Lucy

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, August 14, 2014 02:39
VIEWED: 14707
PAGE 4 of 7

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Rappy,

I'm not going to say that Lucy will borrow that self-same plot device, although it seems that way. This movie may well go in a different direction.
Now, I've heard about that 10% of our brain power before, it's just a Hollywood premise (where it came from I don't know) but it's a tired premise. But, to me, it doesn't matter if the story doesn't work. It is about, as you correctly state, about human potential. Still though, if it's not a good story, well, the movie will suck. Any movie wood.

SGG

---

Brain Scans. EEGs. MRIs.
Some can show heat from the chemicals reacting within different portions of the brain - chemicals are the electrical conductors for our thoughts, senses, etc. Some show oxygen use, where it is used, where it is concentrated for different applications or emotions, thoughts, senses, etc. ElectroencEphliGraphs measure/record the brain waves from different sectors of the brain.
They all show that only small portions of the brain are used at one time or another, and under intense brain activity or thought, more and more is used. But never anywhere close to 100% at once, or even close to half, quarter, fifth, or even less. That is why they say we don't use 100% of our brain, because if we did it would show up on the scans. They have not come up with a scan that shows anybody using more than half of their brain matter at any given moment.

Some consider oxygen to be the limiting factor - how to get enough O2 into the brain to supply all the need for it over 10%. Others consider heat/cooling to be the limit - the heat generated from all that oxidization of that O2, and the blood system is a heating system, not an efficient cooling system.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Just to clarify, I was asking if the drug or blue substance in plastic bags which was placed in 'Lucy' will be revealed, or will it serve as all that stuff you said about greed, power and what not, from Pulp Fiction, and never to be fully explained.

I wasn't trying to compare the little clear pill in Limitless to the glowy gold thingy from Pulp Fiction.

Pardon for any confusion.

---

He avoids any Red pill / Blue pill comparison or reference.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

RapKnight:
shshshshshsh. He's not sure if anybody mentioned it yet. You speak so much truth so often, some just ignore you for fear their delusional surreality will implode.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it yet but I think there is significance in the name Lucy.

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's like a count down, but in reverse, to the point of impact where she's " 100% " , or some such.

---

This one minute trailer very clearly shows more and more rules of actual physics being violated the closer and closer Lucy approaches the magical 100%.

There has got to be a plot twist at the end of the story: something like Lucy is actually experiencing only a simulated reality where there are no rules. I love how, in this trailer, Lucy can change hair color and length as she is walking down a hall. It is a dream. There will never be a reality with that possibility.

---

?? Are you saying chameleons do not exist? Or that they are only capable of such actions because they are able to use so much more than 100% of the brain power than humans can muster? Or you just deny that this function exists in the real world?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
?? Are you saying chameleons do not exist? Or that they are only capable of such actions because they are able to use so much more than 100% of the brain power than humans can muster? Or you just deny that this function exists in the real world?

---

I am denying that people (not chameleons) can grow 15 centimeters of hair in one second and then change all her hair from blond to brunette. But if Lucy is a robot, maybe she can extrude and retract her hair like an auto can extend and retract the power radio antenna. If she was a robot, the wonderful camouflage trick hairstyling wouldn't be breaking any rules of physics.

She does the super-trick hairstyling at 23 seconds into the video.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Brain Scans. EEGs. MRIs.
Some can show heat from the chemicals reacting within different portions of the brain - chemicals are the electrical conductors for our thoughts, senses, etc. Some show oxygen use, where it is used, where it is concentrated for different applications or emotions, thoughts, senses, etc. ElectroencEphliGraphs measure/record the brain waves from different sectors of the brain.
They all show that only small portions of the brain are used at one time or another, and under intense brain activity or thought, more and more is used. But never anywhere close to 100% at once, or even close to half, quarter, fifth, or even less. That is why they say we don't use 100% of our brain, because if we did it would show up on the scans. They have not come up with a scan that shows anybody using more than half of their brain matter at any given moment.

Some consider oxygen to be the limiting factor - how to get enough O2 into the brain to supply all the need for it over 10%. Others consider heat/cooling to be the limit - the heat generated from all that oxidization of that O2, and the blood system is a heating system, not an efficient cooling system.

---

The ten percent or less numbers are generally derived from bad interpretations of data from the turn of last century. The interpretation itself was largely invented by psychologists in the 1950s for various nonsense.

The brain is always getting "enough" oxygen, because a brain that is not getting enough oxygen is dead. If we were using so little of our brain at any one time, it would be terribly inefficient and evolutionarily non-viable, especially considering the size of the brain casing and the complications it poses to birth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/

The brain is also always active, including even in sleep. Low level activity in all parts of the brain is constant - activity may flare up in certain parts of the brain depending on a task, but if any part of the brain was not being used, the nerve cells would degenerate. To this end, the brain uses 20% of the metabolic energy we generate. It is by no means starved.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percen
t-of-their-brains/

This is confirmed by brain scans. Including one on Mythbusters of all places - we're definitely using way more than 10% of our brains most of the time.

Furthermore, unusual amounts of intense neural activity would not be a good thing.



Considering the way ion channels work when you're sending electrical impulses via nuerons, the resulting ion flood would in fact KILL the nerve cells. Which is why brain damage is a common side effect of seizures.

As it turns out, some parts of the brain being more quiet and not sending conflicting signals is as much a part of a brain being used to it's "full potential" as is parts of the brain that are more active.

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

The premise for the film Lucy is flawed. But so long as you recognize it as such, and ignore the bad science involved, it could very well be entertaining.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Brain Scans. EEGs. MRIs.
Some can show heat from the chemicals reacting within different portions of the brain - chemicals are the electrical conductors for our thoughts, senses, etc. Some show oxygen use, where it is used, where it is concentrated for different applications or emotions, thoughts, senses, etc. ElectroencEphliGraphs measure/record the brain waves from different sectors of the brain.
They all show that only small portions of the brain are used at one time or another, and under intense brain activity or thought, more and more is used. But never anywhere close to 100% at once, or even close to half, quarter, fifth, or even less. That is why they say we don't use 100% of our brain, because if we did it would show up on the scans. They have not come up with a scan that shows anybody using more than half of their brain matter at any given moment.

Some consider oxygen to be the limiting factor - how to get enough O2 into the brain to supply all the need for it over 10%. Others consider heat/cooling to be the limit - the heat generated from all that oxidization of that O2, and the blood system is a heating system, not an efficient cooling system.

---

The ten percent or less numbers are generally derived from bad interpretations of data from the turn of last century. The interpretation itself was largely invented by psychologists in the 1950s for various nonsense.

The brain is always getting "enough" oxygen, because a brain that is not getting enough oxygen is dead.

---

Yes, enough to supply the 10% brain usage we use. Not enough to use all of the brain at once. Are you missing the connection?

Quote:

---

If we were using so little of our brain at any one time, it would be terribly inefficient and evolutionarily non-viable, especially considering the size of the brain casing and the complications it poses to birth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/

The brain is also always active, including even in sleep. Low level

---

Are you really trying to use the claim of LOW LEVEL brain activity to prove the brain is being used near 100%? Mr. Illogical, hello.

Quote:

---

activity in all parts of the brain is constant - activity may flare up in certain parts of the brain depending on a task, but if any part of the brain was not being used, the nerve cells would degenerate.

This is confirmed by brain scans. Including one on Mythbusters of all places - we definitely use way more than 10% of our brains at any given time.

Furthermore, unusual amounts of intense neural activity would not be a good thing.

---

Assuming this chart has comparable gradients then it shows that there is multiples more electrical signal strength compared to the upper chart, further indicating the lack of 100% represented in the top chart - making your charts disprove your claim. I'm not saying more is always better, but surely you can see that there is much headroom to gain before 100% is achieved.

Quote:

---

Considering the way ion channels work when you're sending electrical impulses via nuerons, the resulting ion flood would in fact KILL the nerve cells. Which is why brain damage is a common side effect of seizures.

As it turns out, some parts of the brain being more quiet and not sending conflicting signals is as much a part of a brain being used to it's "full potential" as is parts of the brain that are more active.

---

Being more quiet is not the same as being fully accessed and activated. For a creature incapable of using 100% of it's brain, having part of it stay quiet is needed, yes. This, as well, disproves your claim.

Quote:

---

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

The premise for the film Lucy is flawed. But so long as you recognize

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME