> Humans have a blind spot because they can operate just fine while having a blind spot. However other organisms don't have a blind spot thus blind spots are not selected for.
I'm not quite clear on your point of view, can you clarify? The phrases "blind spots" and "other organisms" are very vague. I'll try to rephrase it into something manageable. This is what I think you are saying:
Humans [cannot see behind their heads] because they can operate just fine while
[not seeing behind their heads]. However, [other species] [can see behind their
heads], thus [seeing behind one's head] is not selected for.
The "other organisms" are other species, as logically, the "other organisms" don't have "a blind spot" and therefore could not be human, which do have "a blind spot".
Do let know if this is correct, and I'll get back to you.
> The missing piece is something where getting the wrong information has value
I'm unclear where this disagrees. That's exactly the point of Hoffman's theory: an (sometimes) incorrect view of the world may have more value than the actual (correct) view of the world.
Squid for example use a different arrangement without that hole. So, while people are not getting accurate information, the gap is arbitrary and not selected for by evolution.
I'm not quite clear on your point of view, can you clarify? The phrases "blind spots" and "other organisms" are very vague. I'll try to rephrase it into something manageable. This is what I think you are saying:
The "other organisms" are other species, as logically, the "other organisms" don't have "a blind spot" and therefore could not be human, which do have "a blind spot".Do let know if this is correct, and I'll get back to you.
> The missing piece is something where getting the wrong information has value
I'm unclear where this disagrees. That's exactly the point of Hoffman's theory: an (sometimes) incorrect view of the world may have more value than the actual (correct) view of the world.