

For example, plants don’t use the most efficient wavelength for producing energy, they use the one that’s most reliably available.
You’re missing the point entirely. Biological systems are governed by the laws thermodynamics. The reason why complex structures are even possible in a universe where entropy is king is because biological systems offer the most direct path towards a total increase in the amount of entropy in our little corner of the universe. Natural selection is governed by those principles. The brain has a disproportionately high metabolism relative to other organs in the human body. To argue it’s largely a redundant structure like the kidneys or liver you need real evidence.
Maybe read the actual paper linked there?
You linked a fucking blog post written by a science fiction author not a peer reviewed scientific paper. And yes I did read it. Is your ego so large that you can’t possible conceive of someone coming to a different conclusion when faced with the same “evidence”?
What I linked you is a case study of an actual living person who was missing large parts of their brain and had a relatively normal life. But hey why focus on the actual facts when you can just write more word salad right?
Word Salad? Is this word salad, “In most of these cases it seems much of the outer layers of the cerebral cortex are in tact.”? Do you not have an argument against that or do you know so little about the human brain that “cerebral cortex” sounds like gibberish to you? If you’re not convinced how about you try taking a lobe out of someone whose brain hasn’t been forced to adapt to extreme conditions and tell me how that experiment works out. Maybe then you’ll understand how “redundant” the brain really is.
You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just a sad debate bro.
Big “I know you are but what am I” energy. lol
You’re being deeply uncharitable here. I never said redundancy in biological systems is something that is never selected for. I was simply stating that the selection for such redundancy is bound by thermodynamic processes that govern natural selection in the first place. Physicists that have ventured into the field of biology have suggested that this is the case for decades. However it’s only in the past 15 or so years that the field has advanced to the point where these hypotheses are testable. Honestly it’s fascinating and outside of this dumb argument you should look into it because it aligns surprisingly well with Marx’s observations about economic development. If you are genuinely interested I’ll share some papers.
No there isn’t. You’ve just made some foolish assumptions and you’ve ignored me yet again. I won’t dox myself but this isn’t some casual interest for me. To give you some idea of where I’m coming from, I’ve seen a hemispherectomy before. I’ve literally stared into a persons skull as half of their brain tissue was either removed or surgically disconnected. I then saw that person wake of up from anesthesia with some complications but less than someone unfamiliar with the procedure would expect. None of this is new to me.
In all of the cases you’ve referenced so far, the patients have cognitive deficiencies. It’s not at all the same as a person losing a kidney or donating a lobe of their liver where a they can got on to be perfectly healthy with what remains. It’s also key to realize that in the cases you’re referencing the problem starts very early in development. That gives the brain time to develop in a unique way which allows it to retain much of its intended function. What you’re seeing is not proof of redundancy but rather proof of compensatory reorganization in the remaining tissue. It’s likely the brain in these patients have, on average, a higher degree of interconnectivity than what you might find in a normal healthy brain. In which case, some complexity is lost but maybe not as much as you’ve assumed. If you tried to remove pieces of a fully healthy brain you will mostly likely see a severe loss of function, think traumatic brain injuries and stroke victims. This is amazing stuff but you’re making assumptions that just don’t align modern neuroscience.
You’re assuming size and complexity are the same thing! They aren’t. Corvids have a way higher neural density than the brains of primates. It’s fascinating but it does not back up the idea that much of the brains complexity is redundant. In fact it would suggest the opposite because under a selective pressure to reduce the size of a brain it still seems that complexity must be preserved in order to achieve similar cognitive capacities.
Maybe at one time he was. Now he’s just a science fiction author. Also what does having a degree in biology prove? I can link you to blog posts written by biologists that claim Covid 19 is a weapon created by China’s evil communist scientists. Would you trust them too? Academic rigor requires more than just the musings of any individual scientist.
I’m not saying the case itself is controversial. However, the assumptions you’ve made and the conclusions you’re trying to draw from such cases is! At least it would be amongst neuroscientists.
I mean you’re right here in the mud with me lol.
Also, I’ve engaged with you as much as I have because I generally agree with most of what you post on this site. I’ve generally appreciated your presence. However, that makes it all the more maddening when you go on to spew such ignorance about the human brain and AI. You make bold claims and then won’t even cite a real peer reviewed publication. I get that kind of behavior flies in online marxist circles especially since some of the best Marxist theoretical papers these days aren’t even translated into English. However, when discussing things like neuroscience I expect better. Throw the science out and what you’re left with is pure idealism.