On the "10% of your brain" legend, here [urbanlegends.com] is a pretty cool writeup. The best quote from the article:
In other words, the "humans only use 10% of their brains" canard would more correctly be phrased "humans only use 10% of their brains for walking around and smelling things"...
"they were of normal or above-normal intelligence... their cerebral hemispheres had been compressed into a slab less than an inch thick"
If kids can lose large portions of their brains and still grow up bright and healthy, then I think that suggests pretty strongly that most of the brain is either functionally redundant or simply unused.
That's a great quote about the 10%, though.
What I want to know is why large animals need a larger brain to handle their bodies, and brain:body mass ratios are considered more important than absolute brain mass. It shouldn't require more data processing just to run a larger body, when most of its processes are regulated without the brain. Furthermore, it sounds like that wasn't the case for dinosaurs, some of which had little bird-sized brains in enormous bodies.
If this was the case, then you should be able to remove a large portion of the brain from an adult and they would remain bright and healthy.
I don't think anyone would argue that a child who has lost a large part of their brain is going to be functionally equivalent to a full brained peer.
Most of the human brain is used for body control and less exotic processes as those higher functions we attribute to our intelligence; language, problem solving, consciousness, etc. These take place on the neocortex, w
Incorrect due to basic physiology. Children can lose a large part of their brains due to a phenomenon called plasticity whereby their brain can remap brain functionality in the event of trauma. Adults outgrow this phenomenon.
In fact, procedures have been developed in pediatric neurosurgery that involve removing large parts of the brain to correct problems, such as destructive grand mal seizures. These procedures can't be used on adults because plasticity is the only reason the patient isn't left a vegetabl
Elephants have the largest brain of any animal that stands foot on earth. It's not really noteworthy, because they're also the largest creature on land.
Elephant: brain = 5kg, body = 5000kg, 0.1% Dairy Cow: brain = 400g, body = 500kg, 0.08% Human: brain = 1.3kg, body = 65kg, 2%
So, the elephant is right in line with another slow moving vegetarian (actually, a little better ratio). Compared to a human, of course, its brain/body ratio is low- but we expected that.
Furthermore, it sounds like that wasn't the case for dinosaurs, some of which had little bird-sized brains in enormous bodies.
True, but many of the larger dinosaurs also had a nerve sac in their asses. This helped them control their lower bodies, since the latency to the brain would have been high enough to make walking clumsy. IANA paleontologist
In fact, I just did some rough calculations. Consider a really big dinosaur [usgs.gov] at 23m length. From looking at the picture, we can conclude scientifically that it was about 18m from brain to ass. Now, assuming dinosaurs had nerves similar to ours, they ranged in
transmission speed [hypertextbook.com] from 20-100 m/s. Even for the fastest nerves, we're talking about a 200ms latency to the rear legs and tail. For humans, that would be a 20ms latency to the toes. For the slowest nerves, it's 1000ms for the dinosaur and 100ms for the
It shouldn't require more data processing just to run a larger body
Why shouldn't it? Most animals don't do much planning or even abstract thinking- the most important task for the neurons in the brain is to operate each and every muscular fiber in the limbs and organs.
Let us say "It shouldn't require more Human Resources staff to run a larger corporation". That's obviously wrong- of course you need more as you have more things under control.
One could imagine a hierarchal system: similarly-sized brains
There is a great deal of redundancy built into the nervous system. There is also a great amount of plasticity, the best example being people who lose a limb. When the limb is lost, other areas in the motor cortex for other types of muscle control convert the now unused area (that was previously devoted to the lost limb) into control for other muscles. This is just one example of many, if you are more curious I recommend doing a google search for plasticity and nervous system.
What I want to know is why large animals need a larger brain to handle their bodies, and brain:body mass ratios are considered more important than absolute brain mass. It shouldn't require more data processing just to run a larger body, when most of its processes are regulated without the brain. Furthermore, it sounds like that wasn't the case for dinosaurs, some of which had little bird-sized brains in enormous bodies.
That is just an excuse by the people who don't wish to aknowledge the high intelligen
the larger ones had a second brain in the back and the first one would send a signal and have it relayed to the other end of the massive beast and it would take 10 seconds from end to end to react, so if i chopped off the tip of the tail with an axe it would take that long for it to feel it and react.. (as i recall from watching a video on dinosaurs 150x as a kid)
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Great writep (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, the "humans only use 10% of their brains" canard would more correctly be phrased "humans only use 10% of their brains for walking around and smelling things"...
It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:4, Interesting)
If kids can lose large portions of their brains and still grow up bright and healthy, then I think that suggests pretty strongly that most of the brain is either functionally redundant or simply unused.
That's a great quote about the 10%, though.
What I want to know is why large animals need a larger brain to handle their bodies, and brain:body mass ratios are considered more important than absolute brain mass. It shouldn't require more data processing just to run a larger body, when most of its processes are regulated without the brain. Furthermore, it sounds like that wasn't the case for dinosaurs, some of which had little bird-sized brains in enormous bodies.
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think anyone would argue that a child who has lost a large part of their brain is going to be functionally equivalent to a full brained peer.
Most of the human brain is used for body control and less exotic processes as those higher functions we attribute to our intelligence; language, problem solving, consciousness, etc. These take place on the neocortex, w
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:1, Informative)
In fact, procedures have been developed in pediatric neurosurgery that involve removing large parts of the brain to correct problems, such as destructive grand mal seizures. These procedures can't be used on adults because plasticity is the only reason the patient isn't left a vegetabl
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:2)
Elephants have the largest brain of any animal that stands foot on earth. It's not really noteworthy, because they're also the largest creature on land.
Elephant: brain = 5kg, body = 5000kg, 0.1%
Dairy Cow: brain = 400g, body = 500kg, 0.08%
Human: brain = 1.3kg, body = 65kg, 2%
So, the elephant is right in line with another slow moving vegetarian (actually, a little better ratio). Compared to a human, of course, its brain/body ratio is low- but we expected that.
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:3, Funny)
Elephant: brain = 5kg, body = 5000kg, 0.1%
Dairy Cow: brain = 400g, body = 500kg, 0.08%
Human: brain = 1.3kg, body = 65kg, 2%
American: brain = 400g, body = 150kg, 0.27%
More body mass = more sensors (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:1)
*smash into tree* "gosh, sorry, this darn lag is messin me up"
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:1)
I mean, nobody, especially on slashdot, would ever present speculation as fact.
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:1)
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:4, Funny)
Forget dinsaurs. I know people who have half their brains in their ass.
-
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why shouldn't it? Most animals don't do much planning or even abstract thinking- the most important task for the neurons in the brain is to operate each and every muscular fiber in the limbs and organs.
Let us say "It shouldn't require more Human Resources staff to run a larger corporation". That's obviously wrong- of course you need more as you have more things under control.
One could imagine a hierarchal system: similarly-sized brains
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:1)
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:1)
That is just an excuse by the people who don't wish to aknowledge the high intelligen
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:1)
Are you sure you don't mean full intelligence?
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:2)
the larger ones had a second brain in the back and the first one would send a signal and have it relayed to the other end of the massive beast and it would take 10 seconds from end to end to react, so if i chopped off the tip of the tail with an axe it would take that long for it to feel it and react.. (as i recall from watching a video on dinosaurs 150x as a kid)