Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!rl3s
From: rl3s@netcom.com (Zeus Paleologos)
Subject: Re: Can we simplify the brain?
Message-ID: <rl3sDBLA9x.I84@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <3t0bue$58n@taco.cc.ncsu.edu> <3t17ss$bnu@PEAK.ORG> <hg4cfTV.predictor@delphi.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 06:05:56 GMT
Lines: 30
Sender: rl3s@netcom19.netcom.com

In article <hg4cfTV.predictor@delphi.com> on Wed, 5 Jul 95 21:13:09 -0500,
 Will Dwinnell (predictor@delphi.com) wrote:
> Anthony Zeigler <zeiglea@PEAK.ORG> writes:
>  
> >>And even if it is foolish to represent things that way, why not just
> >>represent the 3% of the brain wew actually use?
>  
> .
>  
> >The percentge of our brain that we use is very close to 100%. The methodology
> >used to arrive at 3% usage isn't quite correct. What was measured was simply
> >blood flow and other things. This points to 3% being active at any one time.
> >This does not mean 3% for everything, just what we were thinking about at the
> >time and whatever automatic functions we were using.
>  
>  
> A stronger refutation of this old myth is made in "The Brain: A User's
> Manual", by the Diagram Group, published by Berkley.

It seems to me I read a few years ago about a girl born with a large 
portion of brain mass missing though her head size was normal.  Imaging 
of the interior of the cranium showed a large cavity.  What was remarkable 
was that the girl was apparently unaffected by this condition in terms of 
her bodily functions and mental capabilities.  (Sorry but I do not recall
where I saw this but I assure you it was not THE NATIONAL INQUIRER!  :)

Does this support the notion that the brain could be 'simplified' ?


ZP
