|
|
|
|
I have never seen you, but im sure you dont look like an idiot, just as Im sure your not an idiot. I ask the biology teacher about the 5% verses the 10%. Of course I got more info than I ever wanted. He says, "The human brain is very complicated (duh) a lot of the brain is used for storage (like something triggers a memory from when you were 5 years old). Different areas of the brain control and store different things and they can all work in unison (such as seeing something, smelling it, hearing it, and thinking on gee a skunk), however, it is estimated that we only use 5 to 10% of our brain at one time. Its not that we use 5% and the other 95% is just waist, but only 5% or 10% is active at one time. I think from what he said that there is probably a wide margine of how much of the brain is in use at a singe moment.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it a myth that you only use 5-10% that the other part is not used, but what I stating is that you are only using 0-20% of different areas at any given time varies on what you are doing.
Having had no time to look at all my notes from that class yet but found a web site that Tells a little about the truth and the misunderstood facts. But my basis is "Perhaps when people use the 10% brain statement, they mean that only one out of every ten nerve cells is essential or used at any one time? How would such a measurement be made?” ( http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html )
But it explains a lot more than what my notes would cover.
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is pedegogurey made with tomatoes?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitop
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: June 2005
Messages: 73
|
|
|
Hi, David,
For some reason, the website I said ‘I find very useful, particularly in this pan-Atlantic venue’. above was left out of my post as it was posted (perhaps the angle brackets around the address?). It was:
http://www.onelook.com/
The redundancy in the brain, and in the space shuttle, to be there in case of failure of the primary system, or of another system, is usually the second definition. The first refers to discourse or writing. ("Another type of redundancy involves repetition words and phrases. For example, "the end result" is a commonly used phrase, but "the result" is sufficient. "At this point in time" is another example; "now" usually is sufficient. Yet a third example is "each and every"; "each" is sufficient. " - Aid to bulletin writers. 'redundant pairs (“benefits and advantages”), redundant modifiers (“mandatory requirement”), redundant categories (“rectangular in shape”), phrases used where words would do (“at this point in time” instead of “now”), and empty sentence openings: ‘‘There is a strong likelihood of rain tomorrow," rather than “Rain is very likely tomorrow.” ' - Keith Grant-Davie Univ of Utah).
I agree,' "Repetitive" does not mean the same thing as "redundant" ' But Marc, who repeated the same idea, ‘No person can think about two things simultaneously’ one way or another, over and over, was never redundant in so doing. (Btw, if he hadn’t repeated it 6 times, ‘over and over’ would have been redundant!’
‘Repetition does not necessarily imply redundancy; if a point is necessary, it can be made many times without being redundant. But once it becomes redundant, this means it does not need to be said ‘ Do you mean: ‘If a point is necessary to be made, it can be made many times without its promoter being redundant. But once it becomes accepted, it does not have to be said again.’? I don’t find any definition of redundant which could modify ‘a point’.
And Nigel, I thought I had made up the word Pedagoguery, David having referred to himself on some occasions I think as a pedagogue, but the above cited site found it in A Dictionary of Obscure Words. Portemanteau? A hanger or hat rack? Anyhow, I don’t consider myself pedantic, only a seeker of clarity. Mac
P.S. Brian, Any suggestions? I'll try it and report. m
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Brian,
Your teacher said,
>only 5% or 10% is active at one time
I have to say that that sounds like a straightforward reponse from someone who is unsure but cautiously agreeing with the spirit of "at any one time, we are only using 10% of the brain" because it sounds reasonable enough if phrased in that way. I asked my father -- who did his MD in neurology, IIRC, though is now a cardiologist -- and he told me that if I wanted to get a definitive answer I would have to try the university library or someone who has specific specialised insight into the workings of the brain. I'm not convinced that it's a subject a high school teacher would know enough about unless he has specialist knowledge into the subject, or has looked it up.
Of course, I can't possibly be authoritative on the answer myself, but I am always sceptical of the "easy way out", which is to dismiss the subject once one discovers a conjecture that sounds reasonable enough, without demanding actual proof. I would like to know who came up with the 10% in the first place. How can you possibly measure it? Why 10%, rather than 5% or 25%? 10% over what time period? (In any given microsecond you might be using a handful of neurons, an almost infinitessimal percentage of the brain; in any given second you might be using a few million, a small percentage; but by the end of an hour you might have used them all.) In other words, I would like to trace it back to its source, rather than cautiously accepting it as true and working around it.
Certainly, "at any one time" is very difficult to define. A computer processor is only able to access a few bytes of memory at any one time -- does that in fact mean that for every given point it is only using a billionth of its memory capacity? Technically, yes -- practically, of course not. A computer processor spends eternity in a waiting loop before springing into action for a few milliseconds. Does that mean it is only using a thousandth of its power? No, because the full processing power is there in practical terms at any point you need it.
Jason suggested:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
It seems like a sensible page. Note the links at the bottom, especially the one from the Urban Legends Reference Pages (Snopes), which is a good site run by intelligent people, and generally well-researched:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
I have copied a paragraph here which is particularly useful, though I'd recommend you read the Snopes article in its entirety instead.
1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another. [my emphasis]
That being the case, it's really irrelevant how much is being used over any particular measuring period.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tomatoes aren't made. They grow.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Mac. It failed the Concise Oxford Dictionary test and I couldn't be fagged to go downstairs and look in the NODE. However, it doesn't invalidate my question.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I usually refer to myself as a pedant, not a pedagogue. Hence 'pedantry'.
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=redundant&x=0&y=0
I think you are splitting hairs over this, possibly incorrectly. I have used the word "redundant" quite loosely in my replies; you may be right that a point itself cannot technically be redundant. But repetition of a point can, hence his posts were, and I would have thought that it was clear from the context that that is what I was referring to.
I am not sure why you say that Marc was not being redundant in making the same point several times. After the first time, his replies were redundant. Almost anything can be redundant if there are more present than required.
>Portemanteau? A hanger or hat rack?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau
Personally, I find dictionary.com easier to use than onelook.com.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitop
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: June 2005
Messages: 73
|
|
|
I guess, Nigel, I don't understnad your question.
Try again? m
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Play a drumkit. As any copmpetent drummer will tell you, it's hard. As any skilled drummer will tell you, it's evilly hard. Novices will tell you how easy it is.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to have percussion lessons at school, including the drum kit for a couple of years. I'm neither competent nor skilled. But I know how hard it is.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitop
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: June 2005
Messages: 73
|
|
|
I've never thought your display of learning either excessive or inappropriate, rather, interesting and engaging. In any case, I learned something today. I had thought port(e)manteau was a French suitcase but missed the clue to drop the 'e' in onelook.com. I had never known about the linquistic meaning before, and picked up morphemes too. A useful visit.
Best, Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portmanteau word (which I mistyped) - factitious word blending the sounds and combining the meanings of two others eg motel, Oxbridge.
Factitious - made for a special purpose, not genuine; not natural, artificial.
Oxford Concise Dictionary
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pedant thing is a bit tongue-in-cheek: Marc would probably call me a pedant and mean it.  It might be because I happen to like the sound of the word "pedantic". I also like the words "spurious" and "phthisis". Don't ask me why.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and 'facetious' and 'stasis'. My computer's called stasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Hey, guys, this discussion is surely going where it might be better not to go.
My personal response to Jason’s original question would be that there isn’t any single answer. Different people cope in different ways, and the same person can cope in different ways at different times. I may not be a good example, as I’ve had brain-related medical problems for most of my life, though medication allows me to give an impression of normality most of the time – except of course when the moon is full! But there are times when thoughts and images invade my brain in chaotic succession, and other times when I can pretty well empty my mind. I don’t think I can ‘think of nothing’, but I certainly can sometimes focus on an attractive or soothing image to the exclusion of everything else. You’ll have gathered from the repeated mention of images that my thought processes are very visually-biased. Does it matter that we are all different? I can’t see that it does; all that matters is learning to cope with our own peculiarities. In Jason’s case, I would think that it would be possible to banish the ‘nothing’ by deliberately focussing on ‘something’ – in much the same way as most of us avoid thinking about impending stresses by concentrating our attention elsewhere.
Then Marc raised the interesting argument that it is impossible to think of two things simultaneously. Later posts indicated that what he had in mind was memory recall rather than memory input. I’m not quite sure whether I understood him correctly, but I think he also acknowledged that it might be possible to recall two different senses simultaneously – say, a picture and a piece of music.
In an earlier post, I suggested that it was possible to listen to speech and to read words simultaneously – reading while listening to the radio, for example – but that point was rendered irrelevant by Marc’s first qualification. I certainly believe that the second qualification is also necessary. I’m addicted to trams, and to undemanding crime series on TV. Some years ago, both addictions were catered for in a series entitled ‘Van der Valk’, set in Amsterdam. Trams featured strongly in the opening credits, and the title music was particularly good: ‘Eye Level’, by the Simon Park Orchestra was a surprise No. 1 in the UK Chart. I can easily recall the title sequence visually and aurally, and as the music isn’t synchronised with my visual memory, it seems certain that two separate thoughts are involved.
However, having accepted the qualifications, I think that Marc’s original proposition is essentially correct. For the reasons I give below, I think that it might be better to replace the word ‘impossible’ by the words ‘very difficult’, but I think that the suggestion is novel (to me, at least) and definitely interesting. It’s a pity that the discussion was sidetracked into questions of neural activity, because our understanding of the brain is limited and I doubt whether anyone can say whether the relevant neurons move in series or in parallel, so no-one was going to ‘win’ at that level. But I’ve been going over some of Marc’s examples, and the idea is fascinating!
Can you visualise two different pictures simultaneously? I can’t, though I can think of them in quick succession. Of course, if you view two pictures side by side you will be able to recall them side by side, but that’s cheating – you are really recalling a single visual image embracing both pictures. And even then, as when the image was created, you can only study the detail of the pictures one at a time. The same is true of music; I can’t intuitively think of two tunes in parallel, though if I went through the process of putting the notes together one by one I might be able to do so – but of course I’d then be remembering a new aural image of my own creation. It seems to work for the olfactory sense, too. Think of two powerful scents – I thought of diesel oil and garlic – and try to imagine the combined odour. I can’t do it. Of course, if I set up a situation in which I could absorb both scents simultaneously, no doubt I’d be able to remember the combined smell, but I can’t put the two elements together from memory alone.
I tried to imagine the combined taste of celery and malt whisky, but the celery didn’t get a look in! Tactile sensations are I think the most difficult to recall. It seems to me that I CAN simultaneously recall the feel of velvet beneath my fingers and water against my face, but I can’t do two 'finger' sensations – velvet and sandpaper, for example, other than in sequence.
No doubt there are lots more examples, and different people may have different capabilities. I mentioned in my previous post the fact that certain sufferers from Asperger’s syndrome appear to have parallel recall – that is, to do two things simultaneously from memory, such as reciting a poem while drawing a copy of a picture previously seen. I am attracted to the view that parallel recall is something which most of us find virtually impossible, but which we could (theoretically) learn to do better. I don’t want to go into the realm of neurons – let’s just say that it might be possible to learn to interrogate alternate memories so rapidly that to all intents and purposes we appear to have parallel recall.
Anyway, bearing in mind that we are talking about recollected memory and NOT about multiple inputs – it seems clear that these are possible – it would be interesting to hear what other posters can do – or at least can believe themselves to be doing!
Apologies for the length of this post, but I do think that Marc’s proposition is worth more exploration than it has so far received.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
This is a matter of memory and hand coordination..... You can learn the hand movements for each piece and then play them together.....
Just as the right hand and left hand play different notes on the piano simultaneously.....
But can or could he choose any two pieces and play them at will?
I don't think so.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, well, if Marc doesn't think so we might as well all pack up and go home. Show's over, folks.
Seriously, if you flatly deny any evidence to the contrary then we might as well not be having this conversation. It's much more interesting, within a discussion, to say, "Well, that's not quite what I was talking about, but..." and opening a new avenue of enquiry, rather than something along the lines of "That's obviously not what I'm talking about, I'm right, you're wrong, full stop."
In other words, let's wrap up this conversation while we're still on speaking terms.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just for clarification, I mean that I am not going to participate further. Not that Marc should not. I am aware that he's very touchy on ambiguities of that nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Are we still on speaking terms.....?
I am not so sure.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Now you are being an ass.....
Thats right..... An ass.... or Arse.... However you choose to spell it!
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My old prep school headmaster had a party trick. He would ask for two short phrases from the class, then stand in front of the blackboard with a piece of chalk in each hand, put his hands behind his back, and write the two phrases simultaneously, starting in the middle of the blackboard, with the left hand working leftwards (ie backwards) writing one phrase in mirror writing, and the right hand writing forwards in the normal way.
This may be related to lefthandedness and so not invalidate Marc's general thesis ... I'm a lefthander, and if I get very tired I occasionally start writing in mirror-writing from right to left.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we seem to be speaking to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, in the UK it's perfectly acceptable to call someone an ass. The Famous Five did it all the time, I seem to recall. In that case, however, it means donkey and is not particularly rude.
"Don't be an ass, Dick. Aunt Fanny always packs lashings of ginger beer."
I sometimes wonder whether the American phrase "You're an ass!" originally meant the same thing, but as Americans can't tell the difference between a posterior and a donkey they assume it applies to a posterior.
Calling someone an arse, if that is what you intend, would technically be correct in the UK, but it is not a common expression.
Biblical quotations about coveting thy neighbour's ass are not as funny over here, either.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. "Up the ass" is, of course, an exultation on behalf of the noble donkey, in the vein of "Up the Arsenal!" Shame on you if you thought it meant something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I have never spoken to you.....
We type messages back and forth.....
While it is communicating, it is far and away from speaking.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If it is your intent to get me pissed off you are going about it the right way.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I can either respond to a post branding me an "ass" (or perhaps an "arse") by making light of it, or by flaming you back. Would you prefer that I was upset?
I'm not sure if you've ever read Enid Blyton -- if not, then you might assume I was being completely random. I assure you I was not. "Ass" used to be quite a common insult, and was entirely unrelated to any part of the human body.
I apologise for the somewhat provocative title of my post; I actually posted it inadvertently -- putting in a silly placeholder title until I could go back and change it, but then forgetting to. However, as I pointed out, "up the ass", to an Englishman, is not necessarily rude.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>While it is communicating, it is far and away from speaking.....
It is not dissimilar. Using a board such as this one is a great deal more casual and immediate than writing a letter or sending a fax. The only medium that comes close in terms of rapid interchange of ideas is word of mouth.*
For want of a better word (you used "communicating" -- that is not a word I would generally use in day-to-day conversation in this context) I generally find "speaking" is fine. YMMV.
David
*And instant messaging; I would also call that speaking to someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... read my post at the end of this thread. The topic is interesting, but it isn't something worth falling out about!
PS - Marc - are you challenging for the title of pedant of the year by arguing that exchanging posts on the board isn't 'talking'? (Just joking - please don't take offence!)
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitop
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: June 2005
Messages: 73
|
|
|
Marc,
I just found this tunjeful exchange way back in the middle of this thread and must add that your statement could apply to two penny whistles, but a trumpeter sounds the bugle notes (1, 3, 5, 8 or c, e, g, c) by varying the pressure of upper on lower lip -- and inm this case on the two ides of his mouth -- and uses one or more of the three valves on each trumper to sound the notes in between. After sixty years, I've forgotten the tunes, but I guess he could do more than two (although I'll admit his mind may well have jumped back and forth from one to the other repeatdedly very rapidly.) I also remember reading that Toscanini could read a new orchestral score during an Atlantic crossing and know what it would sound like so he could conduct a rehearsal from memory on arrival. Who knows how! -Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitop
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: June 2005
Messages: 73
|
|
|
tuneful exchange
in this case on the two sides of his mouth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitop
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: June 2005
Messages: 73
|
|
|
A bit of a stretch, but since you spelled my word pegegogurey (goorey - gooey))! how about dipping your tomato in caramel and presenting a gooey love-apple to the teacher? -Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yes indeed.......
But these motions could also be memorized......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And perhaps they were not. How could you know?
I do not think we can extrapolate from our own subjective experience the way that everyone else thinks, especially if we are not in posession of the same skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a caramel tomato...hummmmmmmm, sounds interesting. I shall try that anbd see what it taste like.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Or perhaps we can.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or perhaps we cannot........
Two can play at this game!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I still think you are wrong.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>I still think you are wrong.....
Always wrong?
I think you are right but only in certain circumstances. It's one thing to say, "I, Marc, can't think of two tunes simultaneously," -- if you say it is true then it most likely is true -- but it is a leap of faith to conclude from that that no-one can. You are also restricting your definitions where a broader approach might lead to more interesting conversation, presumably for the satisfaction of being able to contradict other people. That is not discussion.
Anyway, that's enough from me.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
