Models of the mind.

I'm not sure I'd put any stock in vague estimates of "usage." Could be they're talking about the large fraction of the brain that is not neuronal (support, or "glial", cells). Could be that it's just a crappy estimate. It's hard to imagine going to such biological expense to build a structure you're only going to need a small portion of...

Otherwise, I've got nothing to tell you. I started reading "The Blank Slate" a couple of months ago, and the first few chapters seemed to give a good overview of working (and defunct, debunked) cognitive models. Got sidetracked, though, and I don't recomember much of what I read...

I've been on Scientific American lately, and they had an article similar to this. Apparently, according to SciAm, the thing about using only 10% of your brain is just a myth.

Hehe, I'm a student of cognitive sciences so I just have to reply.

Yes, the claim that we only use a fraction of our brain is a popular misconception, we use pretty much all of our brain but our equipment for mapping brain activity has been very limited but with enhanced fMRI it has become a lot easier.

The traditional perspective on cognition has been to consider the brain as a closed system with input and output, the strictest form of this approach was the Behaviorist theories. However, beginning 1957 and the publication of Noam Chomsky's, among others' research, challenged this point of view. Ever since the cognition has started to be seen in context rather than isolated.

Today "situated cognition" is what is by many considered an accurate approach to the problem. "Situated cognition" doesn't just aim to explain the workings of our minds but also how we interact with out environment and how we use artifacts (man-made items) to record and move cognition from our minds to the environment we interact with and in that manner allows us to share our mind spaces with other people. An Internet bulletin board system such as this is a perfect example, it could not exist without our interaction with our environment. Out success as a species is most likely directly related to our physical bodies. Dolphins might be smarter than us, for all we know, but they can't store or exchange information nearly as well as we can.

Cognition takes place in the world, not just in your brain and that is something you need to keep in midn when you try to model thought.
Then, there's reason and emotion, or not? Are emotions and thoughts strictly different, is logic void of feeling? Should logic be void of feeling? But that's a wholly different discourse.

As in on a spectrum of objective to subjective? Well, you could put a bit of subjectiveness into objectiveness, but that's because we are subjective. Even when doing objective research, we can't help but be subjective. That's why we're human. Sometimes, this is fatal, and sometimes, it's beneficial.

I don't mind this discussion turning into the objective reality being impossible to interpret in a pure objective manner and that therefor there is, but to 'god', only subjectivity. The Truth out there is and will always be unknown to us in its pure form. But it is there nonetheless and we observe it. Without us it exists. Most people will agree on this and disagree(for they have never heard of) with the anthropic principle.

I don't know how much CG Jung comes into play or is accepted here. But I remember Bill Hicks (inspired by him, saying):
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

I never did fully accept: 'we are all one consciousness'.

It seems rather irrational to suspect that consciousness is a requisite for existence. As far as I'm concerned, there was existence, then life, then consciousness. Defining them (especially the latter) in a scientific agreeable manner is rather hard, nevertheless. I trust this order for I have seen little proof insinuating another one.

I look forward to all input Kail can give me, I am very interested in the subject of cognitive awareness. As for Chomsky, I know but two things: He's an anarchist and a linguist (the latter matters little to me :p)
BUT, I would suspect he's one of those linguists who says thinking originates from language. I never liked this approach (zen knows no words. Then again, the trick here is NOT to think, but it's all much more subtle, I know...), but like I said: I'm not familiar with a lot of his work.

Well, in the end, it doesn't matter what you think, in most cases, it's true or it's not true. I didn't know these people or these theories, but I figured out these things. That all there is to know is there, but we just have to find it.

Some believe that if we build our computer big enough we can give our machine conciousness. It's conjecture, but if it could be you would have conciousness without life.

Then it's up to you to decide how philosophical/practical the problem of a (eg. 3-D lay-out and build-up) complex system is. Even if we were to contemplate the structure completely, it would be physically impossible to build it.