6 ms·

> a child telling their parent to walk isn't actually walking. How is that any different from a brain telling its body to walk?

by lisper 1y ago

adammarples 1y ago
Because the brain has to continually monitor hundreds of inputs like gravity, pressure, balance, visuals, muscle feedback, etc and integrate them with hundreds of outputs to muscles and coordinate the whole thing which keeps changing, that's walking. All this mushroom does is emit a signal that it was already emitting (ie. It's learned nothing) and the robotocists build a walking system around that which handles all the complexity of walking.
- whoknowsidont 1y ago
  >Because the brain has to continually monitor hundreds of inputs like gravity Human brains cannot monitor gravity. We're actually very bad at it. Also you're failing to understand the scaling involved here, so to speak. I'm actually really not interested in trying to explain this if you can't be bothered with spending a few minutes on how nervous systems work.
  - foldr 1y ago
    They're obviously referring to the vestibular system. If that system is bad, that only makes the brain's job harder, not easier.
- lisper 1y ago
  Let me rephrase: what's the difference between a child telling their parent to walk and the conscious part of your brain telling the unconscious part to walk? (BTW, I agree that the mushroom isn't learning anything. My point is just that a child communicating with their parents is not a good analogy.)
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    The "conscious part of the brain" gets credit for the walking ability, because it taught "the unconscious part" how to walk, by providing repeated and detailed direction in progressively higher abstractions until full bipedal locomotion was a readily-accessible skill.
    - lisper 1y ago
      I'm pretty sure that's not true. I think most people learn to walk long before they become aware of being able to walk.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Most people have rudimentary language ability, including the ability to express preferences, as they learn to walk. The average one-year-old child is plenty aware of the world.
        lisper 1y ago
        Sure. So? That doesn't mean that the conscious part (such as it is at that point) is teaching the unconscious part. You could actually test this by asking a two-year-old who knows how to walk to teach walking to a one-year-old with rudimentary language skills but who can't walk yet. I'd be very surprised if this intervention speeds up the rate at which the one-year-old learns to walk.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Unless you wire the two-year-old's brain up to the one-year-old's so the two-year-old can stimulate the one-year-old's motor cortex, I don't see how that experiment would test my theory. (Maybe I explained it badly.) Adults already show the one-year-old how to walk, encourage the one-year-old to crawl and try to stand, and so on – but the adults aren't teaching the one-year-old how to coordinate muscles. That's all the doing of the one-year-old. Some of it's instinctual (as it is in other mammals), and we have some relevant reflexes once you're actually up and standing (assuming you stay within their domain of efficacy), but overall, walking isn't instinctual for humans. Consider physiotherapy in adults recovering from a nervous system issue. The physiotherapist has to guide the patient through exercises to rebuild motor coordination ability. (Some adults figure this out on their own, invent and practice their own exercises, and breeze through the physiotherapy, but in general physio is long and boring and arduous, because it's very frustrating and doesn't come naturally.) That's the sort of thing infants do on their own volition (with some encouragement from caregivers), but I don't see how it makes sense to say it's not their volition.

> a child telling their parent to walk isn't actually walking. How is that any different from a brain telling its body to walk?

by lisper 1y ago

> a child telling their parent to walk isn't actually walking. How is that any different from a brain telling its body to walk?

adammarples 1y ago

Because the brain has to continually monitor hundreds of inputs like gravity, pressure, balance, visuals, muscle feedback, etc and integrate them with hundreds of outputs to muscles and coordinate the whole thing which keeps changing, that's walking. All this mushroom does is emit a signal that it was already emitting (ie. It's learned nothing) and the robotocists build a walking system around that which handles all the complexity of walking.

whoknowsidont 1y ago
>Because the brain has to continually monitor hundreds of inputs like gravity Human brains cannot monitor gravity. We're actually very bad at it. Also you're failing to understand the scaling involved here, so to speak. I'm actually really not interested in trying to explain this if you can't be bothered with spending a few minutes on how nervous systems work.
- foldr 1y ago
  They're obviously referring to the vestibular system. If that system is bad, that only makes the brain's job harder, not easier.
lisper 1y ago
Let me rephrase: what's the difference between a child telling their parent to walk and the conscious part of your brain telling the unconscious part to walk? (BTW, I agree that the mushroom isn't learning anything. My point is just that a child communicating with their parents is not a good analogy.)
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  The "conscious part of the brain" gets credit for the walking ability, because it taught "the unconscious part" how to walk, by providing repeated and detailed direction in progressively higher abstractions until full bipedal locomotion was a readily-accessible skill.
  - lisper 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's not true. I think most people learn to walk long before they become aware of being able to walk.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Most people have rudimentary language ability, including the ability to express preferences, as they learn to walk. The average one-year-old child is plenty aware of the world.
      - lisper 1y ago
        Sure. So? That doesn't mean that the conscious part (such as it is at that point) is teaching the unconscious part. You could actually test this by asking a two-year-old who knows how to walk to teach walking to a one-year-old with rudimentary language skills but who can't walk yet. I'd be very surprised if this intervention speeds up the rate at which the one-year-old learns to walk.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        Unless you wire the two-year-old's brain up to the one-year-old's so the two-year-old can stimulate the one-year-old's motor cortex, I don't see how that experiment would test my theory. (Maybe I explained it badly.) Adults already show the one-year-old how to walk, encourage the one-year-old to crawl and try to stand, and so on – but the adults aren't teaching the one-year-old how to coordinate muscles. That's all the doing of the one-year-old. Some of it's instinctual (as it is in other mammals), and we have some relevant reflexes once you're actually up and standing (assuming you stay within their domain of efficacy), but overall, walking isn't instinctual for humans. Consider physiotherapy in adults recovering from a nervous system issue. The physiotherapist has to guide the patient through exercises to rebuild motor coordination ability. (Some adults figure this out on their own, invent and practice their own exercises, and breeze through the physiotherapy, but in general physio is long and boring and arduous, because it's very frustrating and doesn't come naturally.) That's the sort of thing infants do on their own volition (with some encouragement from caregivers), but I don't see how it makes sense to say it's not their volition.