In the comments on that lesswrong post from a few years back, you raised a good question that is perhaps easily answered:
it has the same issue as Kurzban's blood-glucose/willpower
criticism: if the brain needs more oxygen than it's getting
why doesn't one simply breath a little more? While sedentary
during these sorts of tasks, you have far more breathing
capacity than you should need
Seems quite likely (or at least very possible) that we've outpaced evolution here, right?
Prior to the industrial revolution, seems our bodies would never have needed to adapt to a rapid spike in environmental CO2 levels. Our brains are necessarily good at signaling the body when they need more oxygen; they're not necessarily good at realizing when they're dealing with other issues they're not adapted to react to.
I believe there may be a common misunderstanding the relationship between CO2 levels and oxygen in one's body, at least as it was explained to me by doctors during my mom's struggles with COPD.
Blood oxygen saturation levels and CO2 levels are not inversely correlated. One of the problems with late-stage COPD and reduced lung function is that while it's relatively easy to get a person's oxygen levels up (just administer oxygen!) they still suffer the effects of excess CO2 in the blood. A late stage COPD sufferer can have > 95% O2 saturation in their bloodstream and still suffer the other effects (including cognitive issues) that result from the excess CO2.
(Apologies for responding you wrote four years ago)
Thanks for these links Gwern, down the rabbit hole I go.
But how would you summarize the situation? Is it that there's not a definite study that proves the whole thing?
