina

Using what as data to support contradiction of %bu theory?  One has to stick
with the scientific method if they want to be taken seriously.  Obviously,
there have been many experiments conducted leading to the commonly held %bu
conclusion of 10%.  The extent of the information you can access on the Web
approaches absurdity, and certainly will constitute 'enough' information for an
informed conclusion to be postulated.

My name is Peter, not Richard, as the Sender name may misinform you.

Peter Sargent




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net