XPost: alt.dreams, alt.dreams.castaneda, alt.dreams.edgar-cayce
XPost: alt.dreams.lucid.entities, alt.out-of-body, japan.dreams.lucid
From: laura@nospam.me
"_cloud" wrote in message
news:eebdba34.0410261110.3125d6ec@posting.google.com...
> "Laura" wrote in message
news:...
> > "Kaycee" wrote in message
> > news:cljgi5$20v$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > > David Mitchell wrote:
> > >
> > > > The left/right brain distinction is, IIRC, overrated.
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK there are only very few specialised areas which are not
duplicated
> > > > on both hemispheres.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are right, it's one of those amazingly powerful modern myths.
> > > Apparently, there's something in it that people _want_ to believe. The
> > > same thing with the age-old misconception that "we only use about 10%
of
> > > our brain capacity" (again, this is not true!). Somehow it seems, I
> > > don't know, comforting to a lot of people? And of course, you get to
> > > blame other people for "only using their left brain" when all else
fails
> > > and they're rejecting your point .)
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers, KC
> >
> > Naturally, all of the brain is being used. To think otherwise is really
> > rather silly, since there is nothing pointless in living organisms.
>
> meaning there is only pointless-ness in "dead" organisms?
Maybe "pointless" is an inaccurate way of putting it... What I meant was
that every single part of a living being is finely tuned to perform the
tasks that make it suited to survive within its niche.
Hence, there is nothing in a living being that is not of some use - so no
90% of brain that isn't used. Nature isn't wasteful.
> as long as a
> relation is perceived organization appear, they start orbiting. hard
> to draw the line between living and dead sometimes. perhaps there are
> no dead this or that. or that all this or that is dead. or neither,
> who knows where a body begins or ends...
One word: Woo
>
> > always exactly what is needed - no more and no less. :-)
> > The misconception about the 10% may originate from a misunderstanding of
the
> > statement that "only 10% (at best) of the processes in our brains are
being
> > handled on a conscious level".
>
> and the rest "90" other percentages are processing in a separated
> state of un-concious-ness, but still "within" the so-called brain?
What would you call it, if not brain?
Would you call an apple something else than apple, too?
It's called brain. No need to change that just to feel special :-)
Anyway, no, not really separated. No more, at any rate, than the software
you use to post here is separated from its source code. Yet, the experience
of using software and of reading source code are wildly different.
> in
> case, that means a 100 percent conciousness must have set the
> standard, in order to define such.
Only if you consider consciousness somehow intrinsically "better" than the
subconscious.
Why would you?
> in other words a 90 percent
> un-conciousness decided that the missing 10 was its conciousness,
> which is a bit weird
Actually, the idea is that the (roughly) 10% of consciousness are an
emergent property of the myriad subconscious processes taking place all the
time. However, the conscious does not have complete insight into the
processes that brought it about.
Why, then, does the conscious self emerge? What is the point, since there is
nothing pointless in nature?
It's probably a social construct, to better enable us to communicate and
coexist productively as a species. That is a large part of why we are
successful.
>
> It's easy to see how that can quickly be
> > warped and turned into a myth :-)
>
> yes. left right left right left right
> i dont even remember i typed this now
Get some sleep :-)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
