Ten Percent Myth
kcornwell at home.com
Wed Feb 20 02:29:59 EST 2002
> When did these processes come under neural control at all? You really
> are stepping of the edge if you claim people can *consciously* control
> bodily processe which are not under any sort of neural control.
it seems that if i get myself giggly about something (remembering a
funny event) and can heal myself (healing being a "deep" process
example)~at a greater rate~ or release chemicals into my system that
CHANGE the system, then by conscious decisions I can "directly" change
these bodily processes (I decide with my neural network to think of a
certain time). Is this a neural control? at some point IT is because
I THINK IT and DO it. Perhaps for most people (and this is my point
in the original post) they cannot control the DEEPER aspects of thier
"unconscious" portions of their neurology (the other "90%"), their
behavior and chemical composistion.
Now, it seems that we are in agreement to that there are processes
that are in "neural/conscious" control and some that are not. My
point is that this is not a digital phenomena. Correct me if this is
wrong but you seem to be saying function X is "in control" and
function Y is "not in control" I am saying that to SOME DEGREE great
or small that ALL processes, thoughts, responses, behaviors, are in
conscious/neural control. THE key word is to ~SOME~ degree (aka,
analog). the degree marker words that I choose is (un)consciousness.
My favorite example is drugs. Drugs for behavior. I have in my house
the best drugs in the world. I can manufacture nearly any drug of
better quality than any drug company and with no side effects and with
these drugs I can do wonderous things. (!!! WARNING THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT MAY CHALLENGE YOUR BELIEFS AND CAUSE YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE TO
CHANGE !!!) You can do this in your head. Did you feel it? Now with
drugs you can do all kinds of crazy things to a human body. The only
question is the source. The drug store or your mind.
The body/mind/brain/neural-net IS one system they all operate
simultaniously TOGETHER. All three exsist in one entitiy. change one
and the others change. the big question is what is IN control
CONSCIOUSLY and what lies outside of control (yet IS accessable).
If you still believe that some processes are in control and some are
not then clearly define where the "control" line exsists. Remember
just one "in control" counterexample counts. Pick your out of control
> > I agree that you think all that. I am really curious, what CAN the
> > physical brain do by itself? And what does it mean to have a brain by
> > "itself"? Can it wiggle around or something?
> I simply meant that bringing concepts such a conscious and unconscious
> to the table may confuse issues of what is under neural control and
> what is not, and you seem to be definitely confused about that from
> the above statement. Also I was hoping to point out to you that what
> you wrote in your last post was not profound or revolutionary but well
> known aspects of brain function which have been studied intensively by
> cognitive scientists and neuroscientists alike. Your analogies to an
> analogue continuum or something belong in philosophy of MIND if
> anywhere, not in the study of neuroscience.
perhaps I need a refresher on the definition of neuroscience. The
purpose and direction. Enlighten me please. It seems to be a
terribly confused feild.
Bearing in mind that I can use language to chop all this apart, at
times I choose not to.
> > I read somewhere that people who understand things very well include
> > all logic into thier model. Perhaps organized in such a way that
> > EVERY-thing seems to makes sense to him/her. Cool concept!
> If everything didn't make sense, then they woudn't consider themselves
> to understand it. Or is that too obvious. Again your talking about
> philosophical issues such as epistemology which are very interesting
> but not particularly useful in discussing how the brain as a
> collection of neruones functions.
More information about the Neur-sci