Setting aside unconscious processing and reflexive behaviour and assuming all neural paths from input to output go through conscious experience (they don’t), there would be two ways to fix this and get back the original one-brain behaviour in response to the same inputs, while holding the size of the two brains constant:
reduce the intensity of the experiences across the two brains, and
reduce the output response relative to intensity of experience across the two brains.
1 could also be divided into further steps for physical stimuli, for example noting that sensory pain perception and the affective response to pain are distinct:
reduce the intensity of sensory perception across the two brains for a given stimuli intensity
reduce the intensity of the affective response across the two brains for a given sensory perception intensity
reduce the output response across the two brains for a given affective intensity.
And repeating the argument in the comment I’m replying to, the prior could be 3√N for physical stimuli. Of course, this illustrates dependence on some pretty arbitrary and empirically ungrounded assumptions about how to divide up a brain. EDIT: It should be N13√N=N23. This makes sense intuitively: there are more dimensions along which to reduce the sensitivity, so each can be reduced less.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the average insect neuron fired more often than the average neuron in larger brains for similar behavioural responses to events, since larger brains could have a lot more room for redundancy. Maybe this can help prevent overfitting in a big brain, like “dropout” used while training deep artificial neural networks. This seems worth checking by comparing actual animal brains. The number of neurons (in the relevant parts of the brain) firing per second seems to matter more than just the number of neurons (in the relevant parts of the brain), and they may not scale linearly with each other in practice.
1 could also be divided into further steps for physical stimuli, for example noting that sensory pain perception and the affective response to pain are distinct:
reduce the intensity of sensory perception across the two brains for a given stimuli intensity
reduce the intensity of the affective response across the two brains for a given sensory perception intensity
reduce the output response across the two brains for a given affective intensity.
And repeating the argument in the comment I’m replying to, the prior could be 3√N for physical stimuli. Of course, this illustrates dependence on some pretty arbitrary and empirically ungrounded assumptions about how to divide up a brain. EDIT: It should be N13√N=N23. This makes sense intuitively: there are more dimensions along which to reduce the sensitivity, so each can be reduced less.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the average insect neuron fired more often than the average neuron in larger brains for similar behavioural responses to events, since larger brains could have a lot more room for redundancy. Maybe this can help prevent overfitting in a big brain, like “dropout” used while training deep artificial neural networks. This seems worth checking by comparing actual animal brains. The number of neurons (in the relevant parts of the brain) firing per second seems to matter more than just the number of neurons (in the relevant parts of the brain), and they may not scale linearly with each other in practice.