Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: darwinism
Message-ID: <552@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 14:00:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.552
Posted: Thu Jul 11 14:00:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:18:05 EDT
References: <526@psivax.UUCP> <1486@bbncca.ARPA> <835@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <835@oddjob.UUCP> sandip@oddjob.UUCP (Sandip Chakra) writes:
>> Good points, Sarima.  These persons were given the tomography because
>> they were KNOWN to have suffered accidents either prenatally, at birth,
>> or in early years, that very likely caused brain damage.
>
>	This does not exclude the fact that they were able to do
>above average level work with a few percent of their brain cells.
>Suppose all of us were born with 95% of our brain cells damaged, then
>since we would be working at an above average level anyway, how do we
>know that we needed the other 95% of our brain cells ?

	Actually, tomography can only demonstrate that % of
the *volume* of the brain is dead. My point was that the remaining
volume could be(and probably *was*) altered from the "normal" state,
having a higher capacity per volume capacity. Thus my questions about
the exact pathology of the "dead" tissue and the physiology of the
"living" tissue.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen