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"...
It wouldn't make much sense for us to have evolved brains that were 10 times larger than they had to be -- If such a huge portion wasn't being used, those with larger brains wouldn't have been selected above those with smaller brains. Those individuals with the most efficient use of brain would have been selected since they wouldn't have to supply all the extra brain matter with oxygen and food.
Why is it so common to refer to people who live in trailer parks as stupid and poor? How about if I said 'slums'? Why is it okay to pick on rural white poor as being stupid and inbred, but not inner city minorities?
No, I don't live in a trailer park. I live in the city. Yes, I have seen the rural misery of some of these places. On the other hand, trailer parks provide a cheap way of having a house and also moving it when you want. It is economically efficient. And it doesn't cost the taxpay
Why is it so common to refer to people who live in trailer parks as stupid and poor? How about if I said 'slums'? Why is it okay to pick on rural white poor as being stupid and inbred, but not inner city minorities?
Why is it so common to refer to people who live in trailer parks as stupid and poor? How about if I said 'slums'? Why is it okay to pick on rural white poor as being stupid and inbred, but not inner city minorities?
Who said it wasn't okay to make fun of welfare-dependant, don't-know-who-the-daddy-is ghetto trash? In fact, i'd put in-bred rural white poor above ghetto trash, because in theory, they at least pay for their own housing, instead of living in a HUD project.
Because white trailer trash ignore every advantage they have been given in our society and instead they just grow mullets and drink beer.
Yes- unfortunately it is easier for white people to be successful in our society. Therefore, they are worthy of more ridicule when they do not succeed.
Goal of life is not to be successful, it's to be happy and have your answers. Now, if YOUR goal in life is to be successful, then you will obviously judge other by your rule. You will also judge yourself by that rule, and maybe one day, you will realize this "successfull" was imposed to you, and it's not your goal in life.
Personally, I don't regard poor people that live how they like without complaning much, as stupid. I'd say I'd admire them in some way. On the other hand, the poor ones that are always co
That mullet growing beer drinker would pound you into the pavement. Then laugh at you.
So, it's a DAMNED GOOD THING the system we have isn't in any danger of collapsing isn't it, otherwise, on the evolutionary level you're weaker and less likely to survive if the world goes to shit.
That beer drinking mullet wearing hard working urban trailer dwelling redneck on the other hand has land and knows how to grow and hunt for food, is strong and can kill you to keep you from stealing his crops, and most likely h
Yes- unfortunately it is easier for white people to be successful in our society. Therefore, they are worthy of more ridicule when they do not succeed.
Is that you, Michael Moore? I didn't like your book Stupid White Men at all. I think you should have changed the title to the singular and used it for the name of your autobiography.
I will answer this one directly. I used to work for a truck rental business. One day I get a call to go change a tire for a renter, who got a flat in a trailer park. He broke the jack, and needed a replacement. So I run over with a brand new jack salvaged from one of our other trucks, some tools, and a whole lot of innocence.
When I find the truck, I find half of a steak knife protruding from the tire. I ask the guy what happened, and he told me that he was hired to pick up all the junk in the trail
For some reason I had justified this by assuming that we used approximately 10% at any given time, but that overall just about every neuron was used in some capacity.
Luckily I discovered the truth of the matter...um...about 20 minutes ago:-P
True, but would you build a datacenter with *zero* reserve capacity for usage spikes? Last I heard (Bio101, 15 yrs ago), we don't even know what the extra capacity is *for*, only that it is used in some way.
IANAB (I am not a biologist) but aren't there *plenty* of cases where there is no direct correlation between brain size/surface area, neuron count, and mental ability?
I'm thinking of cases like that Mexican girl who remembers her mother and child after a year in a coma and having large chunks of her br
I recall in a biological anthropology class that, as far as intelligence is concerned, there's no relation in the size of the brain but there seems to be a significant relation with shape. Animals that we consider to be intelligent just happen to have a similar brain shape to our own while sizes vary significantly.
Thx for the info re: shape. It's quite possible you have newer info than I do, so I'll have to do some research.
I need to disclaim any semblance of objectivity here and state that I have a very hard time believing that intellectual capacity is somehow tied to size, density, etc. I'm probably agreeing with your statement that
"there's no relation to the size of the brain..."
but the geometry question intrigues me wrt folding and surface area (let alone 3-D chemistry and electomagnetic waves.)
You could try lurking around the anthropology pages at the University of Florida, www.ufl.edu. My information comes from 1999 and, since it made it to a relatively large class (400 people), the information is probably well-established and older than 99. I loved my biological anthropology class but, apparently, I took the toughest professor available before I realized I was screwed. The tests were insane. Widespread failure. Massive curving. The professor is a regular on all the learning networks with
Thx for the hint, my info is from HS biology, frehman bio at BYU (1985), and SUNY (various times).
I imagine the newer info is much more accurate; I'll go check it out.
Interesting note about your professor; I went thru the same thing in Project mgmt and Intro OS. I actually think the professors I had were cool, but the time frame (10 weeks) and the curriculum didn't allow such dense material to be covered adeqately, let alone do justice to the subject. As is is, I scored in the "B" (80 - 89 %) range.
That 90% of our brain is obviously for pr0n appreciation. Why else would Internet usage for pr0n keep climbing? It's to feed the pr0n center of our brains!
...is that in an older, more brutish time, think hundred-thousand-plus years ago we needed excess 'design capacity' so that we could survive long enough to become parents and grandparents, and still have 'adequate capacity' by then.
We talk today about many brain-sapping things, often nutritional problems that especially affect young children. One simple one is vitamin deficincies that today we solve simply with long-distance transportation. No such solution then but to get the diverse diet in the warm half
What you have to understand is that nobody selects. I mean, an insect is really less evolved than a human, not to say an amoeba, and they are not marked for extintion per se.
This "selection" thingy is becomeing to be regarded as a misterious secret-hand that drives things to perfection, driving to extintion less evolved species. Like a nature-god, and it really (sorry) pisses me of. They praise natural selection, and neglect God, and in fact, they believe in a directed or guided selection.
What you have to understand is that nobody selects. I mean, an insect is really less evolved than a human, not to say an amoeba, and they are not marked for extintion per se.
Actually an insect is arguably more evolved than us, since it's generation time (and that of it's ancestors) is much smaller. An amoeba is incredibly more evolved, in the sense of total change since it's last common ancestor with mammals.
Selection is not an invisible hand striving for perfection, there's not a biologist on the planet worth his weight in salt who'll say that. Selection is a instantaneous direction, a random walk through the fitness landscape. At every given moment, the selection pressure is for what would most benifit a population (not individual) right now, with no consideration for the future or perfection. There's no appeal to a nature-god, no inferior or superior (let alone perfection), just a constant changing of directions for the immediate survival.
Exactly what I say, I thank you for that. I am not talking about biologists, I am talking about some friends of mine, and some slashdot folks, and some other guys arround earth. Natural selection ins mistquen to regularly for another entrirely different beast.
This "selection" thingy is becoming to be regarded as a misterious secret-hand that drives things to perfection, driving to extintion less evolved species.
"There's no other criteria than beign able to survive, whatever the circunstances, to natural selection."
That's what I always thought natural selection was anyway; the tendancy for those organisms more suited to thrive in their environment to survive and breed, hence passing on their advantageous characteristics.
Humans with larger, yet useless, heads (as the grandparent post argued) would be less likely to survive because of increased food/oxygen requirements (...and perhaps also because they would look
Some have postulated recently that larger brains (larger cranium) was not an evolutionary advantage so much as a mating feature, a competitive attribute much like the feathers of a peacock. Those feathers do not help the peacock survive, far from it, but act as a display to outdo other peacocks for female attention. Larger brains could have evolved in such a way. Think of it as a prehistoric inverse of the current mating systems in place today, favoring the geeks over the studs..
Not all selection is for survival advantage. A trait that is merely associated, either directly or accidentally, with some other advantageous trait, may end up selected merely because it doesn't cause a relative disadvantage prior to reproduction. Examples: the human bowel appendix, the need for sleep, the tailbone, and the lower part of the earlobe. If any of these have some survival advantage, it is not really immediately obvious to the casual observer. Some traits (such as the need for sleep) are the
Since most of a modern CPU's transistor count is cache memory you'ill probably find that outside the control unit at any one time even less than 10% of the transistors are active. If you include the number of transistors present for main memory in the mix that percentage gets even lower.
So somewhere off in the universe, someone is using 90% of my brain power so they can get a slightly better Frames Per Second in Quake III. Now I get it...
You know, the ones using the earth as a gigantic supercomputer in order to find out the question for the universal answer.
I'd write more about it, but I have to go stop somebody from bulldozing my house is about to be bulldozed and a friend of mine is trying to drag me off the bar for some reason...
"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
John Gunther Jr. Lost a portion of his brain the size of a grapefruit, due to cancer, and still managed to function at a very high level. By very high level I mean he was still at the top of his prep school which was full of the best and brightest. It was thought he might go on to great things but unfornately the tumour took his life. To find the book about John go to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060 929898/qid=1056213286/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/002-749955 2-9783252?v=glance&s=books
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
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
That's hilarious. I just sent a Smint airborne via my nasal passage when I read that. I'm lucky it didn't get lodged there. Not sure how it happened really.
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)
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"...
But walking around and smelling things takes a lot of brain power (at least as much as reasoning does). Think about it. When you walk around and smell things your brain is doing a lot of work. Your brian is processing your vision, smells, and balance. Your brain is also regulating your heartbeat, breathing, and other bodily fun
Nonsense. Your average iguana does all these things with a brain the size of a grape. You certainly don't need 10% of the human brain to walk around and smell things.
I don't think you have any idea how much brain power reasoning requires.
As long as there are people hunting for a free lunch, this wishful thinking will continue to propogate. Riddle me this though: What kind of evolution favors organisms operating at 10% efficiency?
Using more of your brain to perform cognitive tasks doesn't necessarily make you good at it. Let's say "brain use" as an increase blood flow/activity to a brain area. Novices show much more activity than experts to the same brain areas. As novices get more experience with the task, their brain activity decrease. So does low brain usage mean low competence? This is one of the many reasons why you must be careful when intepreting fMRI and other brain imaging scans.
The sceptics, who have never even tried what they argue against, neither researched in full with an open mind. If they had done some more honest work, they might have found that brain damages brought on in later life, ALSO can bring specialized abilities (savant behaviour).
Sceptisism is doubting. Doubting is counter to life and health. If you doubt your very life and existence, you become more like a robot governed by rules, than a joyous, alive human being who can dance and sing from the heart! In fact, "
"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"...
re: Great writep (Score:2, Insightful)
One flaw in your theory (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why is it so common to refer to people who live in trailer parks as stupid and poor? How about if I said 'slums'? Why is it okay to pick on rural white poor as being stupid and inbred, but not inner city minorities?
No, I don't live in a trailer park. I live in the city. Yes, I have seen the rural misery of some of these places. On the other hand, trailer parks provide a cheap way of having a house and also moving it when you want. It is economically efficient. And it doesn't cost the taxpay
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:0)
Slurring minorities is racism.
Slurring white people is funny.
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:2)
We are just violent.. not inbred.
Says who? (Score:2, Funny)
Who said it wasn't okay to make fun of welfare-dependant, don't-know-who-the-daddy-is ghetto trash? In fact, i'd put in-bred rural white poor above ghetto trash, because in theory, they at least pay for their own housing, instead of living in a HUD project.
The lower rungs of any particular et
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:0)
Yes- unfortunately it is easier for white people to be successful in our society. Therefore, they are worthy of more ridicule when they do not succeed.
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:2)
Personally, I don't regard poor people that live how they like without complaning much, as stupid. I'd say I'd admire them in some way. On the other hand, the poor ones that are always co
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:0)
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:0)
So, it's a DAMNED GOOD THING the system we have isn't in any danger of collapsing isn't it, otherwise, on the evolutionary level you're weaker and less likely to survive if the world goes to shit.
That beer drinking mullet wearing hard working urban trailer dwelling redneck on the other hand has land and knows how to grow and hunt for food, is strong and can kill you to keep you from stealing his crops, and most likely h
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:2)
Is that you, Michael Moore? I didn't like your book Stupid White Men at all. I think you should have changed the title to the singular and used it for the name of your autobiography.
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:2, Funny)
When I find the truck, I find half of a steak knife protruding from the tire. I ask the guy what happened, and he told me that he was hired to pick up all the junk in the trail
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:2)
I think that it's a safe bet that you're going to find more crazy and stupid people in a trailer park than in, say, Beverly Hills
I was with you up till this line. People in Beverly Hills are just as crazy and stupid, they just have more $$$$$$.
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:1)
Re:One flaw in your theory (Score:2, Funny)
You stole the guy's knife?
true (Score:2)
Luckily I discovered the truth of the matter...um...about 20 minutes ago
Re: Great writep (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAB (I am not a biologist) but aren't there *plenty* of cases where there is no direct correlation between brain size/surface area, neuron count, and mental ability?
I'm thinking of cases like that Mexican girl who remembers her mother and child after a year in a coma and having large chunks of her br
Shape matters more (Score:2)
Re:Shape matters more (Score:1)
I need to disclaim any semblance of objectivity here and state that I have a very hard time believing that intellectual capacity is somehow tied to size, density, etc. I'm probably agreeing with your statement that
"there's no relation to the size of the brain..."
but the geometry question intrigues me wrt folding and surface area (let alone 3-D chemistry and electomagnetic waves.)
Thanks for the
Re:Shape matters more (Score:2)
Re:Shape matters more (Score:1)
I imagine the newer info is much more accurate; I'll go check it out.
Interesting note about your professor; I went thru the same thing in Project mgmt and Intro OS. I actually think the professors I had were cool, but the time frame (10 weeks) and the curriculum didn't allow such dense material to be covered adeqately, let alone do justice to the subject. As is is, I scored in the "B" (80 - 89 %) range.
Pr0n Central (Score:0)
My pet theory about over-capable brains (Score:2)
We talk today about many brain-sapping things, often nutritional problems that especially affect young children. One simple one is vitamin deficincies that today we solve simply with long-distance transportation. No such solution then but to get the diverse diet in the warm half
Re: Great writep (Score:2)
This "selection" thingy is becomeing to be regarded as a misterious secret-hand that drives things to perfection, driving to extintion less evolved species. Like a nature-god, and it really (sorry) pisses me of. They praise natural selection, and neglect God, and in fact, they believe in a directed or guided selection.
Sorry, that is n
Re: Great writep (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually an insect is arguably more evolved than us, since it's generation time (and that of it's ancestors) is much smaller. An amoeba is incredibly more evolved, in the sense of total change since it's last common ancestor with mammals.
Selection is not an invisible hand striving for perfection, there's not a biologist on the planet worth his weight in salt who'll say that. Selection is a instantaneous direction, a random walk through the fitness landscape. At every given moment, the selection pressure is for what would most benifit a population (not individual) right now, with no consideration for the future or perfection. There's no appeal to a nature-god, no inferior or superior (let alone perfection), just a constant changing of directions for the immediate survival.
Re: Great writep (Score:2)
Re: Great writep (Score:0)
What a crock of shit.
Re: Great writep (Score:1)
That's what I always thought natural selection was anyway; the tendancy for those organisms more suited to thrive in their environment to survive and breed, hence passing on their advantageous characteristics.
Humans with larger, yet useless, heads (as the grandparent post argued) would be less likely to survive because of increased food/oxygen requirements (...and perhaps also because they would look
Re: Great writep (Score:2)
Or..... (Score:1)
You misunderstand natural selection (Score:2)
And what about modern CPU's? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And what about modern CPU's? (Score:5, Funny)
We are more efficient than silicon so they use us.
Re:And what about modern CPU's? (Score:1)
It's the mice (Score:2)
I'd write more about it, but I have to go stop somebody from bulldozing my house is about to be bulldozed and a friend of mine is trying to drag me off the bar for some reason...
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:0)
Any
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%
Re:It doesn't make it sound like a legend... (Score:-1, Troll)
americna bahsing is funy!!
the stoopid americas are so dummer than nonamericans becase they are so stpuid!!
LOLOL in soviet russia, american NOT supid hahah!!
LOLOL!!11
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:0)
That's hilarious. I just sent a Smint airborne via my nasal passage when I read that. I'm lucky it didn't get lodged there. Not sure how it happened really.
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)
Re:good quote, but misleading! (Score:2)
But walking around and smelling things takes a lot of brain power (at least as much as reasoning does). Think about it. When you walk around and smell things your brain is doing a lot of work. Your brian is processing your vision, smells, and balance. Your brain is also regulating your heartbeat, breathing, and other bodily fun
Re:good quote, but misleading! (Score:1)
Re:good quote, but misleading! (Score:2)
I don't think you have any idea how much brain power reasoning requires.
WHO FARTED! (Score:0)
Oh boy! Something for nothing! (Score:1)
Re:Great writep (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything it seems that the more brain you
Re:Great writep (Score:1)
It doesn't (Score:1)
Re:Great writep (Score:2)
Sceptisism is doubting. Doubting is counter to life and health. If you doubt your very life and existence, you become more like a robot governed by rules, than a joyous, alive human being who can dance and sing from the heart! In fact, "