10 ms·

> Are these innate patterns of activity priming mammalian brains in a similar way? A newborn foal can stand within 55 minutes of being born and can walk or run

• soheil 5y ago
  > A newborn foal can stand within 55 minutes of being born and can walk or run within 90 minutes. That is crazy fast training speed. Is it training initialization or is it a form of transfer learning? Probably neither. How does the human baby "learn" to breath almost immediately after birth? I suspect the answer here is also the same.
• rowanG077 5y ago
  Interesting. Could this also partly explain child geniuses? In general they are worlds ahead early in life. But they aren't significantly better then the non child genius peers later in life.
• taneq 5y ago
  > Most human babies take 9-18 months to walk, and this is commonly attributed to the fact that human babies have immature brains that cannot mature due to birth canal constraints I strongly doubt that human babies are physiologically capable of walking before 6-9 months regardless of their level of brain development. The entire baby is born many months "early" compared with other mammals due to the limitations of the human pelvis.
  • phire 5y ago
    Babies can't even roll-over until 4-6 months
    • amock 5y ago
      Newborns have some ability to roll over that is lost and then regained, so it's not that they are physically incapable of rolling over.
      • nemo44x 5y ago
        I think the problem is they lose a lot of weight early on (can roll over) and then begin to fatten up quickly. The calorie intake relative to body size is immense and for a few months a baby just doesn’t have the muscle strength to support its newfound fat composition (loss of ability to roll) in addition to their heads growing rapidly early on and not having the neck muscles developed yet.
  • briefcomment 5y ago
    This person's baby walked at 8 months [1] [1] https://www.scarymommy.com/complete-shock-early-walking-baby/ https://www.scarymommy.com/complete-shock-early-walking-baby...
    • taneq 5y ago
      Hence me giving a range of 6-9 months. My niece was walking not long after 9 months, it's rare but not unheard of. A newborn baby simply wouldn't have the physical strength or rigidity, though.
      • pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        Earliest I've seen was 9/10 months, that kid looked so strange to me, they could barely hold their head up as they tottered around like a drunk. I wonder if the parents promoted early walking?
• chrisseaton 5y ago
  > Most human babies take 9-18 months to walk, and this is commonly attributed to the fact that human babies have immature brains Have you ever seen a new-born baby's legs? They aren't even remotely strong enough to walk, no matter what the brain tells them. It takes those months to develop leg muscles. New-borns don't have them. It's absolutely not restricted by the brain size.
  • outworlder 5y ago
    True. But the movements on all limbs are quite uncoordinated at first. It's also not restricted to muscle strength.
  • emmelaich 5y ago
    Well, the legs may be less developed since they're not useful because ... the brain size is not big enough? Anyway, hard to conclude, just think your logic is missing a little.
    • throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
      Except that children can walk with assistance (and crawl) before they're strong enough to walk on their own.
      • underwater 5y ago
        Interestingly they can also effectively communicate well before they can vocalise words. A baby can sign reliably at 7-9 months but typically won't be able to speak until 12 months.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • adamauckland 5y ago
          'Walking by one, talking by two'
        • 5y ago
• gojomo 5y ago
  Maybe given the length & complexity of a full human life, a bunch of brain factors actually work to slow specialization down to prevent early overfitting.
• retrac 5y ago
  > That is crazy fast training speed. Is it? If we ignore compute requirements, how long would a good algorithm take to learn something like balancing a quadrupedal robot, based on real-time feedback to its outputs? It is a simpler problem, but drone flight software based on learning, can re-learn how to fly a quadcopter after something like losing a propeller and a sudden shift in weight distribution, in a few seconds. A robot could be built that learns how to adapt to something like a limb being lost or added or half its weight shifted to the other end. It could probably learn an approximate optimal to move under those conditions in just seconds, as well. Though, I suspect that foal might actually be nearly as adaptable. Adult horses, or humans... not so much. We have many overlapping models of how to move, probably. I would take only seconds to adapt to half my weight being added on my shoulders, in the same ballpark as our best robotic systems. But if my left leg grew four inches it would take me a lot longer than the robot to learn and internalize the best way to move again. I could barely keep up with that when it was just a few inches a year when I was a kid.
  • teruakohatu 5y ago
    > Is it? If we ignore compute requirements, how long would a good algorithm take to learn something like balancing a quadrupedal robot Seems easy but why don't we have self driving cars by now? Walking it not just a mechanical task. Your quadcopter is not learning to interpret raw electrical signals from an IMS and raw electrical signals from a CMOS sensor. The training is also probably done in a simulator, where if it breaks, it is reset and training continues. A horse is learning to interpret inner ear signals and signals from the optical nerve AND the using those to build a spatial map of the environment. Only then it is actually trying to walk. A 2 hour old baby horse can not only run on not-flat terrain but is spatially and environmentally aware. It has taken years for Boston Dynamics to develop a platform that is equivalent to a pack horse and even then probably can't respond independently to never-seen-before threats or challenges.
    • smegger001 5y ago
      Because the average first time driver is primed with approximately 15 years of training data from observation of not just driving deriving a complex physics model, object detection and identification system, spacial reasoning, natural language comprehensions, theory of mind able to predict behavior of other drivers based on subtle cues, and teen drivers are still awful at it as a rule with much higher accident rate. Trying to build a neural net or set of neural nets that can do all of those jobs is a daunting task and no one has the time to train the artificial neural network for 15 years. that's why we don't have safe self driving cares yet. as for the horse, well 50 millions of years of evolution on constantly refined genetic algorithm is hard to beat and that was on top of the evolution of the eohippus as a starting point
• 3pt14159 5y ago
  > that we require a much lower initial learning rate. The way I understand it is that is not so much required as not selected for. We could certainly be able to walk at one day old if evolutionary pressure made it necessary, but it prioritized other aspects in our cognitive development to survive so we don't. It's not as if we say "oh, horses can walk early and therefore are incapable of rational thought" we evaluate them on their own merits.
• akomtu 5y ago
  I guess it's firmware of some kind. Newborns already know how to breathe, how to control the heart rate and tons of other low level things. Legs movement is a small feature in comparison.
  • pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    Newborns don't even know the legs belong to them.
• jvanderbot 5y ago
  > Is it training initialization or is it a form of transfer learning? I doubt it's randomly initialized. The brain has centers for motion which might be honed in at birth for these animals. Let's not ignore genetics, which pre-populate weights and subnetworks in the form of motion-control centers in the brain. Once you consider the gene-brain interaction over the course of evolution as part of your training, the huge data required for modern ML starts to make more sense.
• afavour 5y ago
  Perhaps only partially related to what you're saying but human babies are born with some innate reflexes: https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=newborn-reflexes-90-P02630 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=newbor... Perhaps the most relevant to this discussion is the "stepping" reflex. It isn't really stepping but if placed in a standing-like position babies will often raise one foot, put it down, then the other. The most interesting part to me is that this reflex stops by two months. Makes me wonder if it's an evolutionary leftover from our days as monkeys or something like that. It's all so fascinating.
  • the_af 5y ago
    Also the grasping reflex: if you place your finger in the palm of a newborn's hand, she will grasp it. It works almost without fail with any newborn baby. After a few months it completely disappears: grasping is no longer a reflex but a voluntary act, and as often as not she won't be inclined to do it. I read that both failure to demonstrate these reflexes while newborn, as well as continued existence past a few months old, are signs that something might not be entirely right with the baby.
    • patentatt 5y ago
      And it’s usually an incredibly strong grip! Seems like it could definitely be used to grab onto a monkey mother’s back, never thought about that!
  • tigershark 5y ago
    They can even swim safely underwater thanks to a reflex.
  • l33tman 5y ago
    These primal reflex arcs are suppressed by pyramidal circuits from the brain as they mature, essentially overriding them. This is one set of neurological tests of damage to the higher spinal cord/brain in adults; those reflexes can re-appear due to again limited inhibition.
• jacinda 5y ago
  > this is commonly attributed to the fact that human babies have immature brains that cannot mature due to birth canal constraints, which is constrained by pelvis size which is constrained by the need to walk upright Interestingly, the EGG hypothesis postulates that the constraining factor is not pelvis size, but rather that neonates consume so much energy that we give birth just before a women's metabolic limits would otherwise be overrun (leading to both maternal and infant death). Based on this, the increased energy demands of our larger brains mean that we have to sacrifice neonatal motor skills or drastically improve the metabolic efficiency of adult women. https://www.pnas.org/content/109/38/15212 https://www.pnas.org/content/109/38/15212 > In humans, maximum sustained metabolic rate is thought to be 2.0–2.5× basal metabolic rate (BMR). > By 9 mo, metabolic demands of the fetus threaten to push maternal energy requirements beyond 2.1× BMR. Extending gestation by even one month would likely require metabolic investment beyond the mother’s capacity. Instead, the mother delivers and the neonate’s growth rate slows relative to its fetal growth rate, keeping both the offspring’s and the mother’s energy requirements in check.
  • Nition 5y ago
    > Instead, the mother delivers and the neonate’s growth rate slows relative to its fetal growth rate. Worth noting how massive the growth rate is I think: Even after birth, the baby gains weight faster than it ever will again in its life. In absolute terms! In relative terms it's even more insane. A 12-year-old boy going through puberty will go from 90lb to 100lb over a year, an increase of 10lb or ~10%. The average baby boy will be born at 7.5lb and weigh 20lb at one year old, an increase of 12.5lb or ~270%. Nearly triple the size!
    • techrat 5y ago
      Diminishing returns as the numbers of scale increase. The growth might seem impressive when you do percentages of a very small number, but it's still a very small number overall.
      • Nition 5y ago
        It's not though, that's my point. Even in absolute terms, weight gain from growth in the first year is still more than any other time in the average person's life.
• beerandt 5y ago
  >Most human babies take 9-18 months to walk, and this is commonly attributed to the fact that human babies have immature brains that cannot mature due to birth canal constraints, which is constrained by pelvis size which is constrained by the need to walk upright. You have this a bit backwards- yes brain size at birth is limited by pelvis size, but this means that humans are born prematurely compared to other mammals. The entire body is basically premature and underdeveloped, not just the head/brain. If anything the brain is relatively over-developed, as it's size is the constraining factor in gestation length. If I remember correctly, 18-24 months is the estimated gestation time humans would have if not restricted by pelvis size (which ironically is itself a result of walking upright), and this fits better with the idea of being able to walk closer to birth. There's a chapter in "Born to Run" that ties human physiology and endurance and evolution and brain development together in a way that's so elegant, it almost has to be true. It covers the steps that lead to the need for a bigger brain and walking upright as a means for persistence hunting. Highly recommended reading, especially that chapter.
• raverbashing 5y ago
  > A newborn foal can stand within 55 minutes of being born and can walk or run within 90 minutes. That is crazy fast training speed. Is it training initialization or is it a form of transfer learning? Or maybe having 4 legs (as a foal) gives more natural balance than a human or maybe even a cat or dog. In the same way technically you only need one leg to walk (hop) around but that's much more difficult than having two.
  • KronisLV 5y ago
    That's a fair point! However, another commenter brought up the fact that human muscles are somewhat underdeveloped after birth. It might make sense that having 4 legs is easier both in regards to balance, as well as because the load per leg decreases to make standing on them easier. That is probably not the only reason, but probably a contributing factor.
• otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  > I have wondered about how true this is. It isn't. Human babies prioritize differently. We learn to understand language and to communicate before we learn to walk. (In fact, for many babies learning to walk is a conscious process. We learn to learn before we learn to walk.)
• hanoz 5y ago
  > Most human babies take 9-18 months to walk, and this is commonly attributed to the fact that human babies have immature brains... Isn't it just a matter of priorities? Many birds spend a similar proportion of their life unable to fly, but they're safe in a nest. If you're a foal on the savanna, you need to get up.
  • a0-prw 5y ago
    Yes, I agree. Horses are exclusively prey animals in a natural setting. A newborn human would have had it's armed "pack" to protect it from predators.
• jovdg 5y ago
  > Edit: As some people below have correctly pointed out, human babies could not walk within an hour for physiological reasons, but nor do they exhibit the basic motor skills, spatial reasoning or image processing required for walking. Many human babies even struggle to feed for the first 24-48 hours or longer. https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=newborn-reflexes-90-P02630 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=newbor... > Stepping reflex > > This reflex is also called the walking or dance reflex because a baby appears to take steps or dance when held upright with his or her feet touching a solid surface. This reflex lasts about 2 months. Maybe not enough to qualify as "exhibit the basic motor skills"