They say we don't use all of our brain

[EightySix Four]

This definately pushes what we knew. It's a study on people with hydrocephalus (fluid is in their cranial cavity). Many were retarded, but others had over 100IQ. One with around 95% of his brain filled with the fluid had an IQ of 126 and graduated top honors degree in mathematics.

 

[CycloWizard]

Interesting. I have a very large head... I wonder if I'm hydrocephalic, or just egotistical.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Zounds! Thats amazing!

 

[gcy]

I always thought it was beer, lol
:beer:

 

[gsellis]

Interesting.

But now waiting for the false claim about us only using 10% of our brain anyway.

 

[Vegitto]

Meh. Is that with all hyper-intelligent people?

I mean, I think I had a pretty high IQ when I was tested (professionally), like 2 years ago.. But I don't wanna be a waterhead .

 

[everman]

The misguided argument that we hardly use any of our brains was brought about by people fatasizing about things like telepathy and hidden powers.
The fact of the matter is that we use most of our brain power.

Now about having a severe injury resulting in a smaller amount of brain matter, in some instances we see very interesting things. People have been known to do quite well without having a whole brain, even a rather small amount.

Studies of Einstein's brain (he donated it to science) indicate that his may be slightly better than average. However there may be many people like that, but few will ever take advantage of their superior brain due to socio/cultural and socioeconomic conditions. You need the right person, in the right place, at the right time, like Einstein was.

 

[thoro86]

Originally posted by: everman
The misguided argument that we hardly use any of our brains was brought about by people fatasizing about things like telepathy and hidden powers.
The fact of the matter is that we use most of our brain power.

Now about having a severe injury resulting in a smaller amount of brain matter, in some instances we see very interesting things. People have been known to do quite well without having a whole brain, even a rather small amount.

Studies of Einstein's brain (he donated it to science) indicate that his may be slightly better than average. However there may be many people like that, but few will ever take advantage of their superior brain due to socio/cultural and socioeconomic conditions. You need the right person, in the right place, at the right time, like Einstein was.

Yeah, you can see a lot of construction worker on the street, w/ some of them as genius as einstein. Just don;t have the opportunity huh...

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: everman
The misguided argument that we hardly use any of our brains was brought about by people fatasizing about things like telepathy and hidden powers.
The fact of the matter is that we use most of our brain power.

Now about having a severe injury resulting in a smaller amount of brain matter, in some instances we see very interesting things. People have been known to do quite well without having a whole brain, even a rather small amount.

Studies of Einstein's brain (he donated it to science) indicate that his may be slightly better than average. However there may be many people like that, but few will ever take advantage of their superior brain due to socio/cultural and socioeconomic conditions. You need the right person, in the right place, at the right time, like Einstein was.

My take on it is sort of like urban sprawl perhaps - many brain cells are used, but they aren't all fully connected. You mention injuries - just about anytime someone experiences any kind of brain injury, they then experience some sort of deficit. However, it is sometimes possible to regain any lost function, as other parts of the brain kick in to take over the function of the damaged area.
So the neurons that were damaged were actually in use. However, the surrounding neurons weren't at 100% capacity, so they were able to take on an extra load.

 

[Sk8orDie]

It's interesting to discuss a neurons "capacity". We all know that neurons work by release neurotransmitters which are picked up by the next and if it the action potential is reach the neuron fires. But does a neuro have a maximum number of connections? and do the number of connections equate to the intelligence, ability or whatever you call it. When a person has a brain injury are the other neurons "picking up the slack" or are they rewiring themselves to preform the task the damaged area did? Basically what I'm questioning is, is our brains ability more closely a function of the number of neuorons and neural connectiosn or they way in which they are wired. I lean more toward the way they are wired. Any one else have an opinion on this?

There are many way to perform the same task (as a math example 2+2+2+2 = 2x4). Maybe our brains wiring is a result of evolution, but not the only way. When you have a brain injury that damages a critical part of the brain (like speech) rather than other neurons picking up the load, the brain is simply changing the way it solves the problem.

 

[imported_inspire]

I would say both. Capacity x Efficiency = Brain Power. Or something that illustrates some sort of direct variation.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: everman
The misguided argument that we hardly use any of our brains was brought about by people fatasizing about things like telepathy and hidden powers.
The fact of the matter is that we use most of our brain power.

Now about having a severe injury resulting in a smaller amount of brain matter, in some instances we see very interesting things. People have been known to do quite well without having a whole brain, even a rather small amount.

Studies of Einstein's brain (he donated it to science) indicate that his may be slightly better than average. However there may be many people like that, but few will ever take advantage of their superior brain due to socio/cultural and socioeconomic conditions. You need the right person, in the right place, at the right time, like Einstein was.

I'd imagine nuture is definetely more important than nature.

BTW, my understanding was that we use most of our brain, but not all at once. There's some redundancy, and a lot of it is for specific purposes and thus isn't always fully active.

 

[Bill Brasky]

But does a neuro have a maximum number of connections?

No, they do not have a maximum. They actually make way too many at the beginning. During fetal development and childhood, neurons in the brain make tens of millions of connections that will eventually be destroyed during synaptic pruning. This occurs from age 4 to puberty, and is a good thing since they're just wasting energy. It also allows the brain to chose which connections are the best.

When a person has a brain injury are the other neurons "picking up the slack" or are they rewiring themselves to preform the task the damaged area did?

It's kind of a combination of the two. Think of it like stopping all traffic on a major highway running through a big city. Taking another highway is not an option, so traffic is diverted to the city streets. The shortest route to the destination, if it exists, will grow and eventually be able to accommodate the new traffic. This is an example of synaptic plasticity and happens all the time, but usually not to the same degree. However, I think it is rare for new connections to be made as we become older.

is our brains ability more closely a function of the number of neuorons and neural connectiosn or they way in which they are wired

The number of neurons and connections are important, but having more than necessary just gives redundancy and these generally do not survive. I think the more important factor is each synapse's ability to change and respond to stimuli. Well that's my theory anyway

Oh btw, I was talking about neural networks. Absolutely, there is redundancy between the two hemispheres of the brain.

 

[Calin]

We use a small part of the brain. A small part of the brain for vision, another small part for something else and so on. In the end, more than 50% or the area (something close to 90% I think) is well accounted for.