4 ms·
> If we are using only 10% of our brains, that means a person would be fine if the other 90% of the brain got removed [...] There are instances in history when
by vilhelm_s 6y ago
> If we are using only 10% of our brains, that means a person would be fine if the other 90% of the brain got removed [...] There are instances in history when people were injured and got parts of their brain removed (although not as close as even 10%)
Actually you can do much better. There are people who had 50% of their brain removed and were fine. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy]
And there are examples of people who lost up to 95% of their brain and still seem pretty normal. (Actually, some are claimed to be be smarter than average, leading to the suggestion that the rest of the brain is just cramping our style, but that's probably an exaggeration.) [https://www.gwern.net/Hydrocephalus https://www.gwern.net/Hydrocephalus]
- tgv 6y agoYeah, the arguments aren't great, but redundancy is of course not the same as not using. A better argument would be, that (AFAIK) no-one has ever found a large group of idle neurons, nor do neurons only function 10% of the time.
- nwienert 6y ago“Fine” but not the same, likely not as smart, and the gwern link debunks the 95% case pretty soundly.
- Tenoke 6y ago> If we are using only 10% of our brains, that means a person would be fine if the other 90% of the brain got remove >> Actually you can do much better. There are people who had 50% of their brain removed and were fine. 50% is less than 90%, that's not 'much better'. >[https://www.gwern.net/Hydrocephalus https://www.gwern.net/Hydrocephalus] It's amusing you link to gwern's page where he mostly debunks those cases.
- vilhelm_s 6y agoI think the page is saying that the largest injuries destroyed less than 10% of the brain, leaving more than 90% intact. 50% is more than that.