I am puzzled, though, about when nervous systems are supposed to have evolved this ‘Universal Learning Machine’ (ULM) capability.
The core architecture of brainstem, basal ganglia, thalamus and pallium/cortex is at least 500 million years old.
Where is the threshold between them
You are looking for some binary threshold which simply does not exist, the dominance of intra over inter lifetime learning is continuous and depends on brain size * lifespan or cumulative optimization power.
Likewise one could ask: What is the threshold between between Alexnet and VIT L/14@336px?
are you really arguing that men and women have identical ULM capabilities in their neocortexes that are simply shaped differently by their information inputs?
What would make you suspect I would argue that?
From the ULM post, the core hypothesis:
The universal learning hypothesis proposes that all significant mental algorithms are learned; nothing is innate except for the learning and reward machinery itself (which is somewhat complicated, involving a number of systems and mechanisms), the initial rough architecture (equivalent to a prior over mindspace), and a small library of simple innate circuits (analogous to the operating system layer in a computer). In this view the mind (software) is distinct from the brain (hardware). The mind is a complex software system built out of a general learning mechanism.
Significant mental algorithms are things like adding numbers, forming sentences, recognizing attractive vs unattractive mates, bipedal walking, courtship strategies, etc—essentially almost everything that infants can’t do at birth, which is nearly everything for humans.
Both the hardware and initial rough architecture—the architectural prior—are innate, which is where you see the genetic differences between individuals, families, races, sexes, species, etc.
The core architecture of brainstem, basal ganglia, thalamus and pallium/cortex is at least 500 million years old.
You are looking for some binary threshold which simply does not exist, the dominance of intra over inter lifetime learning is continuous and depends on brain size * lifespan or cumulative optimization power.
Likewise one could ask: What is the threshold between between Alexnet and VIT L/14@336px?
What would make you suspect I would argue that?
From the ULM post, the core hypothesis:
Significant mental algorithms are things like adding numbers, forming sentences, recognizing attractive vs unattractive mates, bipedal walking, courtship strategies, etc—essentially almost everything that infants can’t do at birth, which is nearly everything for humans.
Both the hardware and initial rough architecture—the architectural prior—are innate, which is where you see the genetic differences between individuals, families, races, sexes, species, etc.