That doesn't seem obvious at all, it presumes sleeping is about conserving energy and that's an unwarranted assumption and baseless assumption. Sleep very well could be a requirement for brains to work they way they do. If you are deprived of sleep you will shortly go crazy; sleep isn't about saving energy.
If you see anything that seems obvious, you can bet science already checked that out and moved past it and that it's more complicated than that.
Anytime your beliefs conflict with science, you should immediately question your beliefs, not the science. The odds are absurdly high, near a virtual certainty, that your beliefs are wrong; never assume science is missing the obvious (unless you're a scientist and it's your field of study, then you might be onto something but you're still probably wrong).
Yeah. For starters, there is a whole bunch of toxins that build up when you don't sleep enough. But it can't be the whole story, as why wouldn't we have mechanisms to remove those and keep the brain functioning?
It can't be all about memory retention. There are some fascinating studies on how some groups of neurons repeat the same patterns they did when the organism was awake, presumedly for long-term storage. But why can't storage happen while awake?
There must be a reason why these "brain batch processes" run while most of the brain is shutdown.
I've found that it's best to not think that evolution optimizes for the best thing but rather that it optimizes for "good enough". Sometimes they are one and the same but they don't have to be.
Sleep could have started as a rudimentary adaptation to one thing and ended up being refined and coopted for other things.
Evolution is diverse, if all living things need sleep then I think its A: something that is absolutely needed, without it you wont survive [guaranteed]
B: A left over from our common ancestor
> why wouldn't we have mechanisms to remove those and keep the brain functioning?
I don't know if it's in the links below, but I remember hearing a talk that the flushing required physical changes inside the brain: Widening of channels (by neurons getting smaller and making room, if I remember that correctly?). So normal function can't go on while the flushing process is being performed.
>If you see anything that seems obvious, you can bet science already checked that out and moved past it and that it's more complicated than that.
Science doesn't do anything. Even if it did, you should be able to look the obvious results up and figure out where current research has taken your question.
If you see anything that seems obvious, you can bet science already checked that out and moved past it and that it's more complicated than that.
Anytime your beliefs conflict with science, you should immediately question your beliefs, not the science. The odds are absurdly high, near a virtual certainty, that your beliefs are wrong; never assume science is missing the obvious (unless you're a scientist and it's your field of study, then you might be onto something but you're still probably wrong).