Hacker News Reader

> 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]

It's amusing you link to gwern's page where he mostly debunks those cases.

I 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.

Yeah, 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.

“Fine” but not the same, likely not as smart, and the gwern link debunks the 95% case pretty soundly.