Are we relly using the human brain to only 4%

cool slayer said:
I've often heard people saying that humans are using their brain to only 4% of their capacity. Is spirituality related to developing it's capacity. And what's the illumination of the human brain. :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, since this is an Eastern Philosophy thread and not a science thread where it would seem to belong, we could certainly modify the Title Are we really CONSCIOUSLY using the human brain to only 4%?

Much meditation research shows that we can learn to KNOW and INFLUENCE much more directly and intentionally if we meditate a lot.

The boundaries between the conscious mind and the unconsciuos mind and even us and objects at a distance shift radically.

I do think people are minimally aware of their own motives, emotional imprinting, assumptions, blind spots, bodies, unconsciouses, reactions and so on.

4% might a kind over estimation.
 
Excellent points Granty. You have managed to turn an otherwise pointless thread on the oft debunked notion of 'only 10% of the brain gets used' into a potentially interesting and though provoking discussion.

To continue your theme, one point which occurs to me is the old chestnut - what is consciousness? Since its very character is heatedly debated, or just plain ignored, then how can we say where exactly it resides and consequently how much of the brain is being used for conscious activity.
 
I've always figured conciousness was a program us multicellular organisms run to model reality so that we may predict consequence. Helps with coordination of limbs, finding food, coping with macrochange.
 
My guess is that 4% comes from von Neumann's estimate of human brain capacity in bits and bytes. He estimated just by counting the number of cells in brain. His first estimate was 10^20 bit or 1 million Terabyte. Later it became around 100 Terabyte. Now it is estimated that all the information human brain receives during a lifetime is 100 Megabyte.
 
temur said:
Now it is estimated that all the information human brain receives during a lifetime is 100 Megabyte.
Click to expand...

Based on the following information human eye is equivalent to 324 megapixels minimum. Are you telling me, if you have a video camera with 324 MegaPixels and run it say 10 hour per day for 70 years you will have only 100 Megabytes of storage?:confused:


How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.
 
kmguru you are not very bright despite your ficade of intelligence call me if you would like to debate 919 623 4275
 
the human brains capibility to compare information gained to other information gained is limited to about ten percent. yes, throughout our lives we use much more than 10 percent of our brain the when it comes down to our ability to access all the information together to cancle out contridictions we are very limited. and as far as the rediculous mexapixle study of the eye and brain, yes we see an incredible amount of information throughout our lives but our ability to record such information is masively restricted. i would say it might be restrited to about 10 percent of the brains potential for retention.
 
go to Best Buy and purchase a dvd called "what the bleep" "down the rabbit hole" it will change your life and it might also stop people like kmguru from being so defensive to information he or she does not understand.
 
von Neumman might have been good at math, but his notion of "brain information" is largely hubris (he wasn't much of a neuroscientist or zoologist).

Equating "capacity" with the number of neurons is pretty simplistic. What about zooflagellates? Paramecium can learn to negotiate a maze - what explains the ability of a single celled animal to do this? What would we say if someone taught a bunch of them the equivalent of Morris-dancing (would they slap their flagella together?), how do they co-ordinate all that movement and behave "intelligently"?
 
The problem here is that we don't necessery agree on the term "using braincapacity", thus the debate is rather moot. My guess that the 4% is correct, based on what certain people can achieve with their brains, and most of us can't. It usually comes down to recovering memories.
That doesn't necesserily mean that we don't use most of our brains all the time, but certain functions (like memory recall) is much better for some people than others. When a few people are able to memorize whole phonebooks, huge sequense of numbers or have photographic memory, that tells you just what is possible.

Or if you guys want a simpler answer, just read Sandy's posts. That is evidence that we only use 4% or less... :)
 
Should we move this to the "Intelligence and Machines" subforum?

Or if you guys want a simpler answer, just read Sandy's posts. That is evidence that we only use 4% or less...
Click to expand...

Ha..Ha...Ha...and she will read this and PM me to spank someone....
 
aloneiwalk said:
go to Best Buy and purchase a dvd called "what the bleep" "down the rabbit hole" it will change your life and it might also stop people like kmguru from being so defensive to information he or she does not understand.
Click to expand...

Ah! really? care to elaborate? :bawl:

Information: The word guru is a male, gurumata is female.
 
This theory arose from the Psychology Realm. Where so many were presented with data to help in therapy those whom were afflicted with brain injury. It is observed other areas of the brain take up for areas that are irreparably damaged, or otherwise absent.

The hope was to provide 'comfort' to the victims of such trauma, and a encompassing medical approach to recovery.

However, some want to "Oof" and act of the know-it-all. So when presented with the fact that the brain "heals", they state everyone is incapacitated and is of minimal effort.
This makes them feel "BIG", you see.

Crazy, of course. It's the simple approach, of those with "minimal mental activity".
But, I do know, the ones who will trump you with this notion; and try to impress upon you that you are in fact: A minimize approach to existence. Are, in fact, the ones who work primarily with the 'brain' and its disfunction. Which, as they would imply, is comprehensive. Because, you're not much more than a walking 'capacity', that is unfulfilled. ...
 
Please forgive the above typos' They are inflicted. I'm not ridiculous to the point, That I need to waste my time in order to over-cast others approach, in that certain characters are eliminated and changed. So, as to govern the thoughts and ideas of another.

This is the path of one whom has no recourse but to chastise with minimalistic programming techniques of elimination in coupling with grammatical analyzation software. So as to feel "IMPORTANT": by, of course, negating another's argument.

No further comment necessary...
 
decantemix said:
Please forgive the above typos' They are inflicted. I'm not ridiculous to the point, That I need to waste my time in order to over-cast others approach, in that certain characters are eliminated and changed. So, as to govern the thoughts and ideas of another.

This is the path of one whom has no recourse but to chastise with minimalistic programming techniques of elimination in coupling with grammatical analyzation software. So as to feel "IMPORTANT": by, of course, negating another's argument.

No further comment necessary...
Click to expand...

In response to the original question, CLEARLY.
 
ThinkingMansCrumpet said:
In response to the original question, CLEARLY.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I never have subscribed to the belief of capacity utilized. Being that, since those whom truly study the Cognitive Sciences will tell you point-blank, they know little.

And, the have mountains of data: And, actually analyze it. The explain the mysteries of the brain as just that, mysterious.
So, for me to want to be told that I am minimal in function, hilarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top