Babies are pre-wired to perceive the world(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Babies are pre-wired to perceive the world
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/born-ready-babies-are-prewired-to-perceive-the-world/
7 comments
I do not understand how genetic pre-wiring reduces the feeling of autonomy. Where being born in wrong country reduces autonomy so much more... Maybe people who were coming up with those thoughts were only born in nice places.
I don't think that it is at all difficult to suppose that we humans have a sort of "Boot ROM" to get us started in the world. This basic brain wiring pattern is then patched, if you will, over many decades to make us the person which we will eventually become.
Right, but I believe OP's argument is more align to the idea that some things are "nature" and others "nurture". Further, which perceptions of the world are prewired will always be a hotly debated topic.
Yes, a "Boot-ROM", bleep, bloob, blergh.
You are basically saying we are born with a brain and corresponding nervous system. That's a deep insight, but nothing fundamentally novel.
You are basically saying we are born with a brain and corresponding nervous system. That's a deep insight, but nothing fundamentally novel.
We are wired to stay away from things we don't quite understand yet.
> When we look around the animal kingdom, we are bombarded with examples of how other animals are born knowing how to walk, or even weave spider webs.
It frequently amazes me that lower animals manage to get laid.
As for spiders though, these little criters should not be underestimated. On the one hand, one should not read too much inteligence into the application of severely limited options. On the other hand, learning from limited rules has well been proven feasable, I think. Either way, that's not exactly "born with" an ability, rather reflexes and capacity. What amounts to instinct.
> When we look around the animal kingdom, we are bombarded with examples of how other animals are born knowing how to walk, or even weave spider webs.
It frequently amazes me that lower animals manage to get laid.
As for spiders though, these little criters should not be underestimated. On the one hand, one should not read too much inteligence into the application of severely limited options. On the other hand, learning from limited rules has well been proven feasable, I think. Either way, that's not exactly "born with" an ability, rather reflexes and capacity. What amounts to instinct.
Right, and they have seen mice in labs visualize their learning of paths in a labyrinth. Chances are mammals have a basic kind of consciousness shared, which built up to humans.
Is it really a feeling? What I find weird id how it's supposed to be defined in the genome.
You can get pretty complex behavior almost entirely due to the structure of the neural net[1], and judging by the rest of our bodies, building non-trivial structures is something the genome is quite capable of.
[1]: https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/08/exploring-weight-agnostic-...
[1]: https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/08/exploring-weight-agnostic-...
You're arguing that it's possible, I'm saying that I haven't seen any data showing genes defining behaviour in a way that can be called "prewired to perceive the world".
Not really a conflicting statement, but neither to contradict my skepticism.
Not really a conflicting statement, but neither to contradict my skepticism.
Random example, baby kangaroos when born[1] know a) that they need to climb into the mothers pouch b) know _how_ to climb into the mothers pouch and c) know _where_ to climb in order to get into the mothers pouch.
They start climbing immediately after being born, before the mother can teach them anything. What else than genes could be behind that?
https://youtu.be/UpsnREY-6no?t=25
They start climbing immediately after being born, before the mother can teach them anything. What else than genes could be behind that?
https://youtu.be/UpsnREY-6no?t=25
Genes don’t directly create complex structures in the way you are thinking. Rather these patterns arise via emergent effects of proteins interacting and resisting each other across populations of cells.[1]
So really what you might have is a certain neuronal cell type that sends signaling molecules that cause it to divide in a very particular way that could roughly create a structure similar to a face detecting filter. If cells can grow into bones or coral reefs, why not face detecting neurons?
[1]https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ddns/2020/2308074/
So really what you might have is a certain neuronal cell type that sends signaling molecules that cause it to divide in a very particular way that could roughly create a structure similar to a face detecting filter. If cells can grow into bones or coral reefs, why not face detecting neurons?
[1]https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ddns/2020/2308074/
The coordinate system(s) used by cell differentiation can collectively figure out body location down to a single cell. Using those inputs to define how the cell differentiates from a stem cell line is how nearly all the body differentiates, why would neurons be different?
Beyond that, it's pretty clear that there are very hardwired parts of the brain around bootstrapping. You're born with the ability to recognize faces, and mirror neurons reflect the actions of those around you in a very similar way to you taking those actions yourself.
Beyond that, it's pretty clear that there are very hardwired parts of the brain around bootstrapping. You're born with the ability to recognize faces, and mirror neurons reflect the actions of those around you in a very similar way to you taking those actions yourself.
> "It all boils down to this philosophical question: Are humans special? Do they have parts of their brain predestined to become these special things?" Livingstone says. "Or can we explain it using low-level principles we’ve inherited from lower animals?"
I found this remark by Margaret Livingstone, quoted in the article, very surprising. What if anything does innate functional specialization have to do with whether "humans are special"? How does the presence of such specialization distinguish us from "lower animals"?
Perhaps the reasoning goes that what might make humans special is the presence of human-specific innate specialized brain mechanisms. But while not everyone might agree, I tend to think the difference may be more related to subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules". We know brains are highly context sensitive and plastic, and judging by Livingstone's earlier quote, she agrees. So why is the charged question of human exceptionalism (which she already seems to accept given the reference "lower animals") suddenly linked so strongly to the presence of innate specialization?
I found this remark by Margaret Livingstone, quoted in the article, very surprising. What if anything does innate functional specialization have to do with whether "humans are special"? How does the presence of such specialization distinguish us from "lower animals"?
Perhaps the reasoning goes that what might make humans special is the presence of human-specific innate specialized brain mechanisms. But while not everyone might agree, I tend to think the difference may be more related to subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules". We know brains are highly context sensitive and plastic, and judging by Livingstone's earlier quote, she agrees. So why is the charged question of human exceptionalism (which she already seems to accept given the reference "lower animals") suddenly linked so strongly to the presence of innate specialization?
What makes primates special, among mammals, is that the number of neurons in our brains scales linearly with brain volume like birds instead of like the 3/4 power of volume like other mammals. See Suzana Herculano-Houzel's work on the topic.
What makes humans special among mammals, other than our big brains, is that we're very good at learning from each other. A 2 year old human isn't really much better at solving mechanical puzzles than a 2 year old monkey but that human is a positive genius at social learning compared to the monkey. And once that human learns a word like "or" they can start applying the disjunctive syllogism in ways a monkey will never match. A large plastic brain probably limits how smart a human can get but it's seemingly hardwired traits like an infants preferences for learning from people with accents similar to their mothers that kickstart humans. See Joseph Henrich's work.
What makes humans special among mammals, other than our big brains, is that we're very good at learning from each other. A 2 year old human isn't really much better at solving mechanical puzzles than a 2 year old monkey but that human is a positive genius at social learning compared to the monkey. And once that human learns a word like "or" they can start applying the disjunctive syllogism in ways a monkey will never match. A large plastic brain probably limits how smart a human can get but it's seemingly hardwired traits like an infants preferences for learning from people with accents similar to their mothers that kickstart humans. See Joseph Henrich's work.
It's not a hard-wired trait that they cannot do something (i.e. preferentially learn foreign accents or however you would positively describe that).
And it's not exactly an advantagevthat once crystalized, my speach is pretty much incapable of adapting to Russian or anything more foreign.
And it's not exactly an advantagevthat once crystalized, my speach is pretty much incapable of adapting to Russian or anything more foreign.
> subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules"
Killer whales, long-finned pilot whales and short-finned pilot whales each have more neurons than humans [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...
Killer whales, long-finned pilot whales and short-finned pilot whales each have more neurons than humans [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...
They have more body to control, too.
Surprisingly, certain birds have a very high brain to body size ratio.
Surprisingly, certain birds have a very high brain to body size ratio.
> But while not everyone might agree, I tend to think the difference may be more related to subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules".
"Specialized brain modules" seems like an unfair way to state the argument. The article mentions "maps" or "scaffolding" that "drive the final organization of the brain," which is a bit more subtle.
But doesn't she allow for the possibility that something like "number of neurons" could drive human difference? What else could be meant by:
> Or can we explain it using low-level principles we’ve inherited from lower animals
I agree with you that the source of the human-animal distinction isn't relevant to the question of whether the distinction is worth making. I think the distinction is worth making regardless of the source of the distinction (though the "higher" and "lower" language seems silly).
"Specialized brain modules" seems like an unfair way to state the argument. The article mentions "maps" or "scaffolding" that "drive the final organization of the brain," which is a bit more subtle.
But doesn't she allow for the possibility that something like "number of neurons" could drive human difference? What else could be meant by:
> Or can we explain it using low-level principles we’ve inherited from lower animals
I agree with you that the source of the human-animal distinction isn't relevant to the question of whether the distinction is worth making. I think the distinction is worth making regardless of the source of the distinction (though the "higher" and "lower" language seems silly).
That remark surprised me too. I remember reading about a study about dogs vs. wolves, and that dogs were more inclined to look to a human when they needed help solving a problem. They seem to have an innate predisposition towards human faces also, which seems plausible given their hundreds of years of breeding for human companionship.
Actually, canine domestication started thousands of years ago[0]
[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-rea...
[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-rea...
Yeah, and dogs can use their gaze to indicate to a human where the problem or whatever is though dogs can't read each other's gaze the way a human can.
Read it as an inclusive OR.
He asks about a dichotomy, but not a false one.
He asks about a dichotomy, but not a false one.
+1
It even mentions another study she did on face selection in monkeys.
It even mentions another study she did on face selection in monkeys.
Isn't that obvious.
Yeah ... this seems like a bit of a truism. Humans evolved in "the world". That implies that we are at least somewhat adapted to said world. What would be surprising is if we were not somewhat adapted to perceive the world. Saying that we have some adaptations to perceive the world is about as novel as claiming water is wet.
[deleted]
Structure or pre-wiring. You have an eye and some Neurons. They can’t be totally random. There would be some structure. But is this pre-wiring. Can it be changed later?
Randomly initialized weights do work for neural nets. I'm not much into AI tho.
Think of it like this: You can make a rather arbitrary nonsense claim and still hope for a response that corrects it, or has something interesting to say at least.
Alas, I am not the response one would hope for the most-- not offering a map to the kingdom either, while a connectome alone isn't worth much anyway.
Think of it like this: You can make a rather arbitrary nonsense claim and still hope for a response that corrects it, or has something interesting to say at least.
Alas, I am not the response one would hope for the most-- not offering a map to the kingdom either, while a connectome alone isn't worth much anyway.
It's pretty self-evident. You don't teach a baby to see, make sound or hear. Babies will perceive and respond. Of course the powers of perception will continue to develop but we know babies aren't born into this world tabula rasa.
Not only that we know that fetuses can perceive the world. We know fetuses recognize its mother's voice in the womb.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635
And premature babies benefit from hearing their mother's voice.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/shouldstorm/201909...
The only mystery is the neurological mechanism of how the brain is and gets wired.
Not only that we know that fetuses can perceive the world. We know fetuses recognize its mother's voice in the womb.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635
And premature babies benefit from hearing their mother's voice.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/shouldstorm/201909...
The only mystery is the neurological mechanism of how the brain is and gets wired.
> It's pretty self-evident. You don't teach a baby to see, make sound or hear.
It teaches itself and if you keep a baby in the darkness for enough time after birth and only later introduce it to the light and images it will not be able to see.
We might be prewired but a lot of building, configuring and pruning is going on with our neural networks in response to stimuli. Without stimuli we fail to develop many functions.
It teaches itself and if you keep a baby in the darkness for enough time after birth and only later introduce it to the light and images it will not be able to see.
We might be prewired but a lot of building, configuring and pruning is going on with our neural networks in response to stimuli. Without stimuli we fail to develop many functions.
Do not think that it's true you won't be able to see. There is at least one case where someone was blind from birth due to birthdefect, fixed later in life via surgery. Sure took him time to get used to everything or connect the image he is seeing with the object he knew by word and have felt.
Totally. Great example is the famous paper from Held+Hein from 1963:
https://marom.net.technion.ac.il/files/2016/07/Held-1963.pdf
Not humans but kittens. Punch line: the group that was able to receive sensorimotor feedback entrained a much better sense of spatial perception than the group that didn't. Probably why babies are always making noises and touching shit during critical period plasticity is for sensory training/refinement (among other things)
Edit: I don't think there is a binary in terms of brain development pre/post birth. Of course if the baby sufficiently developms in womb it will start to get sensorimotor feedback from within the womb...
https://marom.net.technion.ac.il/files/2016/07/Held-1963.pdf
Not humans but kittens. Punch line: the group that was able to receive sensorimotor feedback entrained a much better sense of spatial perception than the group that didn't. Probably why babies are always making noises and touching shit during critical period plasticity is for sensory training/refinement (among other things)
Edit: I don't think there is a binary in terms of brain development pre/post birth. Of course if the baby sufficiently developms in womb it will start to get sensorimotor feedback from within the womb...
I think this was also the spirit of the GP's post: there is obviously a lot of pre-wiring at least in the perception area of the brain. If there weren't, it would be impossible for the neurons to learn how to control and interpret the extremely complex input from the eye in the mere days it takes. Also, if there weren't pre-built wiring of some kind, you would not expect to see the same arbitrary definitions of objects develop in all people (I realize object perception comes a little later than simple sight).
Of course, just as you say, like almost any other physiological process, if you do not expose those pre-built structures to enough stimuli, they will atrophy. This is especially true in the early developmental period.
Of course, just as you say, like almost any other physiological process, if you do not expose those pre-built structures to enough stimuli, they will atrophy. This is especially true in the early developmental period.
"Without stimuli we fail to develop many functions"
well put
The question still is how? i.e. in this case which parts fail?
> fetuses
It's not as if the baby somehow magically changes into something else when he or she passes the birth canal.
It's not as if the baby somehow magically changes into something else when he or she passes the birth canal.
Magically, no, but there is a distinct difference from the state where it is enveloped by the mother's womb, physically attached the placenta, drawing nutrition from the umbilical cord, lungs filled with amniotic fluid, to a breathing, crying, eating, independent baby. And of course prior to that, it was a fish like creature with a tail and gills, and prior to that a blastocyst.
A baby also doesn't magically transform into a toddler, and a child, and teenager, and a man, and a senior citizen and a corpse, either. And yet somehow we manage to maintain different terms for these stages of life without confusing anyone unduly.
A baby also doesn't magically transform into a toddler, and a child, and teenager, and a man, and a senior citizen and a corpse, either. And yet somehow we manage to maintain different terms for these stages of life without confusing anyone unduly.
> independent baby
Yet, we also don't dehumanize people who are on life support in hospitals.
In context of the debate around start of life and abortion in the US, at least, both baby and fetus are heavily loaded terms whose meanings are divorced from actual science.
Edit: for example, CNN recently retracted certain wording on an anti-infanticide bill for babies born during botched abortions. I believe the wording was something along the lines of "fetus that was born".
Yet, we also don't dehumanize people who are on life support in hospitals.
In context of the debate around start of life and abortion in the US, at least, both baby and fetus are heavily loaded terms whose meanings are divorced from actual science.
Edit: for example, CNN recently retracted certain wording on an anti-infanticide bill for babies born during botched abortions. I believe the wording was something along the lines of "fetus that was born".
Maybe this is a old parenting legend ... but I've seen it myself.
Try grinning at a newborn baby. She'll grin back. It seems to be a reflex, and it seems to fade away after a few days' life.
Try grinning at a newborn baby. She'll grin back. It seems to be a reflex, and it seems to fade away after a few days' life.
Most newborn babies hardly smile at all. First smile is something you typically wait weeks for, and even then it’s more like a face twitch, unprompted by anything smile-worthy happening around.
Mine smiled for the first time after about a week. It wasn't a long one, but was a typical joker-like full face smile that I can't even do myself.
They do display emotions in their face at ferocious pace, no filter like adults - and so far they correspond to overall situation pretty well.
As for smile-worthy - one of his personal gods just came to him to see up close (aka papa checking how is he). If that isn't a happy moment, I don't know what is.
They do display emotions in their face at ferocious pace, no filter like adults - and so far they correspond to overall situation pretty well.
As for smile-worthy - one of his personal gods just came to him to see up close (aka papa checking how is he). If that isn't a happy moment, I don't know what is.
FWIW, my son smiled when we first met, minutes after he was born.
It's confirmation bias. Newborn babies can hardly see at all; certainly not well enough to register someone's smile. The "grin" is actually some sort of rictus spasm.
My experience with my son was the opposite. He was largely unresponsive through the first month of his life, and then very suddenly developed the ability and seeming desire to mimic smiles around one month. And I was there for all of the first seventy two hours
Babies are basically a bag of screams and shit for the first few months of life. It's often a source of sadness and disappointment to parents that they don't immediately bond with their babies. It's the first advice I always give to new parents -- "Don't feel bad if you don't immediately fall in love with your baby." For me, it wasn't really until they were 6 months old or so that I enjoyed spending time with either of my kids.
The further you get away from the baby stage, the more you romanticize it. I REMEMBER my daughter being the most amazing thing in the world from the very first day. I KNOW that wasn't the case and made a mental note of the fact that I, like you, wasn't bonded until ~6 months. Before that she was obviously my daughter but I didn't have that "I'd do anything for this child" feeling until much later.
If you asked me today how I FEEL, I'd say it was that way from day one. But I know for a fact that wasn't the case originally.
If you asked me today how I FEEL, I'd say it was that way from day one. But I know for a fact that wasn't the case originally.
Hmm, I guess I was lucky, I had this from first second. Maybe being with my wife during delivery and helping as much as I could (plus cutting the cord) helped. Don't know TBH.
I would give up my life to protect him. My dreams and goals became meaningless (and still are, although its only 2+ months now). They will come back of course eventually, in some amended form.
Or maybe our baby wasn't "basically a bag of screams and shit" helped. Not that those aren't present, but this isn't the dominant feature that I think of when thinking about him.
I would give up my life to protect him. My dreams and goals became meaningless (and still are, although its only 2+ months now). They will come back of course eventually, in some amended form.
Or maybe our baby wasn't "basically a bag of screams and shit" helped. Not that those aren't present, but this isn't the dominant feature that I think of when thinking about him.
Had my first 4 months ago and could not wait until she started showing signs of awareness and personality. Luckily that happened within 2 months and she's now a ridiculous goofball.
Was the opposite for me. Having a warm newborn nap on my (unclothed) chest was really a special thing.
Yes, they're fickle and a lot of hard work. Even if you do things right, there's going to be a decent amount of screams you just have to endure. And the lack of communicative feedback, except for screams. They're little mysteries.
Yes, they're fickle and a lot of hard work. Even if you do things right, there's going to be a decent amount of screams you just have to endure. And the lack of communicative feedback, except for screams. They're little mysteries.
We have hardware dedicated to mimic what we observe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Some babies respond very emotionally and even cry when hearing certain songs, which weren't heard by the mother while gestating;
Why would humans be any different? We are most likely pre-wired with pathways that facilitate learning in specific ways that enable our brains to develop specific skills, such as speech. Although, it would be pretty great if we could pre-wire ourselves to know how to use a toilet.