Originally posted by karoly aczel
Only within the scientific community?

Why cant the lay person have this explained to them?


Of course I think my hypothesis on this matter is the best one, (on this thread), but that is neither here nor there. It is just one voice with some deep held convictions.

If a lay person was to do thorough research, and fully grasp the scientific concepts and a stringent and methodical manner, than that person will no longer be a lay person and will put them into the scientific community.

As for people who do not do stringent research, they have to rely on people who do the research to have it explained to them.

Someone saying that a particular scientist is puzzled by a particular thing in a particular field does not really say a lot, apart from the fact that that person (or anyone else) has not yet found the cause. It doesn't mean that others who know little about the subject can just say, "This is what happens" with their wild speculations.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To Andrew Hamilton:

The following is a link to the article I was writing about.
Your argument seems to be with the neurologist not
with me. I was only posing questions about it.

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873031,00.html

If you still disagree, you may want to contact Time and have
them print a retraction.

RJHinds

Did you read the article, or just the title?
I can find nowhere in the article that backs up what your OP claims.
How about quoting it for us.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To Andrew Hamilton:

The following is a link to the article I was writing about.
Your argument seems to be with the neurologist not
with me. I was only posing questions about it.

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873031,00.html

If you still disagree, you may want to contact Time and have
them print a retraction.

RJHinds

It is WELL KNOWN in modern neurology that BOTH sides of the brain are used -normally the right is usually (not always) mainly for artistic and visual-spacual skills (asp seeing “the whole picture” ) and the right side is usually (not always) more for verbal skills and logic although neurologists have discovered that some language and visual skills can and sometimes do come from BOTH sides of the brain so the picture is a messy and complex one but, never the less, BOTH sides have functionality and BOTH sides are used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

The above link IS a scientific link that clearly shows that it is a KNOWN FACT that BOTH sides of the brain have functionality thus BOTH sides are clearly used.
These facts are clearly what modern-day neurologists agreed on -so forget what some non-scientific site says, just look at what modern-day neurology actually says from the scientific sites.

“...Your argument seems to be with the neurologist not with me. ...”

What neurologist? such a neurologist that sayswe only use half of our brain doesn’t exist. You should not believe everything some non-scientific site says about science anyway. You should know that they (the news media) are constantly lying and distorting the truth to sensationalize and constantly putting words into scientists mouths. If you want to know about what are the ACTUAL science facts, don't read or listen to this nonsense, read instead from truly scientific sources.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Time Magazine had an article that said scientist in
neurology were puzzled by the fact that nearly half
our brain goes unused. They were wondering if
man will ever be able to use the other half.
This made me wonder why man would evolve with
a brain he only uses about half of. Could he have
needed it all at one time for some purpose we are
not aware o ...[text shortened]... to communicate with him in a
spiritual way. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

RJHinds

Our current civilization is thinking that the 21st century is the time where we all see the greatest achievements of mankind all coming together in one great big wonderful "The Pinnacle of Mankind" sought of thing.

Well nothing is new, and in fact everything is old........and eternal and ever existing.

Do you really think that the principles of flight where discovered in the 19th century.....no, but the principles of flight are eternal and have been discovered many many times through-out the world by different persons at different times

Do you think that the atom bomb that was dropped in 1945 was the first ever atom bomb?.....no because the principles of atomic energy are eternal and ever existing and it has been used many times in the long distant past.

There is not one thing that is new.......but everything is old, and we are just living in a relative time situation, believing that we are the first humans to ever exist and that our discovery of the DNA and RNA are first time events.

Likewise our brains in the past were used to their capacity, and people were able to hear anything once and never forget it.

They could meditate for months at a time and even longer.

They could access their psychic abilities easily.

This is the age of Kali, and everything is becoming degraded and deteriorating, and our brains are definitely not being accessed to their capacities.

It does not matter though.......because the goal of life is to develop love for God and to return to Godhead, and you dont need a big brain to do that......but you need a thoroughly truthful heart only, and the desire to love God.

Big brains are desired by big fools.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you read the article, or just the title?
I can find nowhere in the article that backs up what your OP claims.
How about quoting it for us.

I started reading it, then decided to check the date of publication when it was apparent that more is currently known than what the author was conveying:
Friday, Jan. 11, 1963

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The article simply lies. This is NOT a scientific web site.
It is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY false that “Not until one short century ago did neurologists learn that one half of the brain—“ as it claims. WHICH neurologists “learn” this? It doesn’t say. Why? Because it is a lie.
It is WELL KNOWN in modern neurology that BOTH sides of the brain are used - ...[text shortened]... ience facts, don't read or listen to this nonsense, read instead from truly scientific sources.

Read the post just before this one

Originally posted by RJHinds
Time Magazine had an article that said scientist in
neurology were puzzled by the fact that nearly half
our brain goes unused. They were wondering if
man will ever be able to use the other half.
This made me wonder why man would evolve with
a brain he only uses about half of. Could he have
needed it all at one time for some purpose we are
not aware o ...[text shortened]... to communicate with him in a
spiritual way. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

RJHinds

Error in transmission

Originally posted by RJHinds
Time Magazine had an article that said scientist in
neurology were puzzled by the fact that nearly half
our brain goes unused. They were wondering if
man will ever be able to use the other half.
This made me wonder why man would evolve with
a brain he only uses about half of. Could he have
needed it all at one time for some purpose we are
not aware o ...[text shortened]... to communicate with him in a
spiritual way. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

RJHinds

We have spare capacity in many areas - kidney, lung, blood, liver etc. and this all makes very good sense from an evolutionary point of view.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Read the post just before this one

Oh yes. Didn't notice that 🙂
My dyslexic brain read something on that site that wasn't there! -but I have now only had time to partially corrected my post accordingly.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I started reading it, then decided to check the date of publication when it was apparent that more is currently known than what the author was conveying:
[b]Friday, Jan. 11, 1963[/b]

Nevertheless, the article says in a number of places that it is known that most of the brain has functions and even gives examples of the various effects of loosing parts of the brain to trauma or stroke. At no point that I could find does it say we only use half our brain.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless, the article says in a number of places that it is known that most of the brain has functions and even gives examples of the various effects of loosing parts of the brain to trauma or stroke. At no point that I could find does it say we only use half our brain.

I didn't bother to read it all since it's almost 50 years old which was my point, but you can argue your point if you like. However, I'm thinking it is strongly implied in the title even if it isn't explicitly stated: "Neurology: Can Man Learn to Use The Other Half of His Brain?"

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Oh yes. Didn't notice that 🙂
My dyslexic brain read something on that site that wasn't there! -but I have now only had time to partially corrected my post accordingly.

RJHinds

as twhitehead correctly pointed out but which I failed to notice in that post (I seem to be really messing-up my posts today🙁 ) , the link you gave me doesn't actually say that we only use half of our brain!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless, the article says in a number of places that it is known that most of the brain has functions and even gives examples of the various effects of loosing parts of the brain to trauma or stroke. At no point that I could find does it say we only use half our brain.

The title of the articile "Neurology: Can Man Learn to Use
The Other Half of His Brain?" Even though it was published
in 1963, the question needs to be answered. Can anyone
give a reference or link to an article that declares that man
has learned to use the other half of his brain. The article
says that the neurologist were puzzled. I stated that if this
was true what other questions might we ask, which I gave
examples of. It appears that you were disturbed by my
questions, so much so, that I was called dishonest. I have
no proof that the original question has been answered.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The title of the articile "Neurology: Can Man Learn to Use The Other Half of His Brain?"

Not only do we all know perfectly well how journalists love a fancy title even if it is far from accurate, the title itself does not actually say we only use half our brain - though I can see how you interpreted it that way.

Even though it was published in 1963, the question needs to be answered.
No it doesn't. The question is flawed.

Can anyone give a reference or link to an article that declares that man
has learned to use the other half of his brain.
Man has always known how to use all his brain, so no such learning is required.

The article says that the neurologist were puzzled.
Can you quote where it says that.

It appears that you were disturbed by my
questions, so much so, that I was called dishonest.
Where did I call you dishonest in this thread? I have searched the whole thread and I cant find it. In fact I specifically state I do not think the article writers were being dishonest.

I have no proof that the original question has been answered.
It hasn't, and won't be because the question is flawed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The title of the articile "Neurology: Can Man Learn to Use
The Other Half of His Brain?" Even though it was published
in 1963, the question needs to be answered. Can anyone
give a reference or link to an article that declares that man
has learned to use the other half of his brain. The article
says that the neurologist were puzzled. I stated that if ...[text shortened]... , that I was called dishonest. I have
no proof that the original question has been answered.

“...The title of the articile "Neurology: Can Man Learn to Use
The Other Half of His Brain?" Even though it was published
in 1963, the question needs to be answered. ...”

Why does this “need” to be answered? Anyway, the question has already been answered. The answer is “yes”:
http://www.ehow.com/how_5151263_use-right-brain.html


“...Can anyone give a reference or link to an article that declares that man
has learned to use the other half of his brain....”

I am guessing what the article in question means by “man has learned to use the other half of his brain” does not mean “we don't use half of our brain” but rather “A man has learned to use ONLY the other half of his brain after losing half” . I suggest this because I vaguely remember I once saw a documentary about somebody that lost half of his brain but then learned to make-do with just his other half And do so surprisingly well. I think you may have misremembered.