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