• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Merlin... again (1 Viewer)

K

katie_tully

Guest
crazyhomo said:
katie: have you ever, in your entire life, apologise to someone for something that happen to them that wasn't anything to do with you? 'im so sorry that your grandpa died', 'im sorry that the mugger stole your bag', or 'im sorry you were born with only half a brain'. are any of those admiting guilt?

oh, and you are really quite simple. i was talking about situations like that in general, just giving some examples so you could understand what i was talking about. obviously that was too complicated for you, since you assumed i was only talking about when people have died.
"I was talking about situations in general", so where'd the "katie: have you ever in your entire life" come from? Ah...thats right, you werent refering to me. MY MISTAKE?

http://enchantedmind.com/html/science/brain_capacity.html

Humans do not use their brains full potential. Recent studies have suggested that because we only use a small percentage, with more research, scienists are going to be able to teach the dormant parts of the brain to function in recplacement of other parts of the brain which have been affected by brain damage.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
katie_tully said:
"I was talking about situations in general", so where'd the "katie: have you ever in your entire life" come from? Ah...thats right, you werent refering to me. MY MISTAKE?

http://enchantedmind.com/html/science/brain_capacity.html

Humans do not use their brains full potential. Recent studies have suggested that because we only use a small percentage, with more research, scienists are going to be able to teach the dormant parts of the brain to function in recplacement of other parts of the brain which have been affected by brain damage.
yes, i was referring to you. you conveniently cut off my quote just at the sentence when i stated that pretty clearly.

and i'm at a university computer at the moment, and whenever i click on that link, or trying accessing www.enchantedmind.com, my browser crashes, but can i assume from name that that site has something to do with psychic powers? i'm thinking i'm gonna trust information from university websites instead
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Hmm...nope, tis a science page.

First, have there been any definitive surgical studies on the human brain that test all physical aspects of the brain with the intention of mapping total brain usage? No! Nor could such tests exist, nor would they prove the point. It has been guestimated that there are approximately 100 billion brain cells. Even if you attempted to take a random sampling of perhaps 100 people, test every portion of their brain against their cognitive usage, this data would be heavily biased towards culture, age and educational background. Thus the statistical norm of even this sampling of 100 would carry such heavy inherent biases that no definitive conclusion could be drawn.

What we can do is look at the work of those neuroscientists such as Dr. Karl Lashley and Dr. Wilder Penfield who have actually performed brain surgery on conscious subjects. Their work revolved around finding what parts of the brain may house memory. Much was learned by actually stimulating certain portions of the brain while asking the conscious subject questions. Though certain areas of the brain such as the hippocampus were discovered to play a large part in memory retention, more questions were left unanswered than information ascertained. Dr. Karl Pribram, having worked with Lashley, continued this work and came to the conclusion that the brain operates holographically, and that memory isn't stored in any one particular place but perhaps throughout the brain.

Science has come to some definitive conclusions on what certain portions of the brain are used for, i.e. the occipital lobes, temporal lobes, frontal lobes, etc. Yet, there are vast areas of the brain that are still a mystery to science, i.e. the pineal gland, the full potential of the pituitary gland, and portions of the midbrain limbic system to name a few. Thus to evaluate how much of our brain's capacity we are using when we are still unclear as to what vast areas are capable of is purely speculative.

One example of mapping brain usage compared to the norm was done in studying Einstein's brain. The one definitive difference they found in his brain compared to the norm was that he had an unusually high number of glial cells in his parietal lobe. Glial cells are the supporting architecture for neurons. High counts of glial cells could indicate that he was using this portion of brain cognitively and extensively. The parietal lobe is thought to facilitate abstract thought. We do know that whenever anything is learned there are new dendrite connections made between neurons. Greater usage of the brain through learning and stimulation creates greater dendrite connectivity. Einstein's brain indicated extensive dendrite connectivity.

Science has yet to have the opportunity to study under a microscope any brain whose entire neuronal and synaptic connection potentials were totally used. All potentially 100 billion. Yet this consideration itself is one reason to speculate that we are using only a small portion of our brains, since those brains that have undergone microscopic study show vast areas of the brain where there is little dendrite branching.

Another factor to weigh in is that of idiot savants, i.e. The Rainman. Rainman was the character played by Dustin Hoffman who was able to calculate dates in lightning speed, though otherwise appearing mentally retarded. These individuals have one unusual talent such as the ability to calculate incredible numerical equations instantaneously in their mind (a feat few humans possess) or incredible musical dexterity. The fact that there are humans who have demonstrated this ability show that the human brain is capable of such achievements.

Something else to consider is the incredible demonstrations of biological control exhibited by eastern Yogis and Tibetan monks over their autonomic nervous system. They can, for example, slow their heart rate to almost nil, or sit in freezing weather with no clothing and dry wet towels on their back because they are generating such intense heat within their bodies purely by mental concentration (this is called Tahumo). Science isn't clear what portions of their brain they are accessing to accomplish these feats, but they have been rigorously tested with the latest in technology and found to be able to exhibit what ordinary humans cannot.

The next area to consider is that of extra-sensory perception. There is a vast degree of mounting evidence that certain individuals have great capacity in this regard. Stanford University alone has many studies, as well as the Cognitive Research Institute. Yet what is not thoroughly understood is exactly what portions of the brain (though it is presumed the mid-brain limbic areas) are involved in perception beyond the five senses. Since most people don't exhibit great testable acuity in this area, it can be assumed that certain portions of the brain used to accomplish this phenomena are simply not functional in most people.

Genius in any area, be it artistic, musical, mathematical, scientific, linguistic, intellectual, etc. is more evidence that certain individuals are using portions of their brain that the majority are not. No thought can be processed without the use of the brain. Therefore, if demonstrable feats of extraordinary mental, artistic or psychic functioning exist in even a small group of people, it indicates that the human brain has capacities not tapped by the majority. The determination that less than 10% is the actual amount used may be an arbitrary number. Yet, it certainly appears plausible from those who have demonstrated exceptional abilities that we are not using anywhere near the total capacity of the brain in our ordinary daily thinking processes.

Those who chose to believe that they are using close to their full potential are welcome to do so. Yet I feel that the evidence thus far is overwhelming that we are only tapping a small portion of what the human brain can do. If each of us were operating with fully functional brains, meaning that we had all the capacities of any genius, we had total psychic functioning and complete control over our autonomic nervous system at will, we could be said to operating at full capacity. I find it heartening to realize that there is a great deal of potential that I have yet to realize, rather than to assume my present state of mind is nearly the best it gets. I delight in the notion that there is a great deal of room left for improvement, new experience and the flowering of genius. Accepting this I never expect to see the end of the horizon of mindful potentials.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
well, i finally got the site to work, and that site definitely does not have science as it's main focus. i also like how you didn't copy this tiny little bit from the top of the page

"I have looked at all of the information I could find regarding this presumption and have come to the following personal conclusion. My reasoning may not satisfy those bent on empirical data, (for none exists) but it is the best my research can offer."

this, along with the concluding paragraph, states that there is no scientific evidence at all to support this claim, and the only reason he believes it is because it gives him hope that he will someday be better than he is now. sorry to break this to you, but that reasoning doesn't fly as conclusive proof in the real world
 

tWiStEdD

deity of ultimate reason
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
456
Location
ACT
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
angry angry people.

however i should point out that perhaps the most irrational of them is you, crazyhomo.

you're dedicated to proving people wrong if they disagree with you, whatever the cost. your extreme left wing ideas do not do you any credit. radicalism gets absolutely nowhere, and you ARE radical. reform at all costs, equal rights at all costs, perfection at all costs.

i see it as completely insane that you burn the opinions katie and i share, despite their extremely moderate nature. We take the middle ground, but to you anything but the left is unacceptable.

poor form dude, poor poor form.

Aboriginals are incarcerated more often, they make up approximately 19% of the prison population, most Australians only come in contact with angry and aggressive Aboriginal people.... what do you WANT us to think? what do you want us to do, how do you want us to react towards them? 'Oh, poor them... they're Aboriginal'... 'they're only mugging me because its my ancestors that fucked them over, royally'. Race is no excuse for a failure to adhere to basic laws, and nor do they deserve get out of jail free cards due to the simple fact that they're aboriginal. we have a refined legal system, but nothing is perfect... i'd like to know, however, how it is possible that they are such a huge part of the prison population if not for their own disrespect for our law.

i've never said 'i'm sorry that your grandfather died' or anything of the sort perhaps 'i feel sorry for you' but both the connotation and the denotation are different in this case. do you feel the need to prove your case on the grounds of your being gramattically correct? it fails to impress, my friend. even if someone does say 'i'm sorry that your grandfather died', you're right... they do not accept responsibility, but all their saying is that they essentially feel sorry for you.... nothing more. do aboriginals need pity?!? they HATE pity, they hate FAKE pity still more. we cannot win. Aboriginals want us to accept responsibility, and i really dont think it is appropriate. its the same idea as saying 'i'm sorry your grandfather died'. in that case it is unreasonable to accept responsibility, unless you killed him... in which case you would be hard pressed to get into a situation where you could apologise.

i find it interesting, crazyhomo, that you feel the need to win a victory whenever you argue... even if you lose the war, you want to win as many battles as possible. that theory does not work in war, and it does not work in intelligent debate. we're discussing aboriginals, and launch into a spiel on brain-capacity.. simply because katie makes a reference to it in passing. if you must discuss it, i'll end it by saying that there are CONFLICTING theories, and evidence in favour of both. i'd like to see objective truth in any situation, but i dont believe that hsc students arging through the method of url bashing will get us anywhere.

back to the point:
sorry carries many different connitations, and there can be many different denotations. if we were to say 'sorry' it would not be the acceptance of responsibility, but it would be out of pity. this is because this is all we can offer.... if we were to apologise we would be accused of not meaning it. thus we've reached catch-22. how about we just get on with life, rather than debating which carries the lowest opportunity costs.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
i have extreme left wing ideas? ok, let's see the comments i've made in this thread

1. i said something about aboriginals having the right to be pissed off when one of their kids was killed
2. i made a crack about refugees being portrayed as terrorists so the public will be afraid of them.
3. i pointed out that saying sorry is not an admission of guilt

woah! look at me! i'm going crazy with radical opinions!

and i'd like to point out that katie was the one who asked me for my 'factual evidence', and when i provide it i'm suddenly trying to win at all costs? just because i made fun of you awhile back for wanting to sleep with glycerine doesn't make me a radical lefty when i disagree with you other times
 

tWiStEdD

deity of ultimate reason
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
456
Location
ACT
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
no, you say:
(a) we should say sorry
(b) you accused me of labelling refos as terrorists
(c) white people, and in particular the police, deliberately persecute and bring aboriginals down.

they're all extreme, they provide no room for error and do not allow for critisism. sorry, you are extreme. you're idealistic, katie and i are realistic... i'm sorry.

haha. you see... you diverge. you did NOTHING to refute what i said... you made it a personal quest to win as many battles as possible... can you not read?
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
tWiStEdD said:
no, you say:
(a) we should say sorry
(b) you accused me of labelling refos as terrorists
(c) white people, and in particular the police, deliberately persecute and bring aboriginals down.

they're all extreme, they provide no room for error and do not allow for critisism. sorry, you are extreme. you're idealistic, katie and i are realistic... i'm sorry.

haha. you see... you diverge. you did NOTHING to refute what i said... you made it a personal quest to win as many battles as possible... can you not read?
how was that post not trying to refute what you said? would you like be to do this post in point form instead?

(a) no, i didn't say we should say sorry, and no i don't think we should say sorry
(b) no, i didn't say you labeled refugees as terrorists. i was making a general comment about the media and public opinion at the time of the children overboard scandal
(c) no, i was saying that if i thought the police were responsible for the death of my son i would be pretty pissed off as well
(d) if you choose to believe these opinions extreme, go ahead
(e) i'm going to keep on assuming that you are holding a grudge against me for making fun of your creepy obsession with glycerine
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
A kid was killed.
Have a cry, kids die every day. He was running from the police because they wanted to talk to him in relation to a crime..So what do we do, turn a blind eye and not persue him over something because he's aboriginal, and he may run?
The police arent to blame for the fact the kid impaled himself on a fence, the reports say that they were following, not persuing him at high speeds. He was on a bike for christs sake, if they really wanted to target him, theyd have got him easily.
 

tWiStEdD

deity of ultimate reason
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
456
Location
ACT
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
hahahaha
you're a funny man.
incoherent AND stupid.
you'll go far! :D you amuse me a lot. aww well... if anyone has anythin constructive to say. i will ignore you unless you're constructive from now on.
 

Atticus.

how do i get out of this
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
3,086
Location
wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
i agree with both of you. crazy homo, ur right in what u say about aboriginals but u do go alittle over the top when someone disagrees with you... just thought id point that out
 

lengstar

Active Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
1,208
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
why the hell are youu accusing crazyhomo? if anyone is radically left-wing it would be me. first, TJ died because he was an idiot. second, it was hilarious watching the police get attacked. third, i thought it would be a good idea to apologise because it is the right thing to do. crazyhomo is the only person who provides the most objective and logical points of view across, i'd like to see you do better.
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
lengstar said:
why the hell are youu accusing crazyhomo? if anyone is radically left-wing it would be me. first, TJ died because he was an idiot. second, it was hilarious watching the police get attacked. third, i thought it would be a good idea to apologise because it is the right thing to do. crazyhomo is the only person who provides the most objective and logical points of view across, i'd like to see you do better.
Hehe OK...

He (crazyhomo) has very strong arguments and is more than relentless when he finds a crack (or a complete rift in many cases) in another person's argument. It works well when you have someone like neo or rorix on the opposing side.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
tWiStEdD said:
hahahaha
you're a funny man.
incoherent AND stupid.
you'll go far! :D you amuse me a lot. aww well... if anyone has anythin constructive to say. i will ignore you unless you're constructive from now on.
can i just point out that i loved the irony of you calling katie 'i believe the human brain uses 10% of its capacity' tully a realist
 

tWiStEdD

deity of ultimate reason
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
456
Location
ACT
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
much irony... i'm afraid she is... at least more so than you.

since noone is willing to debate the 'objective and logical' points of this debate... i think i may have to bow out.... i'm the only person who has really thought about the issue, it becomes obvious when you see some of these responses.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
well obviously, if you say you're the only one who has thought about the issue, so that's why you are leaving, then it must be true. couldn't possibly be that you hate being made the fool, nah, that's just too RADICAL and EXTREME an idea to be plausible
 
Last edited:

tWiStEdD

deity of ultimate reason
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
456
Location
ACT
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
heh.
you're provoactive. you obviously enjoy a 'good' arguement... if only you could stay on task.

even now you diverge in the hope of winning still another tiny, tiny victory.
if i wanted to have a discussion with someone with all the intellectual capacity of a stuffed iguana, i'd be outside talking to the wall right now.

good day.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
yet you keep coming back...

ok, if you want to stay on task, how about you tell me what exactly is so extreme and idealistic about my views? you only made general, sweeping statements about my opinions, without actually explaining why this is so. well, here's your chance to put me in my place. i don't consider myself extremely left, and i like to think that anyone with a logical argument can convince me of their stance, so let's put this to the test
 

neeja

Marco Polo meows you!
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
133
Location
Where ever fun times can be had
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
tWiStEdD said:
heh.
you're provoactive. you obviously enjoy a 'good' arguement... if only you could stay on task.

even now you diverge in the hope of winning still another tiny, tiny victory.
if i wanted to have a discussion with someone with all the intellectual capacity of a stuffed iguana, i'd be outside talking to the wall right now.

good day.
dont bother psychoanalysing a psychology majoring student twisted, it aint worth it...just hop on board for the ride and hope it isnt bumpy!! :D
 

thorrnydevil

Ancient Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
1,521
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
In my opinion, Merlin is a childish idiot. He has absolutely no right to comment on matters dealing with AUSTRALIA, as he ISN'T an AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN. He keeps his German citizenship (please correct me if I'm wrong) even though he and his family fled that country! Whats the deal? He said he has made moves to gain his citizenship, but hes been here how many years? If he is so concerned with Australia's refugee policy, why doesn't he become a citizen, hence, being able to vote! I wish I could just give him a good beating, Mark Latham for that matter too.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top