Ten Percent Myth

Kevin Cornwell kcornwell at home.com
Wed Feb 20 21:49:29 EST 2002

mats_trash at hotmail.com (mat) wrote in message news:<43525ce3.0202200433.3701a3dc at posting.google.com>...
> To be honest with you I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. 
> Neurones are specialised types of body cells.  They perform some
> specific and unique functions but essentially are no different to
> other cells in the body.  They have no mystical or ethereal properties
> so lets get that out of the way.  

Your presuppositions that I have implied such is a gross error on your
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.

> 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

> 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.

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 claimed how the brain works?...yea, i did that.  that's becuase I
ALSO have a objective perspective.

what generalizations do you have that are more usefull?  WRITE it out.

I don't care what you think about me.  Explain what neuroscience IS!  
> > Bearing in mind that I can use language to chop all this apart, at
> > times I choose not to.
> What?


so neuroscience is what?????  it's direction and purpose is what????  
what is the structure of your understanding?  I can't make sense of

Forget the definitions, simply do the following.  Respond to the
following by formulating a explination that any normal person would

"Can somone explain to me the theory that humans use 10 percent of
their brain? The details seem sketchy."

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list