| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
 |
|
On 1 Oct 2003 20:15:16 -0700, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
[quote]dsutherland7@hotmail.com (neepy) wrote in message news:<d4bd1f7c.0309020538.4ca24efa@posting.google.com>...
dnsnz@cs.com (RAGS Online) wrote in message news:<d847dcee.0309020040.3b7f5053@posting.google.com>...
Albert Einstein said we use less than 10% of our brain>s capabilities.
How could I tap into the other 90%?
Are there any homestudy courses or books you guys recommend?
Thanks!
Einstein was wrong (after all, he was a physicist not a neuroscientist).
Start here (further links at bottom of page):
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Einstein may have been literally wrong, but it seems likely he was
right in some sense. Most people don>t think very hard very often ...
if conscious thinking is a measure of brain use. Excess thinking
capacity is often a burden rather than a boon in modern life, and best
extinguished.
[/quote]
Perhaps we should start with your own excess thinking capacity.
Surely this is the same Edward Green who authored the Calculus on a
Shoestring thread a while back to such critical acclaim. Perhaps your
excess thinking capacity is not quite that much after all.
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Edward Green
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:00 am Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f7c3f68.55815625@netnews.att.net>...
<snip backhanded insulcomplement>
And from your behavior in said thread I too think you may have been
close to 100% capacity, but that the signal was chaotic.
I actually agree with the use it or lose it comments: it>s impossible
to run your mind at only 10% capacity _for long_. It starts shrinking
through disuse. OTOH, more optimistically, it can also be distended
through use: like your stomach. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2003 19:00:18 -0700, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
[quote]lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f7c3f68.55815625@netnews.att.net>...
snip backhanded insulcomplement
[/quote]
Well the comment had already been written before I realized who I was
addressing. Quite a few project their own feelings to others and the
universe at large.
[quote]
And from your behavior in said thread I too think you may have been
close to 100% capacity, but that the signal was chaotic.
[/quote]
Ah yes a memorable exchange. A fascinating subject but as I recall
towards the end it did no one credit.
[quote]
I actually agree with the use it or lose it comments: it>s impossible
to run your mind at only 10% capacity _for long_. It starts shrinking
through disuse. OTOH, more optimistically, it can also be distended
through use: like your stomach.
[/quote]
Or like the stomach put into shape through disciplined use.
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Edward Green
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:32 am Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f7d8c30.64303416@netnews.att.net>...
[quote]On 2 Oct 2003 19:00:18 -0700, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f7c3f68.55815625@netnews.att.net>...
snip backhanded insulcomplement
Well the comment had already been written before I realized who I was
addressing. Quite a few project their own feelings to others and the
universe at large.
[/quote]
Your comment actually reminded me of Bilbo Baggins' remark at his
100-somethingth birthday party (in the book ... I was a Tolkein fan if
not a fanatic, but oddly have no desire to see the movies). It set
his guests to puzzling because they couldn>t figure out if it parsed
into a complement or an insult.
No, I can>t recall the correct quote.
[quote]And from your behavior in said thread I too think you may have been
close to 100% capacity, but that the signal was chaotic.
Ah yes a memorable exchange. A fascinating subject but as I recall
towards the end it did no one credit.
I actually agree with the use it or lose it comments: it>s impossible
to run your mind at only 10% capacity _for long_. It starts shrinking
through disuse. OTOH, more optimistically, it can also be distended
through use: like your stomach.
Or like the stomach put into shape through disciplined use.
[/quote]
Well yes -- I see my analogy matched a well-used mind with a fat
stomach. Very rumanitive. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:24 am Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2003 21:32:55 -0700, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
[quote]lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f7d8c30.64303416@netnews.att.net>...
On 2 Oct 2003 19:00:18 -0700, nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3f7c3f68.55815625@netnews.att.net>...
snip backhanded insulcomplement
Well the comment had already been written before I realized who I was
addressing. Quite a few project their own feelings to others and the
universe at large.
Your comment actually reminded me of Bilbo Baggins' remark at his
100-somethingth birthday party (in the book ... I was a Tolkein fan if
not a fanatic, but oddly have no desire to see the movies). It set
his guests to puzzling because they couldn>t figure out if it parsed
into a complement or an insult.
No, I can>t recall the correct quote.
[/quote]
The great thing about ambivalent referrents. Not quite as pleasing as
outright compliments because it makes one consider for himself which
one is worthy of.
[quote]
And from your behavior in said thread I too think you may have been
close to 100% capacity, but that the signal was chaotic.
Ah yes a memorable exchange. A fascinating subject but as I recall
towards the end it did no one credit.
I actually agree with the use it or lose it comments: it>s impossible
to run your mind at only 10% capacity _for long_. It starts shrinking
through disuse. OTOH, more optimistically, it can also be distended
through use: like your stomach.
Or like the stomach put into shape through disciplined use.
Well yes -- I see my analogy matched a well-used mind with a fat
stomach. Very rumanitive.
[/quote]
I>ve had several months to consider my own sins in this respect. It>s
quite possible that the squeaky wheel indeed gets the oil but it also
promotes counterproductive reactionary alignments. Squeakiness
undoubtedly has more promotional than communicative value.
I suspect that in the course of discussions I violated several subtle
dynamic considerations. If anything of substance is intended to be
conveyed it should probably be limited to a cycle of six iterations.
If it cannot be conveyed in six conversational cycles it probably
cannot be conveyed at all. And if further elaboration is necessary it
should probably be started on a new thread restricted to that aspect.
Another more interesting problem concerns replying to more than one
correspondent in a particular thread. I think it rather gets into the
dynamics of the well known mutiple body problem in gravitational
mechanics. Basically one introduces an intractable element into the
conversation which is probably unresolvable. There would seem to be a
level of built in frustration triggering all kinds of unintended side
effects.
If you>ll excuse the rather far fetched analogy, it>s somewhat like
the problem with terrorism where an unrelated third party is attacked.
In the words of the mystery writer Martha Grimes one just winds up
killing all the wrong people.
Of course it>s not always easy to tell who the right person is. But I
strongly suspect this is less of a problem for terrorists than for
conversationalists on the usenet. One never quite knows who one is
talking to and sometimes not even why.
In any event I believe this is my third iteration on this particular
thread.
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
pavan03
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:17 am Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
Byron Canfield wrote:
[quote]"Geeman" <gedunk62@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3635337f.0309051529.468003af@posting.google.com...
Seroiusly, though, the human brain and soul
-- yes, science people, there IS a soul --
I have my own beliefs about what constitutes what is often described
as the
"soul" (and which, I>m sure, differ greatly from yours), but
nonetheless,
such a statement -- that there IS a soul -- is only properly
qualified as an
opinion or a belief, since it is neither provable nor disprovable,
which is
the penultimate definition of a NON-fact.
[/quote]
Hmm..this is puzzling. So first of all, a simple question to ask is
"what are you?"
You>re not made of matter, because that body that you>re in
1)continuously gets replaced throughout your life: cells die, new
cells take their place
2)**ALL** the matter, whatever comprises the physical body, remains
after death, however you (the thing that knows itself as "I") does
not.
By a soul, all that>s meant is you--that thing that>s capable of
knowing feeling, wanting, etc. that, rather than being made of matter,
is made of consciousness. So, in a sense, everyone knows the existence
of a soul--it>s what>s in a body making it function,it>s what people
refer to as "I". The problem is, that we identify ourselves as the
body, because we control it, because what affects the body is
experienced by the soul.
But let>s analyze this further--let>s say there is no soul. First of
all, I don>t think you can come up with any way of defining life, or
even explaining how it>s possible for you to exist throughout your
life, when no physical part of the body persists.
I assume that you have certain beliefs, AND you agree that
combinations of molecules cannot "believe" anything? For example, it
wouldn>t make sense to say a computer believes something, or the food
I eat believes anything. Likewise it wouldn>t make sense to say that
my brain, for example, believes something.
Then in that case, what>s believing here--it>s not made of matter,
it>s something non-physical. You can>t simply say that the existence
of a soul is a "belief", unless you can come up with something other
than a soul that>s "believing". No combination of atoms, molecules,
and energy can "believe" something, correct?
The existence of a soul is proven based on one>s own
experience--every individual knows that he exists. That thing that>s
knowing, that knows itself, that>s a soul. Unlike matter, it persists
throughout life, and when it>s no longer there, such a body is called
a "dead body".
For something to be proven, we don>t have to just rely on science.
For example, we know right and wrong exist, but science can never
prove the existence of such things. We don>t see a soul, but I think
everyone knows that after death, when they (that soul) is no longer
there, neither will the body function, nor will chemical changes to
the body result in an experience.
Regards,
Monsieur Lynx |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve Harris sbharris@RO
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:56 am Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
Monsieur_Lynx@brown.edu (pavan03) wrote in message news:<68f44414.0310121317.39e494ef@posting.google.com>...
[quote]But let>s analyze this further--let>s say there is no soul. First of
all, I don>t think you can come up with any way of defining life, or
even explaining how it>s possible for you to exist throughout your
life, when no physical part of the body persists.
[/quote]
Sure I can. Life and the individual are both matters of information.
Euclid>s Elements of Geometry and Homer>s Oddysey, for example, both
continue to exist despite lack of originals. The same would be true of
any work of art or science. That does not mean that works of art are
alive, nor that they exist as "souls". Nor that they would exist when
all physical copies were destroyed.
[quote]I assume that you have certain beliefs, AND you agree that
combinations of molecules cannot "believe" anything?
[/quote]
Not at all. It>s fairly easy to see that complex peices of software
interact as through they believed things. Play a good chess computer
and go after the king. The software will not ignore you. That>s
belief. Or behavior that looks like belief, which is the same thing.
After all, I have beliefs, but all I can tell about YOU is that you
ACT like you have beliefs. I have no idea what you feel like inside,
except by induction. But then, the same is true of what dogs feel
like, houseflies feel like, bacteria feel like, bacteriophages feel
like, and chess-playing computers feel like.
[quote]The existence of a soul is proven based on one>s own
experience--every individual knows that he exists. That thing that>s
knowing, that knows itself, that>s a soul.
[/quote]
Eh? Do animals have one? Insects? Microbes? Comatose people?
Conservative Republicans?
SBH |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve Harris sbharris@RO
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:08 am Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
Monsieur_Lynx@brown.edu (pavan03) wrote in message news:<68f44414.0310121317.39e494ef@posting.google.com>...
[quote]But let>s analyze this further--let>s say there is no soul. First of
all, I don>t think you can come up with any way of defining life, or
even explaining how it>s possible for you to exist throughout your
life, when no physical part of the body persists.
[/quote]
Sure I can. Life and the individual are both matters of information.
Euclid>s Elements of Geometry and Homer>s Oddysey, for example, both
continue to exist despite lack of originals. The same would be true of
any work of art or science. That does not mean that works of art are
alive, nor that they exist as "souls". Nor that they would exist when
all physical copies were destroyed.
[quote]I assume that you have certain beliefs, AND you agree that
combinations of molecules cannot "believe" anything?
[/quote]
Not at all. It>s fairly easy to see that complex peices of software
interact as through they believed things. Play a good chess computer
and go after the king. The software will not ignore you. That>s
belief. Or behavior that looks like belief, which is the same thing.
After all, I have beliefs, but all I can tell about YOU is that you
ACT like you have beliefs. I have no idea what you feel like inside,
except by induction. But then, the same is true of what dogs feel
like, houseflies feel like, bacteria feel like, bacteriophages feel
like, and chess-playing computers feel like.
[quote]The existence of a soul is proven based on one>s own
experience--every individual knows that he exists. That thing that>s
knowing, that knows itself, that>s a soul.
[/quote]
Eh? Do animals have one? Insects? Microbes? Comatose people?
Conservative Republicans?
SBH |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve Harris sbharris@RO
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:09 am Post subject: Re: How could I use 100% of my brain>s capabilities? |
|
|
Monsieur_Lynx@brown.edu (pavan03) wrote in message news:<68f44414.0310121317.39e494ef@posting.google.com>...
[quote]But let>s analyze this further--let>s say there is no soul. First of
all, I don>t think you can come up with any way of defining life, or
even explaining how it>s possible for you to exist throughout your
life, when no physical part of the body persists.
[/quote]
Sure I can. Life and the individual are both matters of information.
Euclid>s Elements of Geometry and Homer>s Oddysey, for example, both
continue to exist despite lack of originals. The same would be true of
any work of art or science. That does not mean that works of art are
alive, nor that they exist as "souls". Nor that they would exist when
all physical copies were destroyed.
[quote]I assume that you have certain beliefs, AND you agree that
combinations of molecules cannot "believe" anything?
[/quote]
Not at all. It>s fairly easy to see that complex peices of software
interact as through they believed things. Play a good chess computer
and go after the king. The software will not ignore you. That>s
belief. Or behavior that looks like belief, which is the same thing.
After all, I have beliefs, but all I can tell about YOU is that you
ACT like you have beliefs. I have no idea what you feel like inside,
except by induction. But then, the same is true of what dogs feel
like, houseflies feel like, bacteria feel like, bacteriophages feel
like, and chess-playing computers feel like.
[quote]The existence of a soul is proven based on one>s own
experience--every individual knows that he exists. That thing that>s
knowing, that knows itself, that>s a soul.
[/quote]
Eh? Do animals have one? Insects? Microbes? Comatose people?
Conservative Republicans?
SBH |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
