Tag Archives: psychologists

Neuroplasticity; challenging the synapse and neurotransmitter “pruning” theory in the early stages of development. PART 2

The logical explanation for the advent of neuroscience would mean, indeed conclude
that we are pioneering and embarking upon the process of unleashing the latent 80% of
brain potential. To initially understand how to unleash that 80%, we must understand the
preschool brain – rather we must understand the basic construction of our brain’s
information operating system, which is synonymous with the preschool brain.
There are a few cognitive and evolutionary assumptions, or rather presumptions that
need to be cleared up about neuroplasticity, and the brain in general. The first thing is
that, we humans are born with underdeveloped brains, meaning our synapses and
neurotransmitters are still mostly or entirely unconnected, whereas animals are born with
fully developed brains – meaning all or most of their neurotransmitters and synapses are
already connected, and they seem to use most or close to 100% of their brains’ potential –
compared with humans who acquire or use only about 20% of the brain’s potential.
Recently, some psychologists and neuroscientists have proposed the idea that we do
indeed actually use 100% of brain potential but that we are only using about 20% at a
time – at any given moment. That may sound relieving to many folks, however if we
look at all of the basic elements of brain potential, we realize that there are too many
disparities in human existence that fall short of functioning according to the properties of
compassion and optimism, which define the brain’s system for operating knowledge and
information.
As mentioned, Neuroscientists are still baffled by the tug of war between the back of
the brain and the front of the brain, this conundrum hardly sums up or defines 100%
cooperation, let alone 100% of brain potential. The clues that would summarize the
cooperative properties and functions between the back of the brain and the front of the
brain are indeed there to be uncovered and discovered, but it depends on a matter of re-
defining what the common denominators are between these two areas of the brain. This
cooperation is rigorously defined by Cognitivology® and any Neuroscientist is welcome
to validate or invalidate these definitions.
The evolution of human cognitive brain development tells the story of how our
brains have evolved from the back to the front and Neuroscience does explain how each
individual brain develops from back to front during the years of brain development –
plus, how the brain is capable of continual learning, re-mapping and improving during
the adult years of life.
Neurons perform an important role in the brain’s ability to process and transmit
information within the brain’s network of neurotransmitters and synapses. We are born
with billions or even trillions of these and somewhere in early development after infancy,
but before the preschooler stage a massive trimming down, or “pruning” of these
neurotransmitters takes place. This happens because we only keep what we use, these
neurotransmitters become “specialized” and since nature naturally conserves, then our
brains dispense or dispose of those parts that we have missed using.
However, this “conservation” premise is a poor assumption, even from the
perspective of evolution or conservation or natural adaptability. The reason to debunk
this presumption is that most natural selection theories propose that natural processes are
modified in accordance with necessity, usage, and environmental influences. If the
principles of natural selection were applicable to the pruning of neurotransmitters, it
would seem more logical for the human brain to dispense with the over-production of
neurotransmitters generation after generation for each and every individual. The more
logical conclusion is that even though some of these neurotransmitters would actually be
pruned, it makes more sense that we are meant to use the majority of them.
The point is that a newer presumption for a new age of thinking would compel us to
consider that the massive pruning is consistent with the 20% scale, or ratio of brain
potential that we’ve become accustomed to activating and using. We might also consider
that if we were revising our definition of synapse and neurotransmitter pruning from the
perspective of Particle Physics and String Theory, we can presume that we are processing
knowledge and information predominantly from a physical-3-D standpoint and that other
inherent structures of the brain need the original bulk of neurotransmitters to process
knowledge and information beyond the physical-3-D realm of energy and matter.
The bottom line is that unless we give most of these neurotransmitters and synapses
a chance to connect to our extrasensory senses how will we know what more our minds
and brains are capable of doing?
So yes, neuroplasticity tosses out the old theory that adults are unable to produce
new neurons or learn new information, or that they are unable to break free from their old
ways of thinking. But the question still remains – why toss away all of those original
neurons and neurotransmitters if we are meant to continually produce neurons and be
capable of re-mapping older patterns of knowledge with newer patterns of knowledge?
Why dispose of billions of neurons in early development only to gain a few thousand or
million in adulthood?
Our free will is equally limited to processing choices, as our brain is limited to
processing knowledge and information. The more brain potential we unleash, the more
free will can be unleashed to also serve its function in conjunction with human
development, creativity, discipline, responsibility, optimism, behavior, compassion,
ethics, consciousness and intelligence. What this tells us is that we must begin asking
new and unasked questions if we are ever to figure out the mysteries of latent human
brain potential.

Advertisements