81–90 of 193 posts
"In a sense" ... A bit of a click-baity title for what amounts to suggesting that brain wiring is primed for sensing the world, which is not news.
The study itself looks to be more about how the brain primes itself (visual systems specifically). It may or may not have anything to do with dreaming.
Really fascinating. Does this mean the world "view" is encoded into the DNA somehow and that then gets transformed into neural activity? How could a few billion pairs of acids encode such a world? What's even more fascinating is that emotions, behaviors, imagination and dreams must all be encoded and not learnt with just a billion-odd pairs / bits. Meanwhile, it takes a few megabytes for us humans to encode a decent…
conways game of life is derived from 4 simple rules yet shows complex behavior including the ability to operate a universal turring machine.
a few hundred megs of instructions seems quiet reasonably able to generate a highly complex system
Really fascinating. Does this mean the world "view" is encoded into the DNA somehow and that then gets transformed into neural activity? How could a few billion pairs of acids encode such a world? What's even more fascinating is that emotions, behaviors, imagination and dreams must all be encoded and not learnt with just a billion-odd pairs / bits. Meanwhile, it takes a few megabytes for us humans to encode a decent…
complex emergent behaviors from simple rule systems is quiet common. conways game of life is derived from 4 simple rules yet shows complex behavior including the ability to operate a universal turring machine. a few hundred megs of instructions seems quiet reasonably able to generate a highly complex system
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How hard would it be to find random networks that don't need to be trained at all?
Depends on the size of the network I would guess. A Boltzmann brain would apparently take about 10^10^50 years to form from quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. Our hypothetical neural network would be less complicated than that, assuming we're not aiming for general AI, so I think we can safely take that as an upper bound...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 within 90 minutes. That is crazy fast training speed. Is it training initialization or is it a form of transfer learning? 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…
> 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…
Something about this reminds me of the 'Winning Ticket Hypothesis' in artifical neural networks: that some 'random' initializations prime a network far better for later faster learning. From https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03635 - the abstract: Neural network pruning techniques can reduce the parameter counts of trained networks by over 90%, decreasing storage requirements and improving computational performance of infere…
Or... has anyone tries training a network for determining the initialization state of another network? And now I'm wondering if those good starting initialization values only work well for a specific task or if they seem to span all or a subset of tasks, and maybe there's some inherent quality in how the values relate that we can tease out...
DOI: 10.1126/science.abd0830