The human brain

> There is no scientific evidence to suggest
> that we use only 10% of our brains.

> In other words, the statement, "We use
> only 10% of our brains" is false; it's
> a myth. We use all of our brain.

> To learn more about that myth, where did the
> 10% myth begin, why does the myth continue,
> what does it mean to use only 10% of your
> brain, go to
>
> http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
> So next time you hear someone say that they
> only use 10% of their brain, you can set
> them straight. Tell them,

> "NOT TRUE; We use 100% of our
> brains."

Where is the proof that we use 100% of our brains? If that were true there would be no way we could learn new things or replace damaged areas by re-processing and training. Redundancy is built into a lot of our body parts, why not the brain?

What is more likely is that the brain is capable, as is the liver, of regenerating tissue on an as-needed basis assuming the proper stimuli and environment are present (and within physical limits, of course).

Thanks for sharing the info on the 10%. I was merely going on the information I was fed, complete with notations and references as is usually found in college textbooks, 40 some years ago. I hadn't heard anything to the contrary. Well, now I have and it seems authoritative.

As for the difficulty reading, it's just that I had to slow to a crawl to be able to decipher it and that I find difficult at any time because of the frustration factor. FYI: I read so fast, when in good form, that I was put on a monitor set for 1200 words per minute and beat it by a page and a half at least. Comprehension was averaged at 90% (oops! 92% when I looked it up in my files. Sorry, didn't mean to lie.) on the tests after reading. Perhaps now you can better understand why I found going so slow so frustrating. Lest you think faster is better, think again...it's almost impossible to keep oneself in reading material. :o)

Anyway, it's a fascinating discussion, folks. Love this forum...

Sandi