Why harvest brains from Los Angeles???
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Skyline
erthdg — 14 years ago(August 11, 2011 04:36 AM)
Unless they only use brains that are dead (???)!!! Look what happened with a non-LA brain, at the end. And believe me, I feel the same way about them harvesting brains from Miami (FL). If they are more intellegent than earthlings, they came to the wrong planet to harvest brains!!!
-
rainofwalrus — 14 years ago(August 12, 2011 12:49 PM)
ba-dump-dump!
but seriously, it's theorized that we only use 4% of our brain-power. maybe the conditioning (blue lights) reformats said brain into something they can use.
what's more annoying is the "visitors" are color-blind and insert a "red" brain even though it's fairly obvious to the audience (with our simple, unconditioned brains) that this is a bad idea.
tl;dr
how does a space/time-faring collective/species advance so far without QA?
messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious. -
king_of_bob — 14 years ago(August 26, 2011 10:43 AM)
but seriously, it's theorized that we only use 4% of our brain-power. maybe the conditioning (blue lights) reformats said brain into something they can use.
That whole idea is absolute nonsense. The brain simply does not work that way.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! -
rainofwalrus — 14 years ago(August 26, 2011 10:50 AM)
That whole idea is absolute nonsense. The brain simply does not work that way.
LOLOL. we don't know exactly HOW the brain works. we also don't fully comprehend how sleep works. and while we're at it, several species of tree defy known laws of gravity by moving TONS of water straight upso scientist aren't exactly sure how TREES work
but you keep on trying to sound factual on the Internets. /popcorn
messageboard rules are serious business. like really serious. -
king_of_bob — 14 years ago(August 27, 2011 08:07 AM)
We may not know exactly how the brain works, but we absolutely know we do not use only 4% of it. The idea is ludicrous. If that were true, you could destroy 96% of a persons brain and they should still be able to function perfectly, and we absolutely know this is not the case.
And your suggestion that scientists don't understand how trees work is equally ludicrous. You're apparently trapped in a world of outdated science:
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701736/session2.html
Basically the trees cells act like a series of nanotubes.
Once again, the idea that we only use 4% of our brain is completely idiotic, and shows a total lack of knowledge of current neuroscience.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! -
king_of_bob — 14 years ago(October 01, 2011 08:02 AM)
That seems to be what I do with most of my time on IMDb. Science and logic apparently don't exist in the minds of many movie watchers.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! -
Panpl — 13 years ago(September 04, 2012 11:50 AM)
I want to extend my thanks to you as well for a good response to a stupid claim. It's absurd how often you run into this "you only use x% of your brain" nonsense. I usually just call into question what parts of their brain are they not using currently. Another thing is how do they know we don't use x% of our brain if we don't know exactly how the brain works.
-
king_of_bob — 13 years ago(September 04, 2012 04:24 PM)
I want to extend my thanks to you as well for a good response to a stupid claim. It's absurd how often you run into this "you only use x% of your brain" nonsense.
Indeed. I don't even understand how people can still hold to that idea, as it makes so little sense.
Like I said, the people who suffer brain damage would have to be VERY unlucky in order to sustain damage to that one small part of the brain that's supposedly in use. It worries me how little people understand about their own physiology and the world around them. Especially when they clearly have access to the greatest research tool ever created(the internet).
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! -
Zalophus — 13 years ago(November 02, 2012 03:28 PM)
From my understanding, we do only use about 10% of our brain. But it's not like it's a concentrated 10%. It's more like if you were to make pin pricks all over a 3D model of a brain until 10% of that brain is pin pricks. Then that is what we would use. Not to mention that there are also connections from point to point. So basically any brain damage would either damage one of those points/sever a connection, so there are no "safe spots".
However, I am not a neurologist, or any kind of expert on this subject. Nor am I trying to state any of this as fact, I'm just repeating what I have been told a few times. But to me this would make a lot of sense. -
king_of_bob — 13 years ago(November 03, 2012 08:27 AM)
From my understanding, we do only use about 10% of our brain. But it's not like it's a concentrated 10%.
No we don't. The brain does not work that way. Different parts of the brain have different functions. Again, if we only used 10% of our brains, we could remove or damage 90% of it and be perfectly fine, and we know for a fact that this is not possible.
It's more like if you were to make pin pricks all over a 3D model of a brain until 10% of that brain is pin pricks.
This is false. Again, different parts of the brain do different things. Parts of it are responsible for memory, parts are responsible for reasoning. Most of the brain is responsible for autonomic functions like breathing and keeping your heart pumping.
However, I am not a neurologist, or any kind of expert on this subject. Nor am I trying to state any of this as fact, I'm just repeating what I have been told a few times. But to me this would make a lot of sense.
I would suggest you stop relying on word of mouth. Instead, if you want to actually understand what you're saying, I would suggest doing a little research.
This idea goes back to when neuroscience was in its infancy and people didn't really understand how the brain worked. Much like the "science can't explain how a bee flies" argument it relies on outdated information that has since been proven false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! -
danztroniclive — 12 years ago(December 26, 2013 08:18 PM)
Wow, people get so serious
OVER A BLOODY MOVIE
, come on get with the program and deal with reality, it's only a movie for gawd sake, this movie is not
FACT
but
FICTION
, why do we always have to compare logic every time a movie comes upon us.
Some people take movie watching to a level beyond comprehension and there are so many people out there that believe this sort of acting is reality, such a shame that people use movies to insist on their superiority or level of knowledge. -
king_of_bob — 12 years ago(December 27, 2013 11:10 AM)
Wow, people get so serious OVER A BLOODY MOVIE, come on get with the program and deal with reality, it's only a movie for gawd sake, this movie is not FACT but FICTION, why do we always have to compare logic every time a movie comes upon us.
Because movies, as works of fiction, need to operate on an internal logic to work.
Why did you feel the need to make a post about this if you're not actually going to add anything to the conversation?
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! -
danztroniclive — 12 years ago(December 27, 2013 12:11 PM)
My logic is that as an observer of commentary, I felt it my right to express my thoughts, therefore my thoughts are but a contribution to the conversation, that's my logic. I actually don't believe that there has to be any internal logic to a fictitious movie, why must there be a form of guideline to make a movie work?, after all isn't fiction a call of imagination, and isn't imagination thoughts and creativity that astounds us to a level of excursion to another place?. Therefore logic to me is that any art form doesn't have to have an operational concept, as long as the belief of what you are seeing is known to be fiction not fact.
Again my thoughts are, why do people feel the need to get so serious over a work of fiction when in reality it is not a form of true belief?.
Anyway I was simply making an observation and commentary to the topic, again people are so serious about fictitious work that it astounds me that they get so worked up on something that simply is not classified as true. -
king_of_bob — 12 years ago(January 02, 2014 04:36 AM)
My logic is that as an observer of commentary, I felt it my right to express my thoughts, therefore my thoughts are but a contribution to the conversation, that's my logic.
I didn't ask about your logic. I asked what you thought you were contributing to the conversation. Did you even read my post? A contribution to the conversation would be at least speaking to the subject of the conversation, but your post does not.
I actually don't believe that there has to be any internal logic to a fictitious movie, why must there be a form of guideline to make a movie work?
Then you're an idiot who doesn't understand fiction. What you believe and what's true are two completely different things. And apparently you don't even understand what internal logic means. It means that the work of fiction sets up the rules of its own universe, but those rules need to be consistent or you're dealing with bad fiction. Simple as. Consistency is a MUST when it comes to writing.
Again my thoughts are, why do people feel the need to get so serious over a work of fiction when in reality it is not a form of true belief?.
Again, I refer you to the concept of internal logic and suggest you look it up.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! -
dreanmak22 — 10 years ago(June 01, 2015 03:46 PM)
i saw a documentary in youtube where is a little girl that lost half of her brain after a terrible accident that happend to her and she is behave great like nothing happend to her, how do you explain that?
I'm not rich!I'm just a poor man with money.
(from the movie: Love in the Time of Cholera) -
silovik812 — 12 years ago(February 17, 2014 04:17 PM)
It's worse than that. They can GROW APPENDAGES that MANUFACTURE THEIR OWN FOOD! From SUNLIGHT!! And they can breathe a gas that is DEADLY to humans! Nobody can explain that! Once they figure out that walking around thing, our duck will be seriously l'oranged! They're already making a start on it:
http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/12/03/moving-up-and-out-these-trees-were-ma de-for-walking/"Oh, well" said Zanoni, "to pour pure water in the muddy well does but disturb the mud !"
-
acedrinker-1 — 13 years ago(July 01, 2012 08:43 PM)
It's been proven wrong already with the 10% or less nonsense. The people that still carry it on are the idiots that haven't paid attention to scientists for the last 10-20 years. We use our full brain on a regular basis.