10% of our brains True or Faulse?

[rialvestro]

So in Dan Brown's newest video he talks about how we actually use 100% of our brains while then giving the very confusing ending of "we actually only use 10% of our brains." to contradict everything else he had said before that.

At any rate...

To start off, I have never believed the myth that we only use 10% of our brains considering that our brain controls everything about us and that being the case it would be impossible for us to function as we do on only 10%.

This being said the fact that we use 100% isn't true either sense everything we learn in life is stored in the brain this would mean that there is nothing to learn. Once you reach 100% you know everything there is to know.

This is fairly simple math. 10% of your brain is probably used for basic needs. In other words that 10% might be what you're useing at birth. 100% would be you're potential. How much you can learn as you're growing older. No one ever reaches that 100%.

Percents are just fractions of the whole thing. 100% = all, there's no more you could possibly use. 50% = half which would be a bit more believable that we only use half of our brains. If you're actually only using 10% of your brain, you're either a baby or just plain stupid.

To look at it another way... lets say you have a pizza cut into 10 slices. If you only eat 10% that's 1 slice. If you eat 100% that's the entire pizza and after that you have no pizza left. The difference here being that you can always get another pizza but you only have the 1 brain. If you've used 100% of your brain then you've just reached the point where you can't learn anything new which most likely means that you have died.

[chelseeyuh]

I hate when I need to watch Dan's videos to know what's going on -_-

You only use 10% of your brain at one time. You do use all of your brain, but different parts of the brain control different functions, and you can't fulfill all of these functions at once.
And I disagree with your statement that using 100% of your brain means you know everything there is to know. Your brain doesn't just consist of memory. There are other parts that have nothing to do with knowledge and memorizing facts. There is not a direct correlation between how much you know and how much of your brain you use.

[Lyserg Zeroz]

I think that the 10% thing is just a myth.
Also, as Chelsea said, I don't see why using 100% of our brain (and btw, when you say this, do you mean "100% used, period" or "100% used in conscious thought", or what?), will get you to know everything that there is to know. If we found a way to use 100% of our brain on conscious thought (supposing that our body would be maintained by machines that replace the functions that our brain would lose) we would, perhaps, be pretty dmn smart, but knowledge wouldn't just appear out of nowhere, and we wouldn't be able to just know everything (or,at least, not instantly I suppose)

"You only use 10% of your brain at one time" Is that even true or is it just another variation of the 10% myth xD?

[Lex]

Here you go, folks:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

[Ryan]

Just pointing out - this wiki page supports everything that Chels said.

/thread

[newschooled]

...Well, when you spell 'False' like that, maybe.

[rialvestro]

OK maybe I need to rephrase this because two people here have misinterpreted what I was saying.

Jun 29, 2010 22:34:05 GMT -5 @chelseeyuh said:

I hate when I need to watch Dan's videos to know what's going on -_-

You only use 10% of your brain at one time. You do use all of your brain, but different parts of the brain control different functions, and you can't fulfill all of these functions at once.
And I disagree with your statement that using 100% of your brain means you know everything there is to know. Your brain doesn't just consist of memory. There are other parts that have nothing to do with knowledge and memorizing facts. There is not a direct correlation between how much you know and how much of your brain you use.

I'm well aware that different parts of the brain control different functions, I know that your brain isn't just memory, I know there are parts that have nothing to do with knowledge and memorizing facts. I said all of that in my original post. I don't know how accurately I said it though as the way I worded it was this...

10% of your brain is probably used for basic needs. In other words that 10% might be what you're useing at birth.

Now to rephrase this, every function of the brain is a different percent. Lets just say as an example 10% are your basic functions, the other 90% is your potential for learning. Now that may not be entirely accurate but it's just an example.

This being said, while I never claimed that 100% of your brain was being used to store memory I did claim that an unspecific fraction of your brain was being used for memory and that fact still stands that the percent being a faction would mean that if you're already using 100% of it then there's no space for any new information.

To put it another way... if you're already at 100% and some how you're still learning new things then you'd be pushing that percentage up passed 100%. Say for every new thing you learn that's 1% of your brain. Well in that case, you learn to crawl, walk, say a few words. You'd be using about 110% of your brain. Now how can you be using an extra 10% that doesn't even exist?

100% is the entire thing. If you're already using all of it then there's no room for any new information. You can't store memory in a faction of the brain that doesn't even exist so some fraction of that 100% has to be what you learn.

Jun 29, 2010 22:54:30 GMT -5 Lyserg Zeroz said:

I think that the 10% thing is just a myth.
Also, as Chelsea said, I don't see why using 100% of our brain (and btw, when you say this, do you mean "100% used, period" or "100% used in conscious thought", or what?), will get you to know everything that there is to know. If we found a way to use 100% of our brain on conscious thought (supposing that our body would be maintained by machines that replace the functions that our brain would lose) we would, perhaps, be pretty dmn smart, but knowledge wouldn't just appear out of nowhere, and we wouldn't be able to just know everything (or,at least, not instantly I suppose)

"You only use 10% of your brain at one time" Is that even true or is it just another variation of the 10% myth xD?

We're not talking about 1 part of the brain alone, that would be an entirely different fraction. We're talking about the entire thing.

Also I think the 10% at a time is just another variation of the myth. I mean think about it. Right now your brain is being used to read and try to comprehend what I'm saying, it's also controlling your heart rate, your breathing, it's sending signals for everything you're seeing and hearing right now, ect. How can all of that be controlled in only a small 10%. It just doesn't add up.

If you actually look at a diagram of a mapped out brain, while I can't say for sure what the actual percentage would be I can for sure it wouldn't be as small as to say 10%.

Whoever is doing this mapping of the brain and giving these crazy percentages that don't make any sense either really has no idea how the brain works, is really bad at basic math, or both because the two things do not match up.

[Ryan]

I /thread'd this...


rialvestro - read the wiki page that was posted, it answers all of your questions

[rialvestro]

Jun 30, 2010 19:19:26 GMT -5 Ryan said:

I /thread'd this...


rialvestro - read the wiki page that was posted, it answers all of your questions

... What questions? You're more off base than the other two. I didn't ask any questions.

I seen that wiki page or rather another like it with the exact same information on it but has nothing to do with anything I said.

[Lex]

Evidently someone hasn't even cracked a high school bio textbook.

It's a myth. There is no "10%" thing or a "100%" potential. Every average human being uses all of their brain. End of story.

This thread is over.

[Ryan]

10% of our brains: True or Faulse?

question, answered - its false. /agree with alex on this one, the wiki page is not off base, it addresses the myth entirely and explains every possible reason for its existence, and all of the evidence against the myth. It has everything to do with what you said, please read it and don't dismiss it b/c you saw another page like it.

PDBAZ

[neilgdickson]

Jun 30, 2010 19:15:27 GMT -5 rialvestro said:

This being said, while I never claimed that 100% of your brain was being used to store memory I did claim that an unspecific fraction of your brain was being used for memory and that fact still stands that the percent being a faction would mean that if you're already using 100% of it then there's no space for any new information.

To put it another way... if you're already at 100% and some how you're still learning new things then you'd be pushing that percentage up passed 100%. Say for every new thing you learn that's 1% of your brain. Well in that case, you learn to crawl, walk, say a few words. You'd be using about 110% of your brain. Now how can you be using an extra 10% that doesn't even exist?

100% is the entire thing. If you're already using all of it then there's no room for any new information. You can't store memory in a faction of the brain that doesn't even exist so some fraction of that 100% has to be what you learn.

It sounds like you're assuming that the brain stores information like a log file, e.g.:

• fact #1: ____________
  
• fact #2: ____________
  
• fact #3: ____________
  
• fact #4: ____________
  
• ...
  

and that it can never delete anything. Both are false. Much of the brain's memory is stored, in a rough sense, as relationships between items and/or senses and/or events. Talking about the brain in terms of an abstract device for information storage, if it "runs out of space", there are four possibilities I can think of when adding new information:

• The new information never makes it to long-term memory and is lost (e.g. You probably don't have detailed memory of eating dinner every day of your life.)
  
• The new information "replaces" old information that hasn't been "accessed" recently (e.g. You might remember your friend's current phone number, but might not remember his/her phone number from 10 years ago.)
  
• Old information is better "compressed", by being remembered as part of a relationship instead of as separate pieces of information, making room for new information. (e.g. I can remember "HIIAPA" instead of "hypo- -ite, -ite, -ate, per- -ate" for ployatomic ions from Grade 11 Chem 10 years ago. I also remember that all odd-numbered elements have only up to one stable isotope, except hydrogen, instead of remembering 44 elements with only one stable isotope.)
  
• The memory capacity of the brain increases. (e.g. New neurons, and much more often, new connections can form in the brain.)
  

There isn't really a meaning to "reaching 100% of the memory capacity of the brain", since it doesn't work that way.

Edit: Sorry if I've sounded too patronizing (at one end of the spectrum) or too much like I think it should be obvious (at the other end). I'm not sure what your academic background is, so I wasn't sure what a happy medium was. i.e. no insult was intended in either direction.

[rialvestro]

Jul 1, 2010 1:51:34 GMT -5 neilgdickson said:

Jun 30, 2010 19:15:27 GMT -5 rialvestro said:

This being said, while I never claimed that 100% of your brain was being used to store memory I did claim that an unspecific fraction of your brain was being used for memory and that fact still stands that the percent being a faction would mean that if you're already using 100% of it then there's no space for any new information.

To put it another way... if you're already at 100% and some how you're still learning new things then you'd be pushing that percentage up passed 100%. Say for every new thing you learn that's 1% of your brain. Well in that case, you learn to crawl, walk, say a few words. You'd be using about 110% of your brain. Now how can you be using an extra 10% that doesn't even exist?

100% is the entire thing. If you're already using all of it then there's no room for any new information. You can't store memory in a faction of the brain that doesn't even exist so some fraction of that 100% has to be what you learn.

It sounds like you're assuming that the brain stores information like a log file, e.g.:

• fact #1: ____________
  
• fact #2: ____________
  
• fact #3: ____________
  
• fact #4: ____________
  
• ...
  

and that it can never delete anything. Both are false. Much of the brain's memory is stored, in a rough sense, as relationships between items and/or senses and/or events. Talking about the brain in terms of an abstract device for information storage, if it "runs out of space", there are four possibilities I can think of when adding new information:

• The new information never makes it to long-term memory and is lost (e.g. You probably don't have detailed memory of eating dinner every day of your life.)
  
• The new information "replaces" old information that hasn't been "accessed" recently (e.g. You might remember your friend's current phone number, but might not remember his/her phone number from 10 years ago.)
  
• Old information is better "compressed", by being remembered as part of a relationship instead of as separate pieces of information, making room for new information. (e.g. I can remember "HIIAPA" instead of "hypo- -ite, -ite, -ate, per- -ate" for ployatomic ions from Grade 11 Chem 10 years ago. I also remember that all odd-numbered elements have only up to one stable isotope, except hydrogen, instead of remembering 44 elements with only one stable isotope.)
  
• The memory capacity of the brain increases. (e.g. New neurons, and much more often, new connections can form in the brain.)
  

There isn't really a meaning to "reaching 100% of the memory capacity of the brain", since it doesn't work that way.

Edit: Sorry if I've sounded too patronizing (at one end of the spectrum) or too much like I think it should be obvious (at the other end). I'm not sure what your academic background is, so I wasn't sure what a happy medium was. i.e. no insult was intended in either direction.

I've taken that into account as well.

Just because you can't consciously remember something doesn't mean that memory is lost. You have a subconscious memory as well. That pretty much takes care of most of your list except for the last part...

The basics of that last statement is that the brain like the rest of the body is growing or developing. However this stops at some point in adulthood. Exactly when it stops is most likely going to very per individual just like everything else. A former co-worker actually said something about this a few months ago though I don't know how accurate the statement is but he seemed to think that the average age for the brain to stop developing was 30 years old. I don't know about that but just for the sake of example lets say that's true.

If the brain stops development at 30 and you're still able to learn new things then that would mean that you have not reached your full 100% potential.

This being said if we're already using our full potential then I suppose it could also be possible that the brain never stops developing till you die. But I really know nothing about the development of the brain. It doesn't make much sense but while I did learn about how the different parts of the brain work my school never went over over how the brain grows and develops.

[Yokailo]

I might be completely wrong on this, but I think you are approaching the whole brain storage-thing wrongly.
Information is not stored in the neurons, and then when the neurons run out, storage space runs out. Neurons in itself don't store anything: It's not like there's one neuron responsible for the phone number of your friend. It's the connections and the links these neurons make that make the actions.
And as such, learning is making new connections. Which can always happen.
So you're using 100% of your brains, just not 100% of all possible connections - which is logical, because not all connections can be made etc.

Also. Neurogenesis does happen, new neurons do get produced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis
Although most active before you are born, neurogenesis does carry on through adulthood.

[rialvestro]

Jul 1, 2010 3:50:42 GMT -5 Yokailo said:

I might be completely wrong on this, but I think you are approaching the whole brain storage-thing wrongly.
Information is not stored in the neurons, and then when the neurons run out, storage space runs out. Neurons in itself don't store anything: It's not like there's one neuron responsible for the phone number of your friend. It's the connections and the links these neurons make that make the actions.
And as such, learning is making new connections. Which can always happen.
So you're using 100% of your brains, just not 100% of all possible connections - which is logical, because not all connections can be made etc.

Also. Neurogenesis does happen, new neurons do get produced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis
Although most active before you are born, neurogenesis does carry on through adulthood.

That article kinda supports what I've been saying to a point. However it seems to be inconclusive as it talks about two different studies on the same thing giving different results. Or maybe I've simply misunderstood what I was reading.

[Borbus]

I'd say 10% is quite generous for a lot of people...

[zAkAtAk]

Everyone knows that gay people use more of their brains than straights.

[Ryan]

/agree zak


EDIT: OMG, what have I done...

[Lex]

THE BRAIN IS NOT "STORAGE SPACE". There is no "10% of the brain" or "10% of pathways"

ITS A FUCKING MYTH. Omg, you people are ridiculous.

There is NO discussion.

GRAAAHHH my brain is gonna explode out of RAGE that this thread is still going.

[zAkAtAk]

Jul 1, 2010 12:32:11 GMT -5 Lex said:

THE BRAIN IS NOT "STORAGE SPACE". There is no "10% of the brain" or "10% of pathways"

ITS A FUCKING MYTH. Omg, you people are ridiculous.

There is NO discussion.

GRAAAHHH my brain is gonna explode out of RAGE that this thread is still going.

This is something that someone that uses only 10% of their brain would say.