ChiLab

Those who try to show people that they have much more potential than they realize (including ChiLab Limited) are, in fact, saying that we are not using anywhere near the full potential of our brain - certainly not that we are only using ten per cent (or any other figure) of what is currently available for use and exists in the grey matter now.

The fact is the brain is an organ which changes all of the time. One of the great stimuli for this change is learning.  When we learn some new information or a new skill, new pathways are formed between the brain cells (neurons) and these pathways are strengthened when we revisit (reinforce) the new material.

Ironically, all scientists know this.  So the people arguing that we are operating on full brain potential are being particularly obtuse in that they are misrepresenting the entire argument.  For some of them, the incentive to argue comes from a certain position.  One - readily found on the web - is arguing from some arcane perspective that someone has said that psychic and paranormal powers lie in the unused area. Thus he must refute that and to do so must argue against any theory that we don't "use" all of our brain's potential.

There are much better ways to dispel that myth (and others) without arguing against what is an obvious physical fact about the brain..

Imagine two twins, born with excellent genetics and high intellectual potential.  One is nurtured in a wonderful learning environment and builds up a huge bank of knowledge in
a wide variety of subjects at an early age.

Something happens to the other twin: lost at birth, ends up being raised by a family with little intellect and no interest in learning - eventually masters the art of chimney sweeping.  Better still, lost at birth and raised by animals (it has happened!).

Somehow we manage to dissect their brains at the same time after this vastly different life path.  The two brains’ microscopic physical differences would be huge in that the twin with the education would have many more neural connections than the other one.

That is what people mean when they comment that we only use a small part of our brain’s potential.

There is a reasonable analogy between brain and muscle development, if it is accepted for what it is - an anology - and the critics don’t jump in too quickly, which they often do with this particualr analogy..

Take one person with under- or moderately-developed muscles (the weakling who gets sand kicked in his face in the old advertisements for various body-building methods)..  When he lifts something heavy, he is using close to all of his capacity for bodily strength, not ten per cent or any other figure.  However with training, he can develop those muscles much more and lift perhaps even ten times as much.  It’s the same person, now he has much more strength.

Anyone who says “well the brain can’t expand with training like a muscle” is, of course missing the point and possibly doesn’t understand what an analogy is.  The brain might not expand like a muscle but it adds strength by becoming denser and more complex with more and more neural pathways being developed as strength (knowledge) is developed.

In fact it is probably just as wrong to try to quantify the unused potential by using the ten per cent argument.  No one knows what the figure might be and it varies so much from one person to another.  Well-known Australian quiz champion turned-politician Barry Jones was amazing.  He was unbeatable on television quizzes and seemed to not only know the answer to every question, but he could also add more information to each answer in a bewildering display of knowledge.

How much more of his brain’s potential was Jones using that you (or me!)?  It’s one of those unanswerable questions.  Who knows if it is ten per cent?  Most likely it is much less than ten percent of our brain potential that most of us use.  The debunkers are, in fact, talking bunk.