Humans use X% of our brain

Okay. So 'they' say we only use 10% of of our brains capacity. The specific percentage is not important, only that we dont use any where close to all of it.

My thought on this is, if we only use a fraction of its power/capacity why do we have so much to start with?

We have arms we use 100% of the time and 100% of its ability, often this isnt enough, when we can't lift something we are using 100% and that's not enough, therefore we must be maxing it out. This makes sense, some things are too much but we have the ability to use the maximum when ever we need to.

So why and how did we evolve a brain power we can't use all of? We must have at some point been able to use it all, else we wouldn't have evolved it to the level it is in the first place. Evolution simply doesn't make sense here otherwise.

Thoughts?

What part of your brain can I remove if you think you only use a small percentage of it?

Sorry to do this but.... en.wikipedia.org...

Neurologist Barry Gordon describes the myth as false, adding, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time."Neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein sets out seven kinds of evidence refuting the ten percent myth:

Studies of brain damage: If 90% of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.

Brain scans have shown that no matter what one is doing, brains are always active. Some areas are more active at any one time than others, but barring brain damage, there is no part of the brain that is absolutely not functioning.

The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to 20% of the body's energy—more than any other organ—despite making up only 2% of the human body by weight. If 90% of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. It is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place.

Brain imaging (neuroimaging): Technologies such as positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.

Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.

Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90% of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.

Neural disease: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90% of the brain were inactive, autopsy of adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.

We use our whole brain. Our immune system and subconscious are in control of most of it and that part uses faster processing at very low energy level. This equates to background noise on an EKG. Just because they can't figure how something works doesn't mean it is not working.

Our consciousness uses a lot of power though, they can see that with their testing, including dreams. Some day they will know more about all of the activities of our cells and brain and how they all have knowledge and memory capacity.

We dont have 90% of our brain we can just remove. We use the whole brain, but we dont actually use each part to its full individual potential.

Imagine a network of connections, one part can't do another parts job, but each part isnt used to its full potential even though we sometimes require that extra we cant use it, most of those connections do nothing and never will.

Its like having a car engine that never uses every gear, or every revolution of the engine, or every tooth of every cog or every spark or every drop of fuel. It could, its possible, but it cant.

originally posted by: Biigs
We dont have 90% of our brain we can just remove. We use the whole brain, but we dont actually use each part to its full individual potential.

Imagine a network of connections, one part can't do another parts job, but each part isnt used to its full potential even though we sometimes require that extra we cant use it, most of those connections do nothing and never will.

Its like having a car engine that never uses every gear, or every revolution of the engine, or every tooth of every cog or every spark or every drop of fuel. It could, its possible, but it cant.

In a way from my point of view you are right that the usage of the brain and building up connections between neurons will be different from person to person and therefore the usage will be different. Also if we go into things like the amygadala and the third eye with it sensors then the usage of the biological hardware that exists is very different from person to person even if they are identical twins and have exactly the same bodies (biological hardware) at the start.

a reply to: Biigs

The perpetuated notion that "we only use 10%" of the brain is a falsehood or misconception, if you like. Take any genius on the planet who doctors would say "uses more of their brain" and they're clearly lacking in other skills, socially, creatively, vocally, etc...

As rickymouse already mentioned, our brain is used for a whole plethora of functions. The functions that we consciously use, constitute probably around 10%. There is no such thing as "reaching our full potential" we are either using the brain or we're not. We're either strengthening our pathways, or we're not, it's really as simple as that. The more we use our minds, the more our capacity for knowledge increases because we are constantly creating new connections, but there are no "high bandwidth" connections, so-to-speak.

People who are able to simulate higher math in their mind, often trade off another part of their mind for that ability. I believe the mind to be a giant circuit board which can make a limited about of connections. The more connections you have dedicated to one specific area, means you lose potential connections from another.

Another example would be people who have an eidetic memory. They tend to have personality disorders. There's generally always a trade-off for extra special functionality. Of course I'm sure someone out there is the exception, but I have yet to hear about one.

a reply to: Elton

Amen. This was going to be my comment exactly. The way they calculate the % of our brain we are using is abhorrently illogical. I mean, what percentage of a pencil do you use, just the tip really, so the rest of it must be wasted, right? Every part of the brain is used at some point for some purpose, I mean unless you are running while doing math in your head, typing a letter, listening to a sonnet and smelling a new fragrance, you aren't going to ever use 100% of your brain at the same time.

Look at squid brains. They have an alarming capacity, mainly because they have color change cells all over their bodies and at any given time they might need to appear to be any number of things. They rarely come close to using all of that at once, so it must be wasteful. Nature isn't wasteful. If there's a more efficient way of doing things, it will emerge eventually and once born become dominant.

I try to use only 10%

a reply to: Biigs
I'd like to add that as many have noted we do use almost all of our brain
But what we have as of yet....all of us used very little of is the capacity to learn
Our brains are amazing in that aspect, it can just keep on absorbing and making new connections so that our learning capacity is only barely tapped

X

a reply to: Xcouncil=wisdom

perhaps then we havnt found a way to educate ourselves in a way that utilizes more of the brains ability.

My question is more about how we came to have a higher capacity and potential ability when evolution changes our bodys to adapt to environment and needs. You look at any species and its evolved to meet a need, a requirement to be able to adapt, so why is the brain so far ahead of our needs, surely like every other appendage is fit for purpose as needed, why did we evolve an organ thats more than needed, we only use 10% (or whatever) because we only need to use that much to get by, so why then is that 10% not all we have, why 'waste' so much, thats not how evolution works.

a reply to: Biigs

I'd rather only use a small portion of the brain's capacity, because think of it this way - If you were actively using 100% of your brain at a given time, then:
1. You'd fry the brain (just as a computer can fry the RAM chip from running too hot for too long; personal experience).
OR
2. You'd lose the ability to remember, because a portion of your brain is used for memory storage.

I'm of the opinion that if someone is a "genius" in something, it means that some other part of the brain compensates. For example, I am horrible with my memory (even though I'm in my 20's), and yet I can play/remember the songs I played in 5th grade band & upwards without even seeing the sheet music; I can sightread, and with little practice make it seem like I spent weeks learning the piece. I mean, I can play all my concerts with the music upside down, my eyes closed, or in some cases (much to the annoyance of my section leader), no music at all.

To me, I always figured that the reason why my memory was so poor was because it was being used to store everything I did musically, because as long as music is playing, I remember the events just fine.

-fossilera

Of course we use all of our brain! The myth has been guided the wrong way though....At least i think.

As in someone must have stated the "myth" in a way that was misinterpreted by others.

IMO I think that the original discussion/myth wasn't that we don't use all of our brain/we only use like 20% of our brain. The original discussion was that we only know how to control 20% of our brain. It basically is true. If we were able to control all of our brain, we'd have the ability to control our mood, what we see, our senses, etc!

a reply to: Biigs

We actually use all of our brain. It's too much of a burden on our limited physical resources to waste anything.

I think the unused % of brain idea was invented by motivational speakers in order to imply almost unlimited capabilities.

The truth is, we are all similarly limited. The memory capacity of our brains is probably less than 100 Terabytes and definitely less than 2.5 Petabytes.

An example is the memorization of 'phone numbers. Many years ago, I knew most of the 'phone numbers of friends and family by heart. Now, with smartphones, I don't have to remember 'phone numbers so the memories are forgotten (brain space has been reallocated to more relevant tasks) and I know very few off by heart.

a reply to: Biigs

That is a myth.

You dont need 100% brain capacity to chew or breath. You dont need parts of your brain for certain tasks since smaller bits of it are usually specialized for certain tasks.

You dont need your car´s AC to make the hazard blinkers work. Having some sort of toggle for your AC every time you hit the blinker wouldnt make your car have "super" blinkers.

All of your brain is used. Every part is specialized for certain tasks and is used when those tasks are presented to it. If part of it is damaged it will rewire itself to dedicate certain other parts to complete the function of the damaged sections.

That is pretty super.