Are the vast majority of synaptic weights actually not learned, but rather preset somehow?”
This is what some philosophers have purposed, others have thought we start as a blank slate. The research into the subject has shown that babies do start with some sort of working model of things. That is we begin life with a set of preset preferences and the ability to distinguish those preferences and a basic understanding of geometric shapes.
It would be shocking if we didn’t have preset functions. Calves, for example, can walk almost straight away and swim not much longer. We aren’t going to entirely eliminate the mammalian ability to start with a set of preset features there just isn’t enough pressure to keep a few of them.
Conversely, studies with newborn mammals have shown that if you deprive them of something as simple as horizontal lines, they will grow up unable to distinguish lines that approach ‘horizontalness’. So even separating the most basic evolved behavior from the most basic learned behavior is not intuitive.
The deprivation you’re talking about takes place over the course of days and weeks—it reflects the effects of (lack of) reinforcement learning, so it’s not really germane to a discussion of preset functions that manifest in the first few minutes after birth.
It’s relevant insofar as we shouldn’t make assumptions on what is and is not preset simply based on observations that take place in a “typical” environment.
Ah, a negative example. Fair point. Guess I wasn’t paying enough attention and missed the signal you meant to send by using “conversely” as the first word of your comment.
Good point. Drink (food), breathe, scream and a couple of cute reactions to keep caretakers interested. All you need to bootstrap a human growth process. There seems to be something built in about eye contact management too—because a lack there is an early indicator that something is wrong.
I’d replace “human” with “mammalian”—most young mammals share a similar set of traits, even those that aren’t constrained as we are by big brains and a pelvic girdle adapted to walking upright. That seems to suggest a more basal cuteness response; I believe the biology term is “baby schema”.
This is what some philosophers have purposed, others have thought we start as a blank slate. The research into the subject has shown that babies do start with some sort of working model of things. That is we begin life with a set of preset preferences and the ability to distinguish those preferences and a basic understanding of geometric shapes.
It would be shocking if we didn’t have preset functions. Calves, for example, can walk almost straight away and swim not much longer. We aren’t going to entirely eliminate the mammalian ability to start with a set of preset features there just isn’t enough pressure to keep a few of them.
If you put a newborn whose mother had an unmedicated labor on the mother’s stomach, the baby will move up to a breast and start to feed.
Conversely, studies with newborn mammals have shown that if you deprive them of something as simple as horizontal lines, they will grow up unable to distinguish lines that approach ‘horizontalness’. So even separating the most basic evolved behavior from the most basic learned behavior is not intuitive.
The deprivation you’re talking about takes place over the course of days and weeks—it reflects the effects of (lack of) reinforcement learning, so it’s not really germane to a discussion of preset functions that manifest in the first few minutes after birth.
It’s relevant insofar as we shouldn’t make assumptions on what is and is not preset simply based on observations that take place in a “typical” environment.
Ah, a negative example. Fair point. Guess I wasn’t paying enough attention and missed the signal you meant to send by using “conversely” as the first word of your comment.
That was lazy of me, in retrospect. I find that often I’m poorer at communicating my intent than I assume I am.
Illusion of transparency strikes again!
Good point. Drink (food), breathe, scream and a couple of cute reactions to keep caretakers interested. All you need to bootstrap a human growth process. There seems to be something built in about eye contact management too—because a lack there is an early indicator that something is wrong.
Not terribly relevant to your point, but it’s likely human sense of cuteness is based on what babies do rather than the other way around.
I’d replace “human” with “mammalian”—most young mammals share a similar set of traits, even those that aren’t constrained as we are by big brains and a pelvic girdle adapted to walking upright. That seems to suggest a more basal cuteness response; I believe the biology term is “baby schema”.
Other than that, yeah.