>Well this is basically a myth. > There is no solid >scientific evidence that there really >is some vast portion of >our brain that serves no >known function. If anything, >it is remarkable that with >a brain this small and >simple (in terms of wiring), >we are able to do >everything we do. I >think our brains were designed >to do what they do, >and not to serve some >other function we haven't discovered >yet.
dag, that's a myth too? what's remarkabale is how much that taught to kids at school is presented as cocnrete fact..the way they'd quantify it like dolphins use more gray, damnneareverythingelse uses less. so that 20% is just plucked out the air - I assumed they'd done heat measurements or something.
>However, on the deeper question of >whether my behaviorist theories articulated >above are really the bottom >line, or speak to the >totality of the human experience, >it's safe to say you're >absolutely right. Science is >valuable. But plenty of >important theories on the nature >of existence sit stubbornly OUTSIDE >the walls of that scientifically >defined world. Personally, I >love Taoism and Zen Buhddism, >specifically because they challenge the >basic tenets of science by >casting doubt and relativism into >all endeavor to understand (or >control) nature.
science/-tists lacks imagination most times, that's where that and whatwecan'tseebutknowtobe'true' won't meet. ______________________________________