4 ms·

How Surprises Help Infants Learn

31 points by mparramon 12y ago

Jun8 12y ago
One difficulty with the hypothesis that babies are born with pre-existing knowledge about the physical world is the question about where this information comes from and how it is coded in the brain. Could it be that the initial physical rule s are random, similar to the Uncarved Block Hacker Koan, inspired by an exchange between Sussman and Minsky (), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan? Or is the information somehow coded in the connection of neurons in the brain through evolution? It seems to me that the role of evolution-derived innate world knowledge is relatively small to the mechanism of a powerful rule generation and update scheme, based on probabilistic analysis done in the brain's network. It could be that the rules are pseudo-randomly generated and this is innate knowledge that we use. Here's the interesting thing: As more researchers see the power of such rule-update learning (e.g. see also this 2002 paper by Renee Baillergeon from UIC, PDF file: http://fitelson.org/woodward/baillargeon.pdf http://fitelson.org/woodward/baillargeon.pdf) I think the weight of Chomskian hypothesis of (in simple terms) "innate language faculty since language is too hard to learn" is decreasing. I found this review of Daniel L. Everett's book Language: The Cultural Tool by John McWhorter explaining this point vey well (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/language-the-cultural-tool-by-daniel-l-everett.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/language-the-...). You might also find this TED Talk by Alison Gopnik on how babies think interesting (http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think/transcript?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think/...)
- _0ffh 12y ago
  My personal favourite hypothesis for language learning can be reused for this: There /is/ some pre-coded information about these problem domains in the brain. It just /isn't/ coded explicitly, but implicitly as a bias of the corresponding learning faculty. Even hard things can be easy to learn, if the learning mechanism itself is properly biased.
- mjklin 12y ago
  "Those who contend that knowledge results wholly from the experiences of the individual, ignoring as they do the mental evolution which accompanies the autogenous development of the nervous system, fall into an error as great as if they were to ascribe all bodily growth and structure to exercise, forgetting the innate tendency to assume the adult form. Were the infant born with a full-sized and completely-constructed brain, their position would be less untenable. But, as the case stands, the gradually-increasing intelligence displayed throughout childhood and youth is more attributable to the completion of the cerebral organization than to the individual experiences -- a truth proved by the fact that in adult life there is sometimes displayed a high endowment of some faculty which, during education, was never brought into play. "Doubtless, experiences received by the individual furnish the concrete materials for all thought. Doubtless, the organized and semiorganized arrangements existing among the cerebral nerves can give no knowledge until there has been a presentation of the external relations to which they correspond. And doubtless the child's daily observations and reasonings aid the formation of those involved nervous connections that are in process of spontaneous evolution; just as its daily gambols aid the development of its limbs. But saying this is quite a different thing from saying that its intelligence is wholly produced by its experiences. That is an utterly inadmissible doctrine -- a doctrine which makes the presence of a brain meaningless -- a doctrine which makes idiocy unaccountable." - William James, The Principles of Psychology, 1890 (though he is quoting Herbert Spencer here) I wonder if anyone has improved on this view in the century-plus since it was published?
- vanderZwan 12y ago
  This has actually been studied with, for example, people who were born blind but somehow through some medical intervention regained their eyesight later. Apparently, people who are born blind do not imagine objects getting smaller as they move further away. That is something that is taught to us. (I think I actually found the link for that here, so maybe someone else remembers the website) Similarly, when regaining eyesight it takes a while before the brain can visually understand concepts such as being in front/behind something takes time to learn, or the ability to distinguish overlapping shapes (the whole gestalt thing). See also this TED Talk by Michael Merzig, where he talks about how important it is that a baby has a fully functioning set of senses in the first year of its life, as that is the time that the brain learns to make sense (hah) of the senses. http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_merzenich_on_the_elastic_brain?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_merzenich_on_the_elastic_br... Finally, you may be interested in this TED talk by Hod Lipson, about how they somehow got a robot to create a "mental" model of itself from scratch: http://www.ted.com/talks/hod_lipson_builds_self_aware_robots?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/hod_lipson_builds_self_aware_robots...
deckiedan 12y ago
I know my son (10 months) loves being surprised. Today he was playing with magnets - finding them sticking to the fridge rather than falling to the floor when he let go of them put him in fits of giggles and kept him occupied for about 10 minutes. Playing peek-a-boo and then showing up wearing a silly costume or face expression or whatever is one of his favourite games. When he first met a water fountain, a balloon, bubbles, etc. Anything that didn't respond as he expected physical things to respond, he absolutely loves it, and becomes totally fascinated by them for ages and ages. Being a dad is awesome. Sleep deprivation, getting puked, peed, and pooped over, changing nappies (diapers), getting screamed at irrationally for hours, etc. is awful at times (and coping with it while sleep deprived makes it all so much worse), but totally worth it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
rwbhn 12y ago
Reminds me of my son's 1st encounter with a balloon. He was in a phase where he liked to drop everything on the floor. We were at a restaurant and he was given a balloon. The look on his face when he "dropped" it was priceless.

31 points by mparramon 12y ago

Jun8 12y ago

One difficulty with the hypothesis that babies are born with pre-existing knowledge about the physical world is the question about where this information comes from and how it is coded in the brain. Could it be that the initial physical rule s are random, similar to the Uncarved Block Hacker Koan, inspired by an exchange between Sussman and Minsky (), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan? Or is the information somehow coded in the connection of neurons in the brain through evolution? It seems to me that the role of evolution-derived innate world knowledge is relatively small to the mechanism of a powerful rule generation and update scheme, based on probabilistic analysis done in the brain's network. It could be that the rules are pseudo-randomly generated and this is innate knowledge that we use. Here's the interesting thing: As more researchers see the power of such rule-update learning (e.g. see also this 2002 paper by Renee Baillergeon from UIC, PDF file: http://fitelson.org/woodward/baillargeon.pdf http://fitelson.org/woodward/baillargeon.pdf) I think the weight of Chomskian hypothesis of (in simple terms) "innate language faculty since language is too hard to learn" is decreasing. I found this review of Daniel L. Everett's book Language: The Cultural Tool by John McWhorter explaining this point vey well (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/language-the-cultural-tool-by-daniel-l-everett.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/language-the-...). You might also find this TED Talk by Alison Gopnik on how babies think interesting (http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think/transcript?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think/...)

_0ffh 12y ago
My personal favourite hypothesis for language learning can be reused for this: There /is/ some pre-coded information about these problem domains in the brain. It just /isn't/ coded explicitly, but implicitly as a bias of the corresponding learning faculty. Even hard things can be easy to learn, if the learning mechanism itself is properly biased.
mjklin 12y ago
"Those who contend that knowledge results wholly from the experiences of the individual, ignoring as they do the mental evolution which accompanies the autogenous development of the nervous system, fall into an error as great as if they were to ascribe all bodily growth and structure to exercise, forgetting the innate tendency to assume the adult form. Were the infant born with a full-sized and completely-constructed brain, their position would be less untenable. But, as the case stands, the gradually-increasing intelligence displayed throughout childhood and youth is more attributable to the completion of the cerebral organization than to the individual experiences -- a truth proved by the fact that in adult life there is sometimes displayed a high endowment of some faculty which, during education, was never brought into play. "Doubtless, experiences received by the individual furnish the concrete materials for all thought. Doubtless, the organized and semiorganized arrangements existing among the cerebral nerves can give no knowledge until there has been a presentation of the external relations to which they correspond. And doubtless the child's daily observations and reasonings aid the formation of those involved nervous connections that are in process of spontaneous evolution; just as its daily gambols aid the development of its limbs. But saying this is quite a different thing from saying that its intelligence is wholly produced by its experiences. That is an utterly inadmissible doctrine -- a doctrine which makes the presence of a brain meaningless -- a doctrine which makes idiocy unaccountable." - William James, The Principles of Psychology, 1890 (though he is quoting Herbert Spencer here) I wonder if anyone has improved on this view in the century-plus since it was published?
vanderZwan 12y ago
This has actually been studied with, for example, people who were born blind but somehow through some medical intervention regained their eyesight later. Apparently, people who are born blind do not imagine objects getting smaller as they move further away. That is something that is taught to us. (I think I actually found the link for that here, so maybe someone else remembers the website) Similarly, when regaining eyesight it takes a while before the brain can visually understand concepts such as being in front/behind something takes time to learn, or the ability to distinguish overlapping shapes (the whole gestalt thing). See also this TED Talk by Michael Merzig, where he talks about how important it is that a baby has a fully functioning set of senses in the first year of its life, as that is the time that the brain learns to make sense (hah) of the senses. http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_merzenich_on_the_elastic_brain?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_merzenich_on_the_elastic_br... Finally, you may be interested in this TED talk by Hod Lipson, about how they somehow got a robot to create a "mental" model of itself from scratch: http://www.ted.com/talks/hod_lipson_builds_self_aware_robots?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/hod_lipson_builds_self_aware_robots...

deckiedan 12y ago

I know my son (10 months) loves being surprised. Today he was playing with magnets - finding them sticking to the fridge rather than falling to the floor when he let go of them put him in fits of giggles and kept him occupied for about 10 minutes. Playing peek-a-boo and then showing up wearing a silly costume or face expression or whatever is one of his favourite games. When he first met a water fountain, a balloon, bubbles, etc. Anything that didn't respond as he expected physical things to respond, he absolutely loves it, and becomes totally fascinated by them for ages and ages. Being a dad is awesome. Sleep deprivation, getting puked, peed, and pooped over, changing nappies (diapers), getting screamed at irrationally for hours, etc. is awful at times (and coping with it while sleep deprived makes it all so much worse), but totally worth it.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rwbhn 12y ago

Reminds me of my son's 1st encounter with a balloon. He was in a phase where he liked to drop everything on the floor. We were at a restaurant and he was given a balloon. The look on his face when he "dropped" it was priceless.