| 30 JAN 2011 at 6:47pm |
ThaumaturgeJourneyman
Posts : 999
Joined: 11 MAY 2006
Status : Offline | Hmm... Excluding beliefs and guesses, I find that for myself the most convincing answer is simply "I don't know" - indeed, lacking some formal proof (in the sense of a mathematical or logical proof) one way or another, it seems to me that one could always suggest that some thing may yet be found that is inexplicable under science, or that future science may yet explain an apparently-inexplicable thing.
That said, it might be worth pointing out (as someone may have already done; I'm afraid that, having read this thread in bits and pieces, and not desiring to go over the longer entries again right now, I am not confident of whether it has been mentioned or not), "science" is not a changeless thing, including with respect to those things which come under its purview: as long as a thing is subject to rules that allow for accurate predictions regarding that phenomenon and have evidence available to examination that includes all "clues" called-for to derive those rules, it should theoretically be possible to bring it under science.
Science may become stranger, but then I suppose that the mistake is to think of science as being by definition only of non-supernatural things; that it currently seems to be (or at least to largely be) is, I think, more a matter of what has been successfully researched, and what results have thus far been found. Science is, I think, not defined by its contents, but rather by its perspective and approach, by the seeking-out of rules, and the predictive ability of those rules discovered.
It does, however, occur to me that anything that is somehow entirely outside of humanity's ability to test might be outside of the purview of science; one might still be able to derive rules with predictive strength, but conclusions on what is in fact going on beyond that "barrier" might be relegated to speculation as long as that barrier stands between those seeking answers and the source of those answers.
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
*ahem*
Sorry.
|
| 30 JAN 2011 at 7:45pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
To answer your question Thaumaturge, yes that key point has been made, stressed and elaborated on in this thread. Science never stands still (at least not for very long). It constantly changes in methodolgy and scope. It is fueled by a passion to discover the factual truth without bias.
Science is also fallible and corruptible just like all other human endeavors. So until we are "perfect", our science can not be.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 30 JAN 2011 at 7:49pm |
New WolfboySpace Cadet
Posts : 133
Joined: 27 JUL 2010
Status : Online | Debates as to the nature of what scientific understanding cannot explain do tend, quite naturally, to steer onto topics of faith and religion.
I don't think that the knowledge that we currently possess can explain everything in the cosmos, no. That is because there is far more than we know, or have experienced, or have the capacity to measure at this moment in time.
What the scientific method has created is a sense of rationalism. The capacity to say "We do not know this, so we will endevour to understand it through analysis, study and research". As such, it is less a guidebook of what we know about the world around us, as a methodology to understand the environment around us.
With rational thought, what we do NOT currently understand, will one day be understood. Those answers will in turn raise more questions, which will require further answers, and so forth. It's a great journey, and a substantial step up from purely faith-driven reasoning.
|
| 30 JAN 2011 at 10:24pm |
| Deleted User | What the scientific method has created is a sense of rationalism. The capacity to say "We do not know this, so we will Endeavour to understand it through analysis, study and research". As such, it is less a guidebook of what we know about the world around us, as a methodology to understand the environment around us.
With rational thought, what we do NOT currently understand, will one day be understood. Those answers will in turn raise more questions, which will require further answers, and so forth. It's a great journey, and a substantial step up from purely faith-driven reasoning.
Extremely interesting, Wolfboy! I am more knowledgeable about scientific methods and material aspects than I am about 'spiritual' and philosophical matters – on which I am pretty dumb!
I often think of science as a sort of large room with 2 (or more) VERY heavy doors in it - and no real locks on them. With enormous exertion, we (humanity) manage to overcome friction and other resistances and open one of these doors. And what do we find inside? Another large room with 3 (or more) VERY heavy doors in it to overcome!
And so on – and the more we frail humans learn, the more we realize we don't know.
This is not a support for any religion – nor the contrary!! It's just that we don't know everything and presumably never will!
|
| 31 JAN 2011 at 10:53pm |
| Deleted User | Pure coincidence??
The good & rather unusual movie, "The Illusionist", starring Edward Norton was showing on our local TV today. So I watched it for the second (or was it third?) time.
Talk about a mix of fact & fiction and magic & conjuring.
Reminiscent of the themes in Gray Matter[//i]. :
|
| 1 FEB 2011 at 3:58am |
BrianSpace Cadet
Posts : 117
Joined: 28 SEP 2010
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Caroline (30 JAN 2011 11:20am)
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was obviously out of his tree in his later years.
I of course have nothing to add; I just wanted to note how much I have always loved the expression "out of his tree". Thank you.
|
| 1 FEB 2011 at 1:57pm |
| Deleted User | Anybody see that film "The Illusionist" with Edward Norton?
If so, did you think it is good, bad, or indifferent?
|
| 2 FEB 2011 at 9:43pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | I haven't seen that film but I think the whole thread is fascinating. I don't see how it should offend anyone regarding religion but I won't elaborate in case it does.
I don't think all phenomena can be explained by science alone at this point in time & perhaps never!
My belief is that the physical world about you & your mental interpretation of it is limited to the capabilities of the 'housing & extent of programming' that the human being has. Scientific theories can only evolve up to the point of these limitations.
I believe that there is a lot more in the world than we are generally capable of knowing or seeing but occasionally people do have experiences that 'break through' & defy current scientific laws. I believe that on the occasions that this happens to some people there is a combination of unknown factors at the time which make it impossible to study on a scientific level which is why experiments are usually inconclusive & don't progress.
I have had through my life a few strange experiences which can't be explained by science & I guess the fascination for many people is that they've experienced the same, know someone who has or have read about others who have.
As for ghost stories - I watched a program many years ago about hauntings & it was proved that the fear level and/or sightings increased where there was a high magnetic reading in the area. What came first though - the chicken or the egg?
|
| 2 FEB 2011 at 10:22pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
There are so many possible combinations of odd psychological / emotional and physiological factors that can impact human perception, we can't begin to pin down which ones may or may nor have contributed to reported experiences after the fact. Recreating the general conditions just isn't adequate for testing either and different test subjects yield different results, which is why related experiments are inconclusive.
Perhaps someday when we know a lot more about the human brain, science might reveal new evidence of psychic abilities, which could also help explain certain paranormal activities.
In the meantime, all we're left with are unconfirmed ghost stories and claims of other weird sightings / sensings.
As a highly generalized, loosely religious footnote - Practically anything is possible and anyone who thinks we already know all the answers one way are the other is just kidding themselves. We simply aren't evolved enough or experienced enough (yet) as a species to answer with absolute certainty all our most perplexing questions about the origins of life, the universe, etc. - not by a very long shot. Many legitimate doubts still exist and as long as ANY do, we can't purport to know it all.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 12:03am |
| Deleted User | I'm not sure that I agree with everything in the last two posts.
But it's enormously refreshing to have two sincere,sensible, deep, and clearly expressed arguments and opinions whether one has identical sentiments or not!! 8-)
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 6:43am |
TravellerGuild Master
Posts : 4039
Joined: 3 JUL 2010
Location: US
Status : Offline | Oh, I absolutely agree with Loobiloo and Terry, and I think they said it very well.
Not only do I think we as humans are limited by our current knowledge and devices, we are also limited in our perception. It is well known, for instance, that different animals perceive different colour and sound spectrums, and that some animals like bats and dolphins have sonar/radar as part of their perceptive repertoire, which of course, others like us, don't.
So bottom line is that we as humans, with our human senses cannot even hear all sounds on the sound spectrum, for instance, and so on.
It is only because we have developed alternative ways to measure sound, that we know our own hearing apparatus doesn't catch it all up, so who knows what else we might be missing, that we don't even know about, just by dint of our limited senses alone.
While we're on the subject, I'd like to hear what our erudite and intelligent posters around here (ok, no - all of you [smiley=devil_smiley_grintail.gif] ) have to say about the whole question of the "unused" brain capacity that humans carry around with them.
Have we somehow "devolved", or what is going on there?
* * * Just call me Trav. * * *
“Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.” - Robert Bloch
"They are not reciprocally sublated--the one does not sublate the other externally--but each sublates itself in itself and is in its own self the opposite of itself" (Hegel, from The Doctrine of Being)..."
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 8:45am |
BrianSpace Cadet
Posts : 117
Joined: 28 SEP 2010
Status : Offline | There is no "unused" brain capacity. It's just another common urban myth, like the idea that we don't understand how bees fly for example. It is certainly true that there is not a direct correlation between brain size and brain capability. But the idea that we only use 10% of our brain or whatever is sheer nonsense.
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 8:51am |
TravellerGuild Master
Posts : 4039
Joined: 3 JUL 2010
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By breadbox (3 FEB 2011 8:45am)
There is no "unused" brain capacity. It's just another common urban myth, like the idea that we don't understand how bees fly for example. It is certainly true that there is not a direct correlation between brain size and brain capability. But the idea that we only use 10% of our brain or whatever is sheer nonsense.
Ok, can you point to some reading regarding this please? I was hoping for a bit more info than someone merely saying: "it is nonsense " and "it's an urban myth". Where did the myth originate, and how was it refuted?
* * * Just call me Trav. * * *
“Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.” - Robert Bloch
"They are not reciprocally sublated--the one does not sublate the other externally--but each sublates itself in itself and is in its own self the opposite of itself" (Hegel, from The Doctrine of Being)..."
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 10:54am |
CarolineJA+ Overseer
Posts : 16540
Joined: 28 JAN 2007
Location: AU
Status : Offline | http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
Here you go Trav,
Just a couple of the many articles that Google produced when I searched 10% brain used :-* :-*
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 11:41am |
TravellerGuild Master
Posts : 4039
Joined: 3 JUL 2010
Location: US
Status : Offline | Hmm, very interesting, thanks, Caroline and Brian; but I don't see anywhere in my post that I mentioned only 10% of the brain being used? :-?
You guys seemed to have assumed I said that, since it is indeed a common myth, I believe.
It's interesting to see more about it's origins, thanks.
However, it does seem to be true that at least some of the brain is kept in reserve. This may be due to the fact that brain tissue cannot regenerate itself, and since brain function is so important, if a part of the brain dies for whatever reason, it is a good idea to have some back-up tissue that can be re-trained.
People who have had strokes, for instance, are frequently 're-taught' to talk/walk/grasp/re-learn celebral stuff they used to know, etc. True, some people become vegetables after losing significant amounts of brain tissue, but very often there seems to be some reserve available to re-learn necessary functions. (Of course, different parts of the brain have very different functions and it therefore depends which part of the brain has been damaged.
For instance, it used to be held that it's not possible to reverse the results of a lobotomy; I don't know if further research has been done on that since I'd read about that last.
So I'm inclined to fall in with the idea that our brains keep at least some capacity in reserve. :-*
* * * Just call me Trav. * * *
“Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.” - Robert Bloch
"They are not reciprocally sublated--the one does not sublate the other externally--but each sublates itself in itself and is in its own self the opposite of itself" (Hegel, from The Doctrine of Being)..."
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 12:45pm |
TravellerGuild Master
Posts : 4039
Joined: 3 JUL 2010
Location: US
Status : Offline | Oh, and in case you were wondering where I got my data from regarding recovery after brain tissue loss - I base it on from real life experience. I've been closely involved with several people who have had strokes, or neurosuregery to remove tumors, (ranging from ages 19 to 70) and the patients mentioned made either a full recovery, or close to a full recovery.
It is of course true that the entire brain is "used" because many functions are represented in an almost replicating pattern, (in other words some pathways are actually duplicated, or like one of the articles Caroline pointed to: "Multiple pathways for the same function" which probably to quite a large extent facilitates the kind of recovery that I have mentioned above.
However, assertions that the entire brain of an adult person is used, (or "used up" can be misinterpreted to mean that memory (and ability to learn) is finite. The last research I read (and I admit I'm due for a refresher) is that the average human's ability to keep learning and to keep on adding new memories to your memory bank is infinite.
So as far as I am concerned, it's pretty clear that the entire human brain is not used or gets 'used up' or at least, it doesn't get "used up" for a very long time, (longer than humans tend to live, anyway) and indeed, losses to Alzheimers and other age-related diseases tends to be more due to problems with brain metabolism, rather than the idea that the brain has been "used up" and that there is "no more space left" in the brain.
I've also read through the articles pointed to, but sadly they don't seem to offer anything new?
* * * Just call me Trav. * * *
“Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.” - Robert Bloch
"They are not reciprocally sublated--the one does not sublate the other externally--but each sublates itself in itself and is in its own self the opposite of itself" (Hegel, from The Doctrine of Being)..."
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 1:47pm |
TravellerGuild Master
Posts : 4039
Joined: 3 JUL 2010
Location: US
Status : Offline | Here is, for instance an interesting article, on an interesting project. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7060327.ece
So I ask again, have our brains actually shrunk? Is a smaller brain, (and note, I am female actually a more efficient brain ) ?
..and if they have shrunk, then it does not necessarily follow, like some people claim (including the pseudo-science writer, Robert Sawyer, who wrote Homonids) that Neanderthals were necessarily more intelligent than Cro-Magnons, does it? :
Ok, I know this is a huge debate. What really tends to get me when I read articles on the Neanderthal /Cro-Magnon issue, is that people tend to talk about the 'brain' in terms of the volume of the entire organ. In actuality, the brain is actually a bunch of organs clumped together. I would find it a lot more useful if people were to specify exactly what they meant by "brain".
Do they mean entire cranial volume, do they mean the cerebrum, the cerebellum, the pons, etc. and if the cerebral cortex, which lobe, etc. etc. All of them have different functions, of course, so... [smiley=shrug.gif]
* * * Just call me Trav. * * *
“Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.” - Robert Bloch
"They are not reciprocally sublated--the one does not sublate the other externally--but each sublates itself in itself and is in its own self the opposite of itself" (Hegel, from The Doctrine of Being)..."
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 3:38pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
We humans have been endowed with a pretty impressive set of basic input devices in the form of our senses. But our central processing units and operating systems suffer from the installation of faulty, self-designed programs / applications.
Until we develop a more efficent, reliable, effective way to think and to communicate (to better process input / improve output), we will not be running at peak capacity.
Regarding raw hardware capacity, we might be able to upgrade our core components through physiological evolution, genetic engineering, and artificial augmentations while improving our software and training procedures.
Personally, I look forward to my snazzy, new Brain Booster 2.0 Kit.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 4:37pm |
BrianSpace Cadet
Posts : 117
Joined: 28 SEP 2010
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By placeholder (3 FEB 2011 11:41am)
Hmm, very interesting, thanks, Caroline and Brian; but I don't see anywhere in my post that I mentioned only 10% of the brain being used?
You guys seemed to have assumed I said that, since it is indeed a common myth, I believe.
Well, the question your original post was very brief, so I naturally assumed you were referring to the most popular version of that idea. Apologies if I missed the mark.
So I'm inclined to fall in with the idea that our brains keep at least some capacity in reserve.
Well, I don't disagree with your point; I just don't think of it as the brain having "capacity in reserve". To my eyes, it's more that the brain (or rather, most of its subsections) are versatile, and given time one part can step in to fulfill a task it wasn't originally intended to do. An analogy: I'm right-handed, but if I lost my right hand in an accident, I could eventually learn to write legibly with my left hand. Or if I became quadriplegic, I could learn to write holding a pen in my mouth. I think this is very similar to what happens with brain-damaged patients. But I would be disinclined to say that my left hand and my mouth were being held "in reserve" -- they're simply able to learn new tricks.
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 5:04pm |
TravellerGuild Master
Posts : 4039
Joined: 3 JUL 2010
Location: US
Status : Offline | Admittedly you brought that point over a lot more elegantly and eloquenty than I did, Brian. To be quite honest I enjoy babbling about semi-contraversial subjects, and at least we got to talking about one of them, a bit of neuroscience and a lot of myth vs fact regarding the working of the human brain.
I don't really think that an entire subsection of the brain can stand in for another section though - I wasn't talking about such a large amount of damage; rather "the rest" of a damaged section can stand in for the damaged part, but yes, similar to what you said I think, otherwise.
I was rather trying to illustrate how silly it is to state that one uses your entire brain all the time. (Like one of those rather simplistic articles did) Every single neuron does not fire all the time, and of course different parts of the brain have different functions. Just because a PET scan shows up areas of activity doesn't mean that every single neuron in that general area fires... soo it's IMO a bit simplistic to say that the entire brain is used all the time - it depends upon activity and state of consciousness and so many factors..
[edit]Hmm, to try and explain a bit better about the 'reserve' thing - I do actually think that some brain tissue is indeed there for 'reserve' purposes. If I cut a bit out of your thigh muscles, your quadriceps, some of the damaged tissue would regenerate, right? (Wether it be via scar tissue, etc - your thigh would heal and the broken strands would re-align and stretch again, and so on). But even if nothing regenerated at all, the rest of your muscle would still be enough to take over the function of the small damaged part in time, not so? (Even more so with skin tissue, say, but of course skin tissue stretches most easily out of almost all of the organs.)
But since adult brain tissue cannot regenerate, and since the different parts of the brain are a lot more specialized than, say a thigh muscle or an entire liver or and entire kidney, it would simply make survival sense if more tissue was available than we strictly need. Kind of get the idea of what I'm trying to say? I mean, if I cut out a bit of your liver, given the tissue is healthy, the rest of it would still be enough. So I mean "reserve" rather in that sense. Even your heart has a slight bit of "reserve" capacity for damage, so why wouldn't it be so with the brain, if not even more so? [/edit]
I also think that Terry's analogy to a computer system is rather apt. It's not so much the physical size that makes a brain "better", but how efficiently it works - the chemical and metabolic aspects rather. Much like one modern CPU might look a lot like another one, but could be vastly faster and more efficient than its slower counterpart, even though they look the same on the outside (And I know individual brains don't look the same, btw. - so I just mean "size" in general.)
Hee! Terry mentioned another interesting topic. Genetic engineering and how it features in the future of humans.
* * * Just call me Trav. * * *
“Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk.” - Robert Bloch
"They are not reciprocally sublated--the one does not sublate the other externally--but each sublates itself in itself and is in its own self the opposite of itself" (Hegel, from The Doctrine of Being)..."
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 6:27pm |
FnordSchattenjger
Posts : 2751
Joined: 15 SEP 2008
Location: SE, Stockholm
Status : Offline | But since adult brain tissue cannot regenerate,
This is not entirely true. Brain tissue can regenerate (which was discovered in the mid-late 90s, if my memory serves), although it is a slow process, and it can't regenerate major damage well enough for it to completely heal.
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 6:44pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
It might not even involve genetic engineering during conception and embrionic development, Trav.
Perhaps someday we can apply stem-cell research to fully grown adults - not just to repair or replace damaged / lost tissue, but also to augment healthy organs like the brain. Imagine too that we could possibly cure myopia and actually improve human eyesight or hearing or all the senses well beyond today's norm. Those basic sensory input channels could be greatly enhanced.
As for the critical or core "programs" we write for brain installation, they still need plenty of work too. Our process of teaching-learning leaves a lot to be desired. But there are already many top educators researching better methods that employ a combination of traditional and new, interactive tools.
Ultimately though, it is WHAT we choose to teach or children that really counts. The how isn't nearly as important. What and how well they learn is where it's at.
If we can somehow manage to overcome fundamental social, cutural, religious, political and other differences, then we can clear the way for a uniform, global set of educational standards. Advances to methodology and actual human capacity could then be used to accomplish truly amazing things.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 9:39pm |
StilerJourneyman
Posts : 1458
Joined: 27 SEP 2004
Location: US, TN
Status : Offline | I'd like to get involved in this topic, but don't want to have to Tip toe around egg shells with what I say, so I won't .
|
| 3 FEB 2011 at 9:52pm |
CarolineJA+ Overseer
Posts : 16540
Joined: 28 JAN 2007
Location: AU
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Stiler (3 FEB 2011 9:38pm)
I'd like to get involved in this topic, but don't want to have to Tip toe around egg shells with what I say, so I won't .
oooo clever..... now we'll all wonder what you had to say that was so controversial. [smiley=rofl.gif]
Scientists used to think the brain's functions were fixed but treatment for stroke victims has proved that the brain retains plasticity and can in fact reassign functions to undamaged areas. There have been a couple of books about how the brain works released over the past two years.
So far, no one has been able to identify which areas of the brain control the supernatural abilities. :
|
