IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Brain utilization

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Thu Mar 25 13:45:01 EST 1999

>You hear a common citation that we only use 10% of our brain.  
Sorry, I am stoned and I feel like orcing... Actually in the USA I
have been short of wondering about that.
Neurology of course has a tendency to overlook glia, what is in the
cells and subatomic communications in the brain, and as they tend to
be sense censored like Catholics and System Westies,
on a level the 10% is a funny one.

More seriously stuff in the brain is similar to in the body, so like
different organs in the body there are different areas in the brain
with different tasks.
The own are just part of those and arae meant to interface with
certain other, like in some CPU of many parts.
There are several other areas in the brain and body where if there is
an emergency I guess my areas could request access and override
functions, but as such I do not tend to use it, as I am born a bit
late, feel to have fewer parallel tracking powers and too erratic
energies concerning many systems. But from folks in Asia and into
magic I heard that there are many who train access to weird areas in
the body, and of the brainsurfers also to weird places in the brain.

To transform to other ranges, stay tuned there and build loads of
according axon pathways to give more access powers to other areas if
seriously done is an art done by some from Westies rated "MBD",
"autist" and some of the practicers of magic.  Highest reputation so
far of all I know have MBD telepaths, the most amazing one I heard of
being early born, 6 1/2 months, some stuff in his brain seeming at an
"earlier stage" (for example concerning neocortex differentiation and
some magic tuning).
But for the normal borns and the sense censored such tends to be
pretty irrelevant, in other words there might not be that much point
in thinking about using other areas of the brain.

If you practice you can also command a faster or lower beat of your
heart, so then you "use" you heart, but that might be more unhealthy
and ABuse.

Maybe regard the ten percent thingie as a theorie of some sense
censored headblind, who might have been referring to that for many
there are ways to increase some frontal functions like mathematics,
reading longer texts a few times and then being able to repeat them
and stuff like that  to ten times the capacities before.

>  My guess is that "they" mean only 10% of the neurons in the brain are
>firing at any one time,
Compare deep sleep with dreaming and awake stages of people
meditating, normal born, MBD and epileptic
in different emotional stages, 
and you might arrive at the conclusion that going 10%ing concerning
"firing" rates might be a little bit too simplistic.

>or that 10% of the total possible glucose consumption is observed at any one time. 
(Why is it that the total possible glucose consumption reminds me more
of settings of systems in the body and I find it hard to give it a
constant total?)

> If it's the former, then I wouldn't ever want to use 100%, because I would definitely be in a very
>chaotic and fairly useless state of mind. 
Not necessarily if you are going for enlightenment.

>Who's to say what the "capacity" of the brain is, anyway?
 :-)=   No comment of an LSD "shareware brainvampire"
but that different persons of different races have different brains,
and that I would not even dare to guess for a dolphin or parrot.

>  I roughly estimated that if each neuron had on average, say 100
>connections, and each connection stored, say a 32-bit floating point
>value (the synaptic "weight" of the connection), and there were say, 10
>billion functional neurons in the brain,

For me such tends to be pretty irrelevant, as I believe I can give
vague alteration commands for a few areas for such stuff, including
cell numbers.

You think too much like a Westie and too little like a magician.
That is why you try to reduce the brain to undifferentiated neurons
and axons, and do not perceive subatomically correlations well enough.
And additionally, though talking about more modern axon activity, you
are not segregating between what different systems in the brain are
good for / are processing.
Without the front off-line, I'd likely not know what 7+6 is.
Though I do not exclude I might be able to visualize three or four in
my brain's playground and then count them.

> 10% ... What's the deal?

That if some people were more critical than of just about 10 % of
stuff they hear that is wrong, they might at some point kick out more
than 10 % of their belief and replace it with more of what IS.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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