No subject


Sun Apr 10 21:50:26 EST 2005


	Indeed, this is the origin of that dubious factoid: "You use only
	20 percent of your brain anyway." This is true, but only in a very
	limited sense. Before the hand starts acting weak or paralyzed, a
	slowly growing tumor has to kill about 80 percent of the cells in
	the hand region of the motor strip. Yet that is a very crude test
	of function. A pianist or mechanic would probably notice problems
	long before then. And a stroke that suddenly killed perhaps 30
	percent of the neurons in the motor strip would also cause
	paralysis.

[1] http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/bk7/bk7ch1.htm

2) Is it true that there are parts of the brain responsible for psychic
powers and the soul? Can you project magnetic waves to control the
mind?

Where is the evidence?

3) What are the chemicals for love, hate, etc?

Here we should talk about neuro-transmitters and neuro-modulators, and
presumably talk about the opposite effects of dopamine vs serotonin.

4) Does a neurone really resemble a microchip? What about neural
networks? How do they work?

5) What is the average weight of the brain?

The heaviest brain is that of the blue whale, at about 7 kg or 15 lbs. The
human brain, which accounts for about 2% of the body weight, weighs on
average about 3 lbs (though the average weight has increased by 1/8th of a
lbs in the last 100 years or so).

On average, only 10% of the inputs to a neuron come from the rest of the
body or from lower parts of the brain's hierarchy of operations. The rest
is taken up by an enormous network of relationships with fellow neurons,
all constantly providing feedback to each other-the brain's round-the-clock
conversation with itself.

6) What is the role of dualism today?

7) What is the definition of the consciousness?

In [1], an article about consciousness, the beginning of the article states
that
	Everyone has a rough idea of what is meant by being conscious. For
	now, it is better to avoid a precise definition of consciousness
	because of the dangers of premature definition. Until the problem
	is understood much better, any attempt at a formal definition is
	likely to be either misleading or overly restrictive, or both. If
	this seems evasive, try defining the word "gene." So much is now
	known about genes that any simple definition is likely to be
	inadequate. How much more difficult, then, to define a biological
	term when rather little is known about it

[1]http://klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

8) Has anyone incorporated the idea of memes into neuroscience?

9) Is language an innate characteristic or an acquired one ?





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list