Why Does This Myth Persist?

[Kyriakos]

In light of the soon-to-be-released movie "Lucy" in which a woman steadily gains the use of 100% of her brain and develops telekinetic powers, I have to ask: Why does this ridiculous myth that humans only currently use 10% of our brains persist despite having absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up?

In fact, there is even quite a bit of evidence to the contrary and shows that we do, in fact, use 100% of our brains. Are people really just that desperate to believe there is the possibility of becoming something much greater than what they already are?

While any given percentage is arbitrary (no means to calculate anything even nearly as complicated currently), it stands to reason that humans use only a small part of the potential their mind has for conscious thinking/awareness. That (obviously) doesn't have to do with telekinesis existing or not.

I think that most people likely use only a fraction of their mental abilities, for a large number of reasons (most common of those probably would be lack of self-knowledge in the first place). It doesn't help that we live in a rotten era. If one has to deal with more pressing issues (eg money or food) it is unlikely they would focus much on self-awareness.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It doesn't help that we live in a rotten era. If one has to deal with more pressing issues (eg money or food) it is unlikely they would focus much on self-awareness.

So exactly when were the majority of people not dealing with the more pressing issues of money and food? Okay, maybe just food.

Truthfully, this 'rotten era' is probably the first time in human history where a significant fraction (not a majority, but significant) of humanity would actually be hard pressed to find a way to starve.

 

[brennan]

The myth is based upon the fact that our brain has specialised structures. Very little of our brain may be actually in use at any one time, but that doesn't mean to say that it is possible to utilise the whole for a single cognitive task. If you're solving a chess problem, why would you want the parts of your brain that move your legs and process smells working on the problem?

 

[Kyriakos]

^I think that 'the mind' (ie including all of our unconscious goings-on) is operating at maybe even a stable percentage, cause it surely runs an infinitely larger amount of calculations that any conscious human is aware of at the same time.
For starters it is dealing with calculating things a conscious human could not, as in how much of X substance taken from food should be granted to X organ, etc.
Then it is forming the basis for consciousness. It is well-accepted that the consciousness of any being is very small next to the unconsciousness it is supported by.

Still, there is surely room for expanding one's own consciousness. Maybe by a very large number (maybe even 1000 times more, who knows, given particular cases). It would still remain a small part of the entire mental phenomena the mind is running as procedures at any time.

 

[brennan]

How does one measure consciousness...?

 

[Kyriakos]

How does one measure consciousness...?

Was going by a self-sensed empirical way. People have been known to claim they used to think less (or more) in a past, and then expanded (or diminished). As you noted we cannot calculate such things with a common meter, or even a very scientifically-sound non-personal one.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If you ask me, I think we only use 10% of our hearts.

 

[ArneHD]

This myth always appeared fishy to me. I never bothered to check it. I don't think it has anything to do with any trope or anybody wishing they could be smarter.

It is just a lie which has been perpetuated enough that people started believing it. It is similiar to the "drink 8-10 glasses of water / day" myth which was doing the rounds 10 years ago.

The water myth originated in a study of how much water a human needs a day. It's just that the media didn't specify that is was the equivalent of 8-10 glasses and that you get a lot of water from your food.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Because they give consistent replicable results?

Really? And what do they measure?

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

Is she by any chance SCP-1475's long lost cousin?

 

[Harv]

Why does this ridiculous myth that humans only currently use 10% of our brains persist despite having absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up?

When you talk to people on the street, do you get the impression that they use 100% of their brains, 10% of their brains, or 0% of their brains?

When you drive in traffic, do you get the impression that they use 100% of their brains, 10% of their brains, or 0% of their brains?

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's amazing how many long-disproven claims people retain, long after they've been exposed. The whole vaccine-autism thing, for example. The British doctor who wrote that article has had his license revoked by the UK medical board for multiple instances of shoddy science bordering on fraud, and his 'work' has been called one of the most dangerous hoaxes ever perpetrated, and yet some people remain in the dark.

 

[Gori the Grey]

When you talk to people on the street, do you get the impression that they use 100% of their brains, 10% of their brains, or 0% of their brains?

When you drive in traffic, do you get the impression that they use 100% of their brains, 10% of their brains, or 0% of their brains?

I always get the sense that they're using 100% of their brains

Spoiler :

in finding ways to annoy me! :rimshot:

 

[kochman]

In light of the soon-to-be-released movie "Lucy" in which a woman steadily gains the use of 100% of her brain and develops telekinetic powers, I have to ask: Why does this ridiculous myth that humans only currently use 10% of our brains persist despite having absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up?

This myth persists because we only use 10% of our brains... if we had full usage we'd be able to realize it was but a myth and stop spreading it.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If you ask me, I think we only use 10% of our hearts.

So patients with cardiovascular diseases use only <10% of their hearts?

 

[CKS]

Why do people believe in IQ tests?

Because they give consistent replicable results?

Really? And what do they measure?

They measure the ability to do well on IQ tests, of course. And they are pretty good at measuring the ability to do well on other similar tests.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Shouldn't they then be termed 'IQ test tests'?

 

[gay_Aleks]

^Shouldn't they then be termed 'IQ test tests'?

"hi, we're here to test your IQ test for testing purposes to see if your test is correctly testing your test IQ"

In other words, a short path to madness.

 

[Kennigit]

^I think that 'the mind' (ie including all of our unconscious goings-on) is operating at maybe even a stable percentage, cause it surely runs an infinitely larger amount of calculations that any conscious human is aware of at the same time.
For starters it is dealing with calculating things a conscious human could not, as in how much of X substance taken from food should be granted to X organ, etc.
Then it is forming the basis for consciousness. It is well-accepted that the consciousness of any being is very small next to the unconsciousness it is supported by.

Still, there is surely room for expanding one's own consciousness. Maybe by a very large number (maybe even 1000 times more, who knows, given particular cases). It would still remain a small part of the entire mental phenomena the mind is running as procedures at any time.

It doesnt need to calculate any of that; biomechanical processes will take care of that

It also is a rather simple calc, simply measuring energetic consumption

Edit: biomechanic may not be right word. But i mean whatever diffuses through intestinal wall or however stuff works will be carried away via whatever so that cells can make (atp?) Or whatever

On my phone not looking things up

 

[Kyriakos]

^'Biomechanical' sounds more like some HR Giger stuff, tbh