masalah penggunaan otak....

[Luagefak Stalker]

konon kabarnya rata-rata penggunaan otak pada manusia biasa itu cuman 5 % yah pada saat sadar...dan sisanya itu adalah "alam bawah sadar" kita.....ini bener ngaa sih? apa ada cara buat ningkatin optimisasi penggunaan otak pada saat "sadar"?

apakah orang yg bisa telepati / teleport / telekinesis itu gara-gara orang itu bisa menggunakan kekuatan otaknya lebih? konon einstein itu genius lantaran dia bisa menggunakan otakya diatas 5 % itu yah?

p.e.n.a.s.a.r.a.n.

[sukalada]

kalo yg punya kemampuan telekinetik ama telepati gimana tuh

[Ztar Kraftz]

ganti aja otak lu pake pentium 4 2,4 ghz, 1024 mb rdram, 100 gb hdd, chip gambar nvidia 25. pasti lu juga bisa jadi jenius

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by sukalada
kalo yg punya kemampuan telekinetik ama telepati gimana tuh

lu mah keseringan liat dedi corbujir. itu semua mah tipuan mata, mana ada yang asli.

[Windy Reed]

yang asli ada kali, tapi punya si Dedi mah nggak :D

kepake 5 % ini udah termasuk kapasitas yang dipake buat ngatur organ tubuh belon ?

[Luagefak Stalker]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz
ganti aja otak lu pake pentium 4 2,4 ghz, 1024 mb rdram, 100 gb hdd, chip gambar nvidia 25. pasti lu juga bisa jadi jenius

itu mah namanya downgrade atuh!....

[Luagefak Stalker]

Originally posted by Windy Reed
yang asli ada kali, tapi punya si Dedi mah nggak :D

kepake 5 % ini udah termasuk kapasitas yang dipake buat ngatur organ tubuh belon ?

5% itu maksudnya yg bisa kita pake secara sadar....kalo ngaa salah inget....

[Windy Reed]

kalo termasuk fungsi hidup, kita udah make berapa persen ?

[Luagefak Stalker]

justru gwa juga pengen tau....tapi coba aja diitung itung semua pergerakan yg kita lakukan (ngetik, lari) bisa diproses sedemikian cepatnya hanya dengan kapasitas 5%...(belom lagi proses belajar...;D)

dan yg gwa denger-denger juga sih sebetulnya ingatan ttg semua yg dah pernah kita lakukan dari bayi itu kita masi tersimpan dengan rapih di otak....tinggal gimana cara manggilnya balik....

[Living Melody]

baca darimana?
ada keterangan jelas nya tidak?

[Luagefak Stalker]

barusan gara-gara penasaran gwa cari artikelnya...en ternyata dari sisi ilmiahnya sih katanya pernyataan bahwa kita hanya menggunakan (ternyata) 10% itu ngaa bener....tapi entah kenapa gwa tetep setuju ama kalo kita tuh hanya menggunakan cuman 10%...kemakan mitos kali yah gwa....;D....

[Luagefak Stalker]

nih ketemu artikel yg rada netral mengenai masalah ini...:)...gwa suka ama conclusionnya dia di paragraph terakhir...

Brain Capacity

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty, in apprehension how like a god!"

William Shakespeare, Hamlet


One question I am frequently asked is, "where is the empirical data that we use less than 10% of our brains?" This concept has been around for over 20 years and bandied about in psychological, sociological and scientific circles. I have looked at all of the information I could find regarding this presumption and come to the following personal conclusion. My reasoning may not satisfy those bent on empirical data, (for none exists) but it is the best my research can offer. I concur with the concept that we use only a fraction of our potential brain capacity and the following is my evidence.

First, have there been any definitive surgical studies on the human brain that test all physical aspects of the brain with the intention of mapping total brain usage? No! Nor could such tests exist, nor would they prove the point. It has been guestimated that there are approximately 100 billion brain cells. Even if you attempted to take a random sampling of perhaps 100 people, test every portion of their brain against their cognitive usage, this data would be heavily biased towards culture, age and educational background. Thus the statistical norm of even this sampling of 100 would carry such heavy inherent biases that no definitive conclusion could be drawn.

What we can do is look at the work of those neuroscientists such as Dr. Karl Lashley and Dr. Wilder Penfield who have actually performed brain surgery on conscious subjects. Their work revolved around finding what parts of the brain may house memory. Much was learned by actually stimulating certain portions of the brain while asking the conscious subject questions. Though certain areas of the brain such as the hippocampus were discovered to play a large part in memory retention, more questions were left unanswered than information ascertained. Dr. Karl Pribram, having worked with Lashley, continued this work and came to the conclusion that the brain operates holographically, and that memory isn't stored in any one particular place but perhaps throughout the brain.

Science has come to some definitive conclusions on what certain portions of the brain are used for, i.e. the occipital lobes, temporal lobes, frontal lobes, etc. Yet, there are vast areas of the brain that are still a mystery to science, i.e. the pineal gland, the full potential of the pituitary gland, and portions of the midbrain limbic system to name a few. Thus to evaluate how much of our brain's capacity we are using when we are still unclear as to what vast areas are capable of is purely speculative.

One example of mapping brain usage compared to the norm was done in studying Einstein's brain. The one definitive difference they found in his brain compared to the norm was that he had an unusually high number of glial cells in his parietal lobe. Glial cells are the supporting architecture for neurons. High counts of glial cells could indicate that he was using this portion of brain cognitively and extensively. The parietal lobe is thought to facilitate abstract thought. We do know that whenever anything is learned there are new dendrite connections made between neurons. Greater usage of the brain through learning and stimulation creates greater dendrite connectivity. Einstein's brain indicated extensive dendrite connectivity.

Science has yet to have the opportunity to study under a microscope any brain whose entire neuronal and synaptic connection potentials were totally used. All potentially 100 billion. Yet this consideration itself is one reason to speculate that we are using only a small portion of our brains, since those brains that have undergone microscopic study show vast areas of the brain where there is little dendrite branching.

Another factor to weigh in is that of idiot savants, i.e. The Rainman. Rainman was the character played by Dustin Hoffman who was able to calculate dates in lightning speed, though otherwise appearing mentally retarded. These individuals have one unusual talent such as the ability to calculate incredible numerical equations instantaneously in their mind (a feat few humans possess) or incredible musical dexterity. The fact that there are humans who have demonstrated this ability show that the human brain is capable of such achievements.

Something else to consider is the incredible demonstrations of biological control exhibited by eastern Yogis and Tibetan monks over their autonomic nervous system. They can, for example, slow their heart rate to almost nil, or sit in freezing weather with no clothing and dry wet towels on their back because they are generating such intense heat within their bodies purely by mental concentration (this is called Tahumo). Science isn't clear what portions of their brain they are accessing to accomplish these feats, but they have been rigorously tested with the latest in technology and found to be able to exhibit what ordinary humans cannot.

The next area to consider is that of extra-sensory perception. There is a vast degree of mounting evidence that certain individuals have great capacity in this regard. Stanford University alone has many studies, as well as the Cognitive Research Institute. Yet what is not thoroughly understood is exactly what portions of the brain (though it is presumed the mid-brain limbic areas) are involved in perception beyond the five senses. Since most people don't exhibit great testable acuity in this area, it can be assumed that certain portions of the brain used to accomplish this phenomena are simply not functional in most people.

Genius in any area, be it artistic, musical, mathematical, scientific, linguistic, intellectual, etc. is more evidence that certain individuals are using portions of their brain that the majority are not. No thought can be processed without the use of the brain. Therefore, if demonstrable feats of extraordinary mental, artistic or psychic functioning exist in even a small group of people, it indicates that the human brain has capacities not tapped by the majority. The determination that less than 10% is the actual amount used may be an arbitrary number. Yet, it certainly appears plausible from those who have demonstrated exceptional abilities that we are not using anywhere near the total capacity of the brain in our ordinary daily thinking processes.

Those who chose to believe that they are using close to their full potential are welcome to do so. Yet I feel that the evidence thus far is overwhelming that we are only tapping a small portion of what the human brain can do. If each of us were operating with fully functional brains, meaning that we had all the capacities of any genius, we had total psychic functioning and complete control over our autonomic nervous system at will, we could be said to operating at full capacity. I find it heartening to realize that there is a great deal of potential that I have yet to realize, rather than to assume my present state of mind is nearly the best it gets. I delight in the notion that there is a great deal of room left for improvement, new experience and the flowering of genius. Accepting this I never expect to see the end of the horizon of mindful potentials.

©Copyright 1998 J. L. Read. All rights reserved.

[Luagefak Stalker]

dan ini artikel yg secara terang-terangan menentang mitos itu....


Do We Use Only 10% of Our Brain? http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/tenbrain.gif

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/quest1.gif The question is: Do we use only 10% of our brains?

Let me state this very clearly:

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that we use only 10% of our brains.

In other words, the statement, "We use only 10% of our brains" is false; it's a myth. We use all of our brain.

Where Did the 10% Myth Begin?
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/ein4.gif The 10% statement may have been started with a misquote of Albert Einstein or the misinterpretation of the work of Pierre Flourens in the 1800s. It may have been William James who wrote in 1908: "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources" (from The Energies of Men, p. 12). Perhaps it was the work of Karl Lashley in the 1920's and 1930's that started it. Lashley removed large areas of the cerebral cortex in rats and found that these animals could still relearn specific tasks. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/surgeon.gif We now know that destruction of even small areas of the human brain can have devastating effects on behavior. That is one reason why neurosurgeons must carefully map the brain before removing brain tissue during operations for epilepsy or brain tumors: they want to make sure that essential areas of the brain are not damaged.

Advertisement for satellite TV.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/ditto.jpg

Text of the ad reads: "You only use 11% of its potential. Ditto. Now there's a way to get the most of both."
---------------
Advertisement for Hard Disk
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/adv1.gif
---------------
Advertisement for an Airline
Text of the ad reads: "It's been said that we use a mere 10% of our brain capacity. If, however, you're flying **** from **** Airlines, you're using considerably more."
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/tenper2.jpg
Why Does the Myth Continue?
Somehow, somewhere, someone started this myth and the popular media keep on repeating this false statement (see the figures). Soon, everyone believes the statement regardless of the evidence. I have not been able to track down the exact source of this myth, and I have never seen any scientific data to support it.

According to the believers of this myth, if we used more of our brain, then we could perform super memory feats and have other fantastic mental abilities - maybe we could even move objects with a single thought. Again, I do not know of any data that would support any of this.

What Does it Mean to Use Only 10% of Your Brain?
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/sheeptk.gif What data were used to come up with the number - 10%? Does this mean that we would be just fine if 90% of our brains was removed? If the average human brain weighs 1,400 grams (about 3 lb) and 90% of it was removed, that would leave 140 grams (about 0.3 lb) of brain tissue. That's about the size of a sheep's brain. It is well known that damage to a relatively small area of the brain, such as that caused by a stroke, may cause devastating disabilities. Certain neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's Disease, also affect only specific areas of the brain. The damage caused by these conditions is far less than damage to 90% of the brain.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/sheepb.gif
Sheep Brain

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/actionps.gif
The Action Potential
The Evidence (or lack of it)
Perhaps when people use the 10% brain statement, they mean that only one out of every ten nerve cells is essential or used at any one time? How would such a measurement be made? Even if neurons are not firing action potentials, they may still be receiving signals from other neurons.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/smblu.gifFurthermore, from an evolutionary point of view, it is unlikely that larger brains would have developed if there was not an advantage. Certainly there are several pathways that serve similar functions. For example, there are several central pathways that are used for vision. This concept is called "redundancy" and is found throughout the nervous system. Multiple pathways for the same function may be a type of "safety mechanism" should one of the pathways fail. Still, functional brain imaging studies show that all parts of the brain function. Even during sleep, the brain is active. The brain is still being "used," it is just in a different active state.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/brbrain.gif Finally, the saying "Use it or Lose It" seems to apply to the nervous system. During development many new synapses are formed. In fact, some synapses are eliminated later on in development. This period of synaptic development and elimination goes on to "fine tune" the wiring of the nervous system. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/blink.gif Many studies have shown that if the input to a particular neural system is eliminated, then neurons in this system will not function properly. This has been shown quite dramatically in the visual system: complete loss of vision will occur if visual information is prevented from stimulating the eyes (and brain) early in development. It seems reasonable to suggest that if 90% of the brain was not used, then many neural pathways would degenerate. However, this does not seem to be the case. On the other hand, the brains of young children are quite adaptable. The function of a damaged brain area in a young brain can be taken over by remaining brain tissue. There are incredible examples of such recovery in young children who have had large portions of there brains removed to control seizures. Such miraculous recovery after extensive brain surgery is very unusual in adults.

So next time you hear someone say that they only use 10% of their brain, you can set them straight. Tell them,

"NOT TRUE; We use 100% of our brains."

For a continuing discussion of this topic, please see:

1. Ten Percent and Counting - BrainConnection.com http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth
2. 90% of a Brain is a Terrible Thing to Waste - The New England Journal of Skepticism http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html
3. "What is the Capacity of the Brain," a Brain and Mind Journal Brainstorming article http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n04/brainstorming/capacity.htm
4. The Ten-Percent Myth from the Skeptical Inquirer http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
5. Don't Believe It! - Common Myths and Misconceptions Exposed http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html

[Luagefak Stalker]

nah...kalo gwa pribadi sih gwa lebih setuju ama artikel yg pertama gwa post....

tapi di salah satu artikel yg gwa post ada kalimat kaya gini:
"Certainly, evolution would not select for only a 10% efficiency in such an expensive and vital organ."

kalo kalian?

[Ztar Kraftz]

gue rasa gak mungkin ah kalo cuman 5 % dari otak yang melakukan fungsi kerja. setau gue sih bukan begitu, tapi otak berfungsi memangkas, tepatnya mengkompress ( kayak winzp ) semua hal yang kita lihat, kita dengar, dan kita dll, baru disimpen di hdd nya

[Windy Reed]

my comment
apa ada cara untuk manfaatkan semuanya ? yang praktis, bukan yang cuman klise aja. Kalo nggak, ya just live with it, kita musti nunggu fungsinya naik sendiri

tapi artikel kedua juga ada benernya, nggak maksimal aja kali, kalo bener gak dipake pasti udah pada degenerasi tuh sel di otak kita

[MP5]

menurut gue sih mungkin aja baru 5% doang.
misal: kita blom bisa ngeluarin tenaga dalem, ngerasain aura, punya indra ke 6, dll yg berbau magic :D

[Luagefak Stalker]

Originally posted by Windy Reed
my comment
apa ada cara untuk manfaatkan semuanya ? yang praktis, bukan yang cuman klise aja. Kalo nggak, ya just live with it, kita musti nunggu fungsinya naik sendiri

tapi artikel kedua juga ada benernya, nggak maksimal aja kali, kalo bener gak dipake pasti udah pada degenerasi tuh sel di otak kita

menurut gwa sih ngaa mungkin ada cara yg gampang....

dan artikel yg kedua juga ada benernya...tapi ini juga ada benernya kan?

Those who chose to believe that they are using close to their full potential are welcome to do so. Yet I feel that the evidence thus far is overwhelming that we are only tapping a small portion of what the human brain can do. If each of us were operating with fully functional brains, meaning that we had all the capacities of any genius, we had total psychic functioning and complete control over our autonomic nervous system at will, we could be said to operating at full capacity. I find it heartening to realize that there is a great deal of potential that I have yet to realize, rather than to assume my present state of mind is nearly the best it gets. I delight in the notion that there is a great deal of room left for improvement, new experience and the flowering of genius. Accepting this I never expect to see the end of the horizon of mindful potentials.

[[kudanil`montok]]

ah.. kalo sampe saat ini manusia2 terpintar pun hanya menggunakan maksimum 10% dari kemampuan otaknya..
gimana yg 100 % ?? jadi Tuhan donk..
atau Tuhan itu adalah satu2 manusia yg bisa memaksimalkan 100% dari kemampuan otaknya ??

huss.. kok jadi gosipin Tuhan.. ampunnn..

[Living Melody]

tidak terbukti ah mitosnya. :)
menurut gua itu semua tergantung manusianya. ada yang mengasah otaknya & menggunakannya secara maksimal, ada yg asal pakai.

[misi]

Originally posted by MP5
menurut gue sih mungkin aja baru 5% doang.
misal: kita blom bisa ngeluarin tenaga dalem, ngerasain aura, punya indra ke 6, dll yg berbau magic :D

Itu mah beda lagi urusannya :D:D

[MP5]

Originally posted by misi


Itu mah beda lagi urusannya :D:D
emang kalo itu urusannya kemana? :D

[misi]

Originally posted by Luagefak Stalker
justru gwa juga pengen tau....tapi coba aja diitung itung semua pergerakan yg kita lakukan (ngetik, lari) bisa diproses sedemikian cepatnya hanya dengan kapasitas 5%...(belom lagi proses belajar...;D)

dan yg gwa denger-denger juga sih sebetulnya ingatan ttg semua yg dah pernah kita lakukan dari bayi itu kita masi tersimpan dengan rapih di otak....tinggal gimana cara manggilnya balik....

hipnotis dan regression (bener yah nulisnya ?) yang sedang marak saat ini, mungkin bisa membantu :D:D

[H^Fidel]

Hi

Gua udah baca 1 buku (320 halaman) , Orion Fiction, yang di tulis oleh Allan Pease and Barbara Pease yg berjudul : " Why Men Don't Listen & Women Can't read Maps " .

Di situ di jelaskan bahwa dalam keadaan tidur , otak pada para wanita tetap berfungsi dengan kadar lebih banyak dibanding pada para pria.

Jadi, ukuran kadar 10 % itu belum ada spezifikasinya.

Tapi bersyukurlah kalo otak kita tetap masih mau bekerja di kala kita sedang tidur, dari pada tidak berkerja sama sekali (alias mati)

Maka, pergunakanlah otak kita baik-baik , jangan di kasih zat zat tambahan spt Ekstasi, kalo bisa yg lainnya aja, seperti tambahin sambel ama kecap ^_^

[misi]

Originally posted by MP5

emang kalo itu urusannya kemana? :D

Wah ribet dan panjang kalo mau nerangin... Emang situ berani bayar berapa ?? :o :P :D:D

[E121F]

kalo einstein itu diatas 5% yah penggunaan otaknya :D

[Luagefak Stalker]

konon kabarnya sih begitu

[Luagefak Stalker]

dan yg gwa rada bingung itu kenapa yah banyakan orang pinter/ penemu itu masa kecilnya biasanya dicap "idiot"....kaya newton....einstein....edison....pokoknya ngaa nangkep pelajaran deh....

[E121F]

Originally posted by Luagefak Stalker
dan yg gwa rada bingung itu kenapa yah banyakan orang pinter/ penemu itu masa kecilnya biasanya dicap "idiot"....kaya newton....einstein....edison....pokoknya ngaa nangkep pelajaran deh....
tak terkecuali bill gates yang konon dulunya dikatain sama temen sebagai pelawak ;D

[MP5]

Originally posted by misi


Wah ribet dan panjang kalo mau nerangin... Emang situ berani bayar berapa ?? :o :P :D:D
situ brani nawar brapa :D

[misi]

Originally posted by MP5

situ brani nawar brapa :D

Bagaimana kalo dituker ama cerita perjalanan rohani/spiritualmu ?? :P :D:D

[H^Fidel]

Originally posted by misi


Bagaimana kalo dituker ama cerita perjalanan rohani/spiritualmu ?? :P :D:D


Butuh lilin ato spiritus nech biar makin asik ? ^_^

[E121F]

Originally posted by MP5

situ brani nawar brapa :D
give it for free ? :D

[E121F]

Originally posted by Happy^Fidel



Butuh lilin ato spiritus nech biar makin asik ? ^_^
jayuz ::toeng::

[Windy Reed]

Originally posted by Luagefak Stalker
dan yg gwa rada bingung itu kenapa yah banyakan orang pinter/ penemu itu masa kecilnya biasanya dicap "idiot"....kaya newton....einstein....edison....pokoknya ngaa nangkep pelajaran deh....
karena make plot Cinderella kali

[E121F]

Originally posted by Windy Reed

karena make plot Cinderella kali
loh? ;D

emangnya game apa :P

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by Luagefak Stalker
dan yg gwa rada bingung itu kenapa yah banyakan orang pinter/ penemu itu masa kecilnya biasanya dicap "idiot"....kaya newton....einstein....edison....pokoknya ngaa nangkep pelajaran deh....

bukannya idiot, justru mereka berpikir lebih jauh di atas manusia biasa sampe2 temen2 nya nggak ngerti, maka itu mereka dianggep idiot.

soal pelajaran sih kayanya bukan karena mereka nggak bisa, tapi nggak mao perhatiin, perhatiannya pasti ke hal lain yang agak "unusual", maka itu mereka bisa jadi inventor

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by Windy Reed

karena make plot Cinderella kali

dimana hubungannya ?

[E121F]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz


bukannya idiot, justru mereka berpikir lebih jauh di atas manusia biasa sampe2 temen2 nya nggak ngerti, maka itu mereka dianggep idiot.

soal pelajaran sih kayanya bukan karena mereka nggak bisa, tapi nggak mao perhatiin, perhatiannya pasti ke hal lain yang agak "unusual", maka itu mereka bisa jadi inventor
yah, itu kemungkinan ke-2 ;D

orang kalo ngomongnya gak nyambung pasti ada 2 kesalahan, yang denger b3g0, ato yang ngomong b3g0

[H^Fidel]

Originally posted by E121F

jayuz ::toeng::


yeeee
nyante aja dunkk

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by E121F

yah, itu kemungkinan ke-2 ;D

orang kalo ngomongnya gak nyambung pasti ada 2 kesalahan, yang denger b3g0, ato yang ngomong b3g0

bukan masalah salah satunya yang **** sih, tapi prinsip / pemahaman dua duanya yang beda aja

[E121F]

conclusion : b3g0 => relatif (??) :D

[Ztar Kraftz]

**** itu relatif, idiot itu harga mutlak

[MP5]

Originally posted by misi
Bagaimana kalo dituker ama cerita perjalanan rohani/spiritualmu ?? :P :D:D wah itu masalahnya sangat personal.. harganya mahal ;p:D
Originally posted by E121F

give it for free ? :D nothing is free in this world :D:D *matre.com*

[E121F]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz
**** itu relatif, idiot itu harga mutlak
??
bukannya idiot itu juga ada batasannya dalam IQ ?
kalo gak salah 0-20 yah IQ nya?

[Ztar Kraftz]

**** itu maksudnya b360, tapi kena sensor, gua kagak tau

[E121F]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz
**** itu maksudnya b360, tapi kena sensor, gua kagak tau
i know that
tapi yang gue omongin diatas itu idiot, bukan b3g0

[yudhi_073]

Ano...masih ngomongin penggunaan otak gak sih nih ;D
Jika memang benar otak manusia baru 10% digunakan manusia, berarti ada kemungkinan kalo kemampuannya bisa dikembangkan.
Tapi yang saya pikirkan adalah apa kepala manusia tidak membesar karena kemampuan otaknya membesar ;D Alien yang sering kita liat di film science fiction tuh banyak yang kepalanya besar daripada badannya ;D

[E121F]

Originally posted by yudhi_073
Ano...masih ngomongin penggunaan otak gak sih nih ;D
Jika memang benar otak manusia baru 10% digunakan manusia, berarti ada kemungkinan kalo kemampuannya bisa dikembangkan.
Tapi yang saya pikirkan adalah apa kepala manusia tidak membesar karena kemampuan otaknya membesar ;D Alien yang sering kita liat di film science fiction tuh banyak yang kepalanya besar daripada badannya ;D
size doesn't matter

bukannya beberapa tengkorak manusia purba memungkinkan untuk mendapatkan volume otak yang lebih besar?

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by E121F

size doesn't matter

bukannya beberapa tengkorak manusia purba memungkinkan untuk mendapatkan volume otak yang lebih besar?

bukannya kalo volum otak makin besar, kepala juga makin besar. yang memberi pengaruh kan volum otaknya bukan tengkoraknya

[E121F]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz


bukannya kalo volum otak makin besar, kepala juga makin besar. yang memberi pengaruh kan volum otaknya bukan tengkoraknya
jadi tengkorak manusia purba yang besar itu menunjukka perkembangan otak yang pesat dong?

[Windy Reed]

masih pake cara ekstensifikasi, bukan intensifikasi

bisa kan selnya lebih rapat susunannya

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by E121F

jadi tengkorak manusia purba yang besar itu menunjukka perkembangan otak yang pesat dong?

kali aja gede kepala doang otaknya kosong. kita kan bisa liat otaknya einstein. kalo gak salah inget ukurannya sedikit lebih besar dari ukuran manusia biasa

[coffeecream]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz


kali aja gede kepala doang otaknya kosong. kita kan bisa liat otaknya einstein. kalo gak salah inget ukurannya sedikit lebih besar dari ukuran manusia biasa

volume otak menurut gw emang ngaruh deh bagi..efektifitas kerja otak itu sendiri... brontosaurus yang bodinya segede gunung itu aja cuma punya otak bervolume rata2 setengah kilo..
makanya tuh monster rada telmi...btw tentang manusia itus sendiri yang gw tau seh tentang fungsi dan bagian otak itu..kalo persentase pasti tentang penggunaan saat sadar ato tidak gw kurang tau tuh heueheueheue...

[E121F]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz


kali aja gede kepala doang otaknya kosong. kita kan bisa liat otaknya einstein. kalo gak salah inget ukurannya sedikit lebih besar dari ukuran manusia biasa
memang benar :D

[Luagefak Stalker]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz


kali aja gede kepala doang otaknya kosong. kita kan bisa liat otaknya einstein. kalo gak salah inget ukurannya sedikit lebih besar dari ukuran manusia biasa

huh? bukannya cuman ada satu bagian otaknya dia yah yg lebih besar?....satu bagian doank deh setau gwa.....;D

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by Luagefak Stalker


huh? bukannya cuman ada satu bagian otaknya dia yah yg lebih besar?....satu bagian doank deh setau gwa.....;D

iye ye? gue ngak tau tuh. bagian mana yang lebih besar ? kiri/ kanan ?

[E121F]

kayaknya kanan deh

[Luagefak Stalker]

ngaa...cuman satu bagian kecil koq....tapi bagian tempat mikir kayanya....;D...lebi gede brapa persen doank deh gitu.....

[E121F]

soalnya orang yang kidal biasanya lebih pintar ;D

[coffeecream]

Originally posted by E121F
soalnya orang yang kidal biasanya lebih pintar ;D

hah siapa bilang....ga juga kok

[E121F]

Originally posted by coffeecream


hah siapa bilang....ga juga kok
seperti yang gue tulis
BIASANYA
bukan selalu :D

[coffeecream]

Originally posted by E121F

seperti yang gue tulis
BIASANYA
bukan selalu :D

yah gimana ya..abis selama ini temen g yang kidal kadang 2 malah sering lemot tuh heheh ::hhh::

[ManiacZ]

It is an amazing, yet thoughtful to see the effects of 'scientific attacks' on healthy human intelligence, almost phenomenally idiotic.

This deserve a massive chuckle, or even a laugh ... HaHaHaHa ....

[Ztar Kraftz]

Originally posted by E121F
soalnya orang yang kidal biasanya lebih pintar ;D

kidal mah faktor genetik.nggak ada sangkut paut sama otak. nah yang biasanya gue liat pinter tuh yang bisa dua - duanya, fleksibel.

[ManiacZ]

some things are better left unknown and unresolved for when the truth is revealed disasters emerging. human mind is capable of doing activities and things beyond its own or scientific comprehension.

[coffeecream]

Originally posted by Ztar Kraftz


kidal mah faktor genetik.nggak ada sangkut paut sama otak. nah yang biasanya gue liat pinter tuh yang bisa dua - duanya, fleksibel.

setuuuddjuuuu......