Slashdot Mirror


Your Brain May Have Amazing Powers

I've never given much credence to the "only use 10% of our brains" urban legend, but this article, Savant for a Day, is making me reconsider. I'd like to see controlled, double-blind studies, but Snyder's machine already sounds very interesting -- hey, anyone can learn to draw, but I want to flip a switch to put my brain into calculator mode. EM-brain experimentation has taken off since Michael Persinger's work and other recent research.

14 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. 10% of brain power and 2% of talents by teutonic_leech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't that what Einstein said? Anyway, that link seems to be down, but I just saw a documentary yesterday night on the telly, where they trained people to modify their brainwave activity to move a player through a video game. I think this only scratches the surface - there's a lot of potential that we probably don't even know about... I would be glad to add a few more percent to mine, that's for sure - LOL :-)

  2. And what about modern CPU's? by msgmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since most of a modern CPU's transistor count is cache memory you'ill probably find that outside the control unit at any one time even less than 10% of the transistors are active. If you include the number of transistors present for main memory in the mix that percentage gets even lower.

  3. Large cranium... by TrueJim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I recall from college anthropology, human childbirth is painful (and sometimes even fatal) precisely because our craniums are so large, relative to other mammals and relative to the size of our frames. (Humans have the highest ratio of brain mass to body mass; whales come in second.) If so much of our brain mass were hypothetically unnecessary, then humans with smaller brains would be more likely to pass on their genes, as those childbirths would less frequently be fatal. Over time, humans would come to have much smaller craniums (90% smaller, if the urban myth were true), not the large craniums that we currently possess. The fact that evolution is willing to pay such a high penalty (increased childbirth fatalities) for large brains indicates that there must be an offsetting evolutionary advantage to having large brains. The notion that much of our brain is therefore "unused" doesn't really make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

    --
    I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
    1. Re:Large cranium... by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that evolution is willing to pay such a high penalty (increased childbirth fatalities) for large brains indicates that there must be an offsetting evolutionary advantage to having large brains. The notion that much of our brain is therefore "unused" doesn't really make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

      Then why do I have an appendix? (Or slim body hairs?)

      Evolution does not look at any one characteristic. It looks at the whole of the being. And, between equally fit species, there's still a measure of chance.

      Let's ignore the obvious rebuttal to your point (use of the brain's savant abilities is proportional; if we have a brain half the design, we might have half of the all-around intelligence) and focus on the evolutionary advantages of having unused brain tissue.

      First off, we're able to survive brain damage much easier. Being able to be thwacked in the head and still bring food home--and maybe go out and hunt some more the next day--is an obvious evolutionary advantage.

      Secondly, it increases mating. Having a bigger brain means our heads are shaped different--in a more asthetically pleasing fashion. The face is a human's primary means of identification and emotional communication--a clearer face is an obvious evolutionary advantage, within the species.

      Thirdly, it's entirely possible that over the uncounted generations of prehistory, human-ancestor-groups who had savants among them simply outperformed other human-ancestor-groups who did not, thus neccistating a retention of the savant abilities. Not a clear evolutionary advantage, but a distinct possibility.

      While your childbirth arugment is a good one, for it to work we'd need to have some mechanism to actually shrink brain mass at the start. Bugger me if I can think of one that'd work--larger hips would be a much easier evolutionary adaptation.

    2. Re:Large cranium... by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't think I agree with anything you wrote :-) Just reading through, and this is longer than I intended, but what the hell...

      Then why do I have an appendix? (Or slim body hairs?)

      Because there is very little selective pressure to remove these low-cost (in evolutionary terms) additions to the body. This is assuming that you can get rid of X without affecting Y, which is a heck of an assumption - most of our body parts are created/regulated by the interaction over time of *lots* of different genetic codes, your overall genetic code is not a blueprint you can just erase part of... Besides, they're not useful *now*. They presumably were *once*, and they may yet be again. Not in our lifetime, I suspect :-) but possibly in the future...

      Let's ignore the obvious rebuttal to your point (use of the brain's savant abilities is proportional; if we have a brain half the design, we might have half of the all-around intelligence) and focus on the evolutionary advantages of having unused brain tissue.

      How do you *know* it's proportional ? It may be highly non-linear in nature. Intelligence could be an emergent property, as opposed to intrinsic. There could be a minimum (or maximum) neuron-quantity threshold for intelligence to occur, the decision-surface for relative intelligence could be as complex as a fractal plane. We don't know.

      First off, we're able to survive brain damage much easier. Being able to be thwacked in the head and still bring food home--and maybe go out and hunt some more the next day--is an obvious evolutionary advantage.

      I think you're overlooking the incredibly difficult process humans go through in childbirth. The non-assisted mortality rate (for both mother and child) is far higher than any other mammalian species on the planet. Primate females almost always give birth without excessive labour. Human females labour can last over several hours, although today the child is more likely to be induced or surgically delivered. Only 200 years ago, death in childbirth was commonplace for those who could not afford assistance.

      In contrast, being hit on the head hard enough to significantly break the skull will pretty much cause damage whatever size brain you have. Since all the higher-order functionality is on the outside of the brain (grey matter), that's the area that would be damaged anyway. If you don't break the skull, you're likely to just get a bruise either way, so long as you don't make a habit of it...

      Don't forget that (unless our ancestors were particularly keen on headbutting cliffs) this would be an effect on 1 person. The do-or-die childbirth thing is an issue for every human born. I suspect nature might come down on the side of the majority...


      Secondly, it increases mating. Having a bigger brain means our heads are shaped different--in a more asthetically pleasing fashion. The face is a human's primary means of identification and emotional communication--a clearer face is an obvious evolutionary advantage, within the species.

      Um. No. If we all had faces the size of pygmy monkeys, we'd probably have designs on our chests or backs, or some other method of recognition. Sexual preference is closely tied to genetic fitness, not the other way around.

      Consider that healthy-but-pug-ugly A has a 85% chance of surviving to breeding-age (and hanging around afterwards for protection etc.) because he's got strong arms. Handsome bigheaded B has only a 50% chance of making it, but he looks really cool. Unfortunately for B, the numbers are against him. No matter how many doting females are queueing up (hah!), if he only has a 50% chance of making it, his genes (and those of the doting females, since they choose B) are far more likely to be swept down evolution's sewer. The corollary is that the female

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
  4. The Experiment in Reverse by limekiller4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Two minutes after I started the first drawing, I was instructed to try again. After another two minutes, I tried a third cat, and then in due course a fourth. Then the experiment was over, and the electrodes were removed. I looked down at my work. The first felines were boxy and stiffly unconvincing. But after I had been subjected to about 10 minutes of transcranial magnetic stimulation, their tails had grown more vibrant, more nervous; their faces were personable and convincing. They were even beginning to wear clever expressions. I could hardly recognize them as my own drawings, though I had watched myself render each one, in all its loving detail. Somehow over the course of a very few minutes, and with no additional instruction, I had gone from an incompetent draftsman to a very impressive artist of the feline form."

    I would think a more convincing experiment would be to start with the machine turned on for the full "10 minutes", the cat drawing made, then the machine turned off and another made. If this is correct then the second should actually be worse than the first.

    The idea that the ability to draw better cats improves as you practice doesn't seem terribly startling.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  5. Re:Brain Wars by limekiller4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm saying that people should be allowed to do to themselves what they want. This is not to suggest that people should be allowed to do things like drive while intoxicated. Then you begin to create a hazard for other people. If you want to do ecstacy, go ahead. And if you want to shower your brain with electromagnetic stimulation, go bonkers.

    One might object that drug use creates a burden upon the rest of society. Well, so does a belief in a god yet that isn't made illegal.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  6. CAUTION ! by malabar-fraise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've met in my country people that tell that humans only use 10% of their brain ability. They usually want to use 100% of the money of their victims.

    -- (but in fact only ÂAPT has Super Cow PowersÂ)

  7. Re:Brain Wars by G-funk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's because most of the "drugs are bad, mmkay" stem from traditions based on people trying to further their own importance. Marijuana was banned not because it gets you high, but because it makes good rope. Speed was a drug dealt out often for various illnesses and weight loss, but if you have a heart condition and you take a shitload, you can die. No shit? Ecstacy and cocaine, were medicines, until the moral police decided they needed some floor space and "won't somebody think of the children" filled the air.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  8. Re: Great writep by NialScorva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you have to understand is that nobody selects. I mean, an insect is really less evolved than a human, not to say an amoeba, and they are not marked for extintion per se.

    Actually an insect is arguably more evolved than us, since it's generation time (and that of it's ancestors) is much smaller. An amoeba is incredibly more evolved, in the sense of total change since it's last common ancestor with mammals.

    Selection is not an invisible hand striving for perfection, there's not a biologist on the planet worth his weight in salt who'll say that. Selection is a instantaneous direction, a random walk through the fitness landscape. At every given moment, the selection pressure is for what would most benifit a population (not individual) right now, with no consideration for the future or perfection. There's no appeal to a nature-god, no inferior or superior (let alone perfection), just a constant changing of directions for the immediate survival.

  9. Re:I want intelligence for everybody by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If everyone was smart, the smart would loose their advantage. The same goes for knowledge.


    Who cares if the smart lose their advantage? Given the opportunity to make everyone smarter, would we deny the less-smart people this benefit just because the "naturally smart" people somehow deserve to be smart more than anyone else does?


    Even if the elitism of that idea doesn't bother, you, consider that smart people often spend a large portion of their time and energy trying to convince dumb people that their good ideas are in fact good ideas, or trying to explain their ideas to dumb people so that the dumb people can use them effectively. Being surrounded by smart people would make you (as a smart person) much more effective than trying to get your work done with the help of dumb people.


    If there was a really easy way of absorbing knowledge, where would the power and fun of knowledge be?


    Knowledge's main use isn't to be fun or make you powerful, it's to help get things done. And in any case, I suspect most people find the skillful application of knowledge much more rewarding then the tedious and difficult process of gaining that knowledge.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  10. Re:Screw that by 56ker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have borderline high-functioning autism myself. Regarding "special talents" (with me anyway) - it comes and goes. I can't switch it on/ off. Regarding the chairs if there were 6 rows of 8 chairs it isn't that hard to count. The ability to remember musical melodies isn't that difficult - and can be learned. It's part of most musician's training to be able to memorise not just a riff but entire pages of music. If you've taken a music exam you have to sing back a few phrases played to you - which is not far off playing them. I get the tension headaches too - one of the downsides of the frustration caused by having a communication disorder and being misunderstood.

  11. Re:Brain Wars by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Plenty of hostility around towards people who believe in God.

    There people who believe it's a great idea to spend tons of money to overclock their CPUs (when they can just buy a faster one). And they don't get as much hostility around here.

    And why is that?

    --
  12. Coming Soon by Sunlighter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This reminded me of two things. First, Larry Niven came up with the idea of a tasp, a device which can remotely stimulate the pleasure center of someone's brain. He also came up with the idea of people running wires directly to the pleasure centers of their brains and thus achieving perpetual electric happiness (like a drug addiction). This might be around the corner.

    Second, I am reminded of the "focused" people in Vernor Vinge's A Deepness In The Sky. They were basically slaves, but their masters made them into savants by using machines to permanently disable parts of their brains. That, too, might be around the corner.

    Cool in a scary sort of way; science fiction still has predictive power.

    --
    Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.