Is 90% of his brain actually missing or is the volume reduced by 90%? I.E. are the mass and connections still mostly there but just squished by extra fluid?
From what I can tell googling about this, it seems it is mostly just squished, so volume is down 90% but mass or neuron count is not missing 90%
I remember reading somewhere that they estimated he had 10-50 billion neurons, compared to the average of 86 billion, and they were squished into less than 15% of the normal volume.
Gwern was skeptical, & noted that an IQ of 75 [1] in this case study is very low. He additionally raises a few points, including that volume loss is not the same as neuron loss. He also predicts several deficits the case studies didn't report that he'd expect to see, including many small deficits in simple tasks adding up to large deficits in complex tasks.
Some basic context might help us understand your comment better. Who (or what) is a "Gwern"? Why is this person's writing on this topic of interest to your readers?
It irks me when someone writes a post talking about a person as if everyone is supposed to know them. I look at it as low effort nerd signalling: "You don't know about Gwern? Pshaw."
Only if you choose to take it that way. All the names were like that to me when I joined years ago, but I just looked them up, or not, as I went and now the discourse is almost always legible. As is usually the case if you want to be part of something interesting on the internet, lurk more is the first step.
This is also interesting regarding to how we treat animals. If a man can live like a normal human using just 10% of his brain, then it may be possible that an animal with a small brain may be much smarter than we thought, because it uses its brain more efficient. It may actually speak and think and whatnot, but we are not recognizing it. In other words, it may not be dumber, but just different. And then the fact that we kill or enslave it it is of course an ethical issue (it is anyway).
Seeing how smart some birds are, it's no wonder they have a higher neuronal density than mammal brains. They can pack more neurons thanks to their higher energy efficiency, IIRC.
Morgan Freeman's character, Professor Samuel Norman said, "It is estimated that most human beings only use 10% of the brain's capacity." So this is quite true. Look forward to become Scarlet Lucy! Imagine we do 100%!
> He was living a normal life. He has a family. He works. His IQ was tested at the time of his complaint. This came out to be 84, which is slightly below the normal range … So, this person is not bright — but perfectly, socially apt
Was he born this way or did he lose 90% as an adult? If the latter, it would be interesting to compare his current IQ to his childhood IQ ( if he took one in school ). Maybe there is a correlation because brain matter and IQ.
Is 90% of his brain actually missing or is the volume reduced by 90%? I.E. are the mass and connections still mostly there but just squished by extra fluid?
From what I can tell googling about this, it seems it is mostly just squished, so volume is down 90% but mass or neuron count is not missing 90%
I remember reading somewhere that they estimated he had 10-50 billion neurons, compared to the average of 86 billion, and they were squished into less than 15% of the normal volume.
Gwern was skeptical, & noted that an IQ of 75 [1] in this case study is very low. He additionally raises a few points, including that volume loss is not the same as neuron loss. He also predicts several deficits the case studies didn't report that he'd expect to see, including many small deficits in simple tasks adding up to large deficits in complex tasks.
[1] https://gwern.net/hydrocephalus#sn3
Some basic context might help us understand your comment better. Who (or what) is a "Gwern"? Why is this person's writing on this topic of interest to your readers?
Gwern is a blogger who gets posted to Hacker News a lot.
Your comment is hilarious and I would like to use it whenever someone cites a blogger as authoritative.
It irks me when someone writes a post talking about a person as if everyone is supposed to know them. I look at it as low effort nerd signalling: "You don't know about Gwern? Pshaw."
Only if you choose to take it that way. All the names were like that to me when I joined years ago, but I just looked them up, or not, as I went and now the discourse is almost always legible. As is usually the case if you want to be part of something interesting on the internet, lurk more is the first step.
[dead]
Gwern is the nerd's nerd
[dead]
You know how they say we only use 10 percent of our brains? I think we only use 10 percent of our hearts.
This is also interesting regarding to how we treat animals. If a man can live like a normal human using just 10% of his brain, then it may be possible that an animal with a small brain may be much smarter than we thought, because it uses its brain more efficient. It may actually speak and think and whatnot, but we are not recognizing it. In other words, it may not be dumber, but just different. And then the fact that we kill or enslave it it is of course an ethical issue (it is anyway).
Seeing how smart some birds are, it's no wonder they have a higher neuronal density than mammal brains. They can pack more neurons thanks to their higher energy efficiency, IIRC.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bird-brains-have-...
Morgan Freeman's character, Professor Samuel Norman said, "It is estimated that most human beings only use 10% of the brain's capacity." So this is quite true. Look forward to become Scarlet Lucy! Imagine we do 100%!
That isn't actually true, though. Humans use all of their brains, all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-percent-of-the-brain_myth
> there is not one region of the brain responsible for consciousness
I think we have known that for a long time.
Phew. I checked, it wasn't me.
Being President of the US is leading a normal life now?
I see what you did there... (ﾟヮﾟ)
[dead]
It's not any miracle, it's just that "normal life" can run on a fraction of compute power humans have on their shoulders.
> He was living a normal life. He has a family. He works. His IQ was tested at the time of his complaint. This came out to be 84, which is slightly below the normal range … So, this person is not bright — but perfectly, socially apt
Was he born this way or did he lose 90% as an adult? If the latter, it would be interesting to compare his current IQ to his childhood IQ ( if he took one in school ). Maybe there is a correlation because brain matter and IQ.
mongoloid he was a mongoloid
his friends were unaware
mongoloid he was a mongoloid
nobody even cared
But how many wrinkles?
[dead]
[dead]