Author Topic: Scarlett Johansson's New Movie Is Based on One of the Biggest Scientific Myths of All Time  (Read 2047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Machiavelli

  • Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,646
  • Realist
Ross Pomeroy
RealClearScience
July 22, 2014

Quote
The reviews aren't yet in for Scarlett Johansson's new movie Lucy, but a single viewing of the trailer is enough to give the film a resounding "two thumbs down" on science...

The idea that humans only use 10% of their brains is a complete, utter, and total myth. Lucy is entirely premised on neuroscientific BS...

More

Wikipedia

Note: since the publication of this article 12 days ago, the movie has been released and the reviews are in.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Ross Pomeroy
RealClearScience
July 22, 2014
More

Wikipedia

Note: since the publication of this article 12 days ago, the movie has been released and the reviews are in.


It's not BS!!! How dare you say that. The problem is the study only selected Democrats.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,183
    • Auktion Online
Two questions:
1. What percentage of his brain is OPapaDoc using to make all the stupid decisions he has made?
2. Since the premise is flawed, can I just devote 100 percent of my brain concentrating on ScarJo?
"She only coughs when she lies."

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,691
It common sense when you consider the Savant.

A blind person can make a replica of a bucking horse, with every contracted muscle detailed, every contour.

A so-called average person cannot do that.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8YXZTlwTAU" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8YXZTlwTAU</a>


Here's another one of a kid that wears ear phones and travels over the subject in a helicopter....and then creates it IN DETAIL from memory.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 05:05:09 PM by DCPatriot »
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Offline AbaraXas

  • Не русский хакер
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,195
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The willing suspension of disbelief.

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,277
I think the idea is that she can control all 100% of her brain at once, which normal humans cannot do. Still, the idea that you'd have superpowers is ridiculous. It'd more likely allow you to do advanced math with one hand while writing a novel with the other as an example. Humans use small percentages of their brain at once because we are very adept at focusing on one single thing and completing said task.
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,182
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
A real life example of human inability to effectively multitask, is talking on the phone and driving.

Twice, with hands free phones, I have started thru an intersection, incorrectly. I was totally focused on the call.

"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.”  Abe Lincoln

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,148
  • Chief Dork
Uhhm, the brain isn't just a wetware version of a silicon-based computer like an Intel chip.  What it means to "use" the brain is almost certainly not what it means to "use" a computer.  It isn't just a matter of rationalizing your programs and the processing mechanisms of the CPU - like multi-threading and out-of-order processing - to try and use all of the clock cycles of the cpu for doing something - i.e., reducing system idle time.

For example, as far as appears, the brain integrates both processing functions and data storage functions.  Computers do not do that; even with on-chip cache memory there is still a distinct difference between the CPU logic proper and the memory.  Furthermore, unless your computer is running a RAID disk system, physical damage to part of a disk makes it virtually impossible to access any files that were partly stored on the damaged area.  Certainly, a silicon-based computer cannot repair the damage done to its hard drive.  By contrast human memory displays certain aspects of holograms, in which each piece of a broken hologram can still provide a perspective view of the entire hologram.

Also, the belief that only 10% of the mammalian brain is being used at any given time is rather an insult to the creativity Mother Nature displays, in which almost every part - certainly the most important parts - of an organism is used and where significant parts that lose their primary function are repurposed for another use.  The human brain is, actually, a good demonstration of that:  when a portion of the brain is cut off from the part of the body it was originally connected to, surrounding areas of the brain will slowly take over the unused portions.  This is the source of the so-called phantom limb phenomenon, in which an amputee still feels that they have the limb they lost.  That sensation is, apparently, caused by other parts of the brain beginning to use the neurons that until then had been used to map the limb that was amputated.

In other words, nature is rarely so wasteful with valuable resources, and the mammalian brain is most definitely a valuable resource, considering how much energy it takes to run the thing.

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,277
It's probably not as small as 10%, but we certainly do not use all of our brain at once. In any given day we have probably used all 100% of our brain, but we tap into specific parts of it to complete specific tasks.


EDIT:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/

"Although it's true that at any given moment all of the brain's regions are not concurrently firing, brain researchers using imaging technology have shown that, like the body's muscles, most are continually active over a 24-hour period. "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain," says John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Even in sleep, areas such as the frontal cortex, which controls things like higher level thinking and self-awareness, or the somatosensory areas, which help people sense their surroundings, are active, Henley explains."
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 06:02:18 PM by Dex4974 »
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,148
  • Chief Dork
It's probably not as small as 10%, but we certainly do not use all of our brain at once. In any given day we have probably used all 100% of our brain, but we tap into specific parts of it to complete specific tasks.


EDIT:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/

"Although it's true that at any given moment all of the brain's regions are not concurrently firing, brain researchers using imaging technology have shown that, like the body's muscles, most are continually active over a 24-hour period. "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain," says John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Even in sleep, areas such as the frontal cortex, which controls things like higher level thinking and self-awareness, or the somatosensory areas, which help people sense their surroundings, are active, Henley explains."


Yes, but I think the bigger point is that forcing more neurons to actively fire at any given point in time wouldn't result in any better functioning; it would probably cause worse functioning and cause damage to the brain.  In other words, the brain is probably already running at its full functional capacity - something that is measured by something other than the gross number of neurons firing at any given time - with the possible exception of democrat/liberal brains, which are mostly not being used at all.

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,277
Yes, but I think the bigger point is that forcing more neurons to actively fire at any given point in time wouldn't result in any better functioning; it would probably cause worse functioning and cause damage to the brain.  In other words, the brain is probably already running at its full functional capacity - something that is measured by something other than the gross number of neurons firing at any given time - with the possible exception of democrat/liberal brains, which are mostly not being used at all.

Maybe, but that is all just speculation. It'll be interesting to see what we discover about the brain in coming years.
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??

Offline Machiavelli

  • Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,646
  • Realist

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,148
  • Chief Dork
Maybe, but that is all just speculation. It'll be interesting to see what we discover about the brain in coming years.

It's not just all speculation.  Show me where your brain keeps its separate hard drive.  You can't because it doesn't.  In fact, you can't even show me your brain's separate RAM because it doesn't have a memory that is separate and distinct from the logic circuits.  The two are tightly integrated in the brain; they aren't in the computers we use.

I'm most interested in seeing what gets discovered about the brain in the future because it's quite clear that we have very little idea how it does what it does in terms of consciousness and thinking, but we do have some idea of how it doesn't do things and one of the things that is clear is that it doesn't operate along the paradigm of a computer.

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,183
    • Auktion Online
It's not just all speculation.  Show me where your brain keeps its separate hard drive.  You can't because it doesn't.  In fact, you can't even show me your brain's separate RAM because it doesn't have a memory that is separate and distinct from the logic circuits.  The two are tightly integrated in the brain; they aren't in the computers we use.

I'm most interested in seeing what gets discovered about the brain in the future because it's quite clear that we have very little idea how it does what it does in terms of consciousness and thinking, but we do have some idea of how it doesn't do things and one of the things that is clear is that it doesn't operate along the paradigm of a computer.

It is quite a bit more complex than a computer, as you say.  But I can tell you the "information processing" model of cognition works pretty well in terms of memory retention and brands  Terms such as brand recognition, brand recall, top of mind awareness and brand association schemas are all based on this model.

As you say, there is quite a bit more to it.  But as a predictive model the info processing paradigm does work pretty well, which is to say it predicts better than random chance would predict, but not perfectly by any means.  Typically, in most marketing applications I have seen, the paradigm might explain about 25 percent of the variance in a dependent variable.   That means that 75 percent is unexplained, but it is nonetheless a pretty good theoretical framework as social science goes.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,277
It's not just all speculation. 

You said making more neurons activate and fire at once would not only not be helpful, but would probably be harmful. You also said the brain is probably already functioning at its full functional capacity. That is indeed speculation, because there is no solid evidence to support any of that at this time. True or not, it is speculation until a time when we better understand the brain.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:31:00 PM by Dex4974 »
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,691
You said making more neurons activate and fire at once would not only not be helpful, but would probably be harmful. You also said the brain is probably already functioning at its full functional capacity. That is indeed speculation, because there is no solid evidence to support any of that at this time. True or not, it is speculation until a time when we better understand the brain.

Thank you.

And of course the human brain is a micro-processor, albeit an organic one.   :patriot:
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Contra point.

There is a very good reason for only parts of the brain to be used at a time.

Ever firing neuron requires fuel, which is turned into heat. Proteins start denaturing at 45C, mRNA at 40C. All of it working at once would cook your brain or, at the very least, erase your memories. It's a very energy intensive process with no real cooling system.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,148
  • Chief Dork
You said making more neurons activate and fire at once would not only not be helpful, but would probably be harmful. You also said the brain is probably already functioning at its full functional capacity. That is indeed speculation, because there is no solid evidence to support any of that at this time. True or not, it is speculation until a time when we better understand the brain.

You said everything was speculation; I merely said it was not.  If you really want to get into a pissing match, unzip.

Offline Dexter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,277
You said everything was speculation; I merely said it was not.  If you really want to get into a pissing match, unzip.

I said the thoughts you presented in the text I quoted were speculative, and they are.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 01:09:25 AM by Dex4974 »
"I know one thing, that I know nothing."
-Socrates


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf