IUBio

Ten Percent Myth

mat mats_trash at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 21 12:58:03 EST 2002


> Your presuppositions that I have implied such is a gross error on your
> part.
> You consistanly mention such words as mystical, etheral,
> philosophical, and other such terms that seem to assume that you know
> exactly what you are talking about and the rest is "?".  You must have
> some type of minor in english.  traditional english.  Can you only
> missmatch (some call it critical reading) someone elses language?  How
> about you produce your own.  Lets see some of your papers on the
> newsgroup.  I have scanned your posts.  Mostly critiques, nothing new.

Calm down.  There is no presupposition in my post. with what could I
evidence could I have presupposed?  all I am doing is trying to
understand what your are saying.  now you may not view it as slighty
outlandish but I think most people here would agree that claiming you
might be able to determine the genotype of your child by accessing
unconscious neural processes (or something like that because I still
don't understand what your points are in your posts) is just nonsense.

As to my posts, well I don't pretend to be making huge advances in
understanding the brain, but I ain't specualting about ludicrous
possibilities either.  I don't have a minor in English, I have a
medical degree. Currently I am studying the cerebral cortex.  We could
talk about neuroscience if you wanted (that is what this forum is for
after all)  We could discuss strange attractors in the chaotic
patterns of the EEG, describing the meaning within perception.  If you
wanted of course, but you seem more interested in talking about your
fingernails.

> 
> 
> > As such, anything that is influenced
> > by these neurones can be said to be under neural control.  In the
> > human, neurones (with glia) form the CNS and the peripheral and
> > autonomic system.  Further, *you* (in the strongest sense - as in the
> > mental you) are exhausted by the nervous system, you exist *within* it
> > and not anywhere else.  Of course this is my physcicalist viewpoint,
> > but for the following it doesn't actually matter:
> > The nervous system innervates several effector systems, notably
> > muscles, endocrine glands etc..  Therefore these are under neural
> > control, whether they are under apparent volitional control is another
> > matter.  However things like wound healing are local events mostly
> > mediated by local humaoral and immunoligcal responses.  Though you
> > could argue that given the body is an integrated system, some
> > endocrine gland activation distantly influenced the wound healing, to
> > say it is under an degree on neural 'control' is just plain wrong.
> > 
> > Are you trying to say that conscious control = neural control and that
> > unconscious control is everything else?  This is a very different
> > usage from most people's where they take unconscious to mean a type of
> > neural functional level that does not seem to be directly accesible.
> > 
> > Of course all behaviours and thoughts are under neural control, but
> > the conscious/unconscious debate is not actually relevant to the
> > functionig of those neural systems and in fact talking about such
> > issues as been an almost no-go area for neuroscientists for a long
> > time.  Interest is resurging recently, but it is a much a matter of
> > philosophical speulation as science proper.
> 
> 
> 
> ok, this term philosophical is driving me nuts.  What does it mean?
> What's the oppisite?  In so far as YOUR beliefs are concerned.  BE
> explicit.
> 

When I use the term philosophical here I mean it in the generic sense
- using logical argument to arrive at a concept or conclusion, but not
based on any kind of scientific evidence (usually).  Philosophers play
around with concepts within language and using apparently logical
arguments attempt to deduce the deeper nature of things.  However,
philosophy is only ever as good as the evidence it uses and, in the
field of mind at least, it is mostly concerned with introspective
evidence or obervation of the gross behaviour of others.  Therefore,
it is almost impossible for philosophers to give us a detailed theory
of the structure and function of the brain.  What you seem to being
doing is just postulating about brain function using things from your
own subjective experience i.e. you are engaging in a sort of
speculative philosophical thought.  Neuroscience is not interested in
the subjective experience of people (for the most part) just in how
the brain works to interpret sensory information and how it integrates
all that to produce behaviour.  Recently, neuroscientists have become
more interested in how the neural function mechanisms they have
described give rise to objective experience.  At this point,
philosophy and neuroscience come into contact (indeed it is called
neurophilosophy) but the scientific basis of nerual function is not
discarded for some fanciful notions such as an analogue continuum of
mind or the like.

Im not saying philosophy is not rigourous in what it tries to do, and
it is very interesting and often helpful in clarifying scientific
objectives, but its not going to give me the kinetics of a sodium
channel anytime soon becuase that is not what it is for.

> 
> > 
> > All you are giving is quasi-religious speculation about your
> > subjective take on how your brain works wthout having actually
> > examined the physiological and neuroscientific evidence.  Thats your
> > perogative, but don't claim then that you know how the brain works.
> 
> quasi-religious?    Your indirect attempt to discredit one model for
> another is pretty silly.

Look you may think your ideas are pretty good, fine, ok, I don't
really care.  However I will bet every last penny I have that if you
tried to publish your ideas about an analogue continuum mediating
unconscious control of fingernail growth or how giggling helps you
heal, in a scientific journal they would (not so politely) decline
your paper.  As would probably every other jorunal in the world.  You
could publish a website about it though.
 
> 
> subjective?  oops you have a objective perspective?  holy crap, we
> have the first human with a objective take on things.  seems like a
> cloudy idea to me.

I believe it is called something along the lines of inter-subjective
objectivity. When I conduct my experiments on the cerebral cortex,
what I do and my results are available for all to see.  Same with all
the other 'neurscientific' evidence through history.  I don't do stuff
like saying 'I'm making a drug in my mind now, boy does it feel good'

> 
> i claimed how the brain works?...yea, i did that.  

You should have a nobel prize already


> I don't care what you think about me.  Explain what neuroscience IS!  

The study of the brain obtaining evidence which everyone can observe
(i.e. not introspective) giving falsifiable theories (i.e. not about
analogue continuua (if thats the correct plural))
Its just science applied to the brain.
  
> > 
> > > Bearing in mind that I can use language to chop all this apart, at
> > > times I choose not to.
> >  
> > What?
> 
> exactly.

OK..... is this some posturing about your lingustic capabilities?

> Forget the definitions, simply do the following.  Respond to the
> following by formulating a explination that any normal person would
> understand:
>
> "Can somone explain to me the theory that humans use 10 percent of
> their brain? The details seem sketchy."

Simple - the details don't seem sketchy they ARE sketchy because its a
bullshit theory based on speculation or extrapolation from
inappropriate evidence. Science is not able yet to definitively
determine which areas of the brain are in use at any given time (fMRI,
PET, MEG are all disputable) so it has no hope of giving such a
precise theory as that above.  Do you actually believe it then?




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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