Remix.run Logo
jiggawatts 18 hours ago

> For me, it's a mystery.

For me, it's one of the last true mysteries! We've figured out damned near everything else, nothing has this level of "unknown" to it.

It's simply mind-blowing to me how such a tiny block of data can encode such high-level behaviours so indirectly!

Genes code for proteins, not synapse weights!

Those proteins influence cell division, specialisation, and growth through a complex interplay of thousands of distinct signal chemicals.

Then those cells assemble into a brain, apparently "randomly" with only crude, coarse patterns that are at best statistical in nature. Some cells are longer, some shorter, some with more interconnects, some with less, but no two perfectly alike.

Then, then, somehow... waves hands... magically this encodes that "wide hips are sexually attractive" in a way that turns up fully a decade later, well into the "pre-training" phase!!!

What... the... %#%@!

How does that work!? How does any of that work?

Y'all work in AI, ML, or adjacent to it. You know how hard it is to train a model to learn to detect anything even with thousands of examples!

PS: Human DNA contains only 750 MB (62 billion bits) of information, of which maybe 0.1% to 1% directly code for brain structure and the like. Let's be generous and say 10%. That is just 75 MB that somehow makes us scared of snakes and spiders, afraid of heights, attracted to the opposite sex, capable of speech, enjoy dancing, understand on instinct what is a "bad" or "good" smell, etc, etc...

spyder 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For us it's hard to train a model because our compute and resources is nothing compared to nature's "compute" the whole universe: "it" has absurdly more resources to run different variations and massively parallel compute to run the evolutionary "algorithm", if you think about all the chemical building blocks, proteins, cells, that was "tried" and didn't survive.

From that angle our artificial models seem very sample efficient, but it's all hard to quantify it without know what was "tried" by the universe to reach the current state. But it's all weird to think about because there is no intent in natures optimizations it's just happens because it can and there is enough energy and parallel randomness to eventually happen.

And the real mystery is not how evolution achieved this but that the laws of chemistry/universe allow self-replicating structures to appear at all. In an universe with different rules it couldn't happen even with infinite trial and error compute.

EvanAnderson 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks for saying this. I wish people regarded the unimaginable vastness of the state space represented by the time scales involved and relatively small size of the interacting molecules. The inherent "parallel compute" is dizzying beyond our comprehension.

I wish we could know if our universe is an aberration.

jiggawatts 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, the sheer volume of trial, error, and feedback that’s gone on in evolutionary history is mind boggling, but human intelligence is relatively recent and has had only a few hundred thousand turns at that wheel with a population of maybe a few million.

To be fair, we have few traits that are truly unique, but even going back along our branch of the tree of life all the way to the first recognisable mammals is not as many generations as you’d think. Certainly nothing like what goes on with fast breeding life like bacteria!

The enormity of effort also doesn’t explain how the end result works.

The way our genes encode for high level instinctual behaviour is akin to controlling the specific phrasing of a company’s quarterly report next year by changing out the coffee beans at the cafe that the accountant’s roommate frequents.

Even if I told you that I’m Doctor Strange and that I tried this ten million times before I got the exact right varietal of bean, you’d still be impressed and have a long series of follow questions!

srean 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The brain absolutely and biology in general when one starts digging.

Discovery of DNA was positioned as a "Biology: Mission Accomplished" - it's far from true. We don't understand all of DNA and epigenetics. We don't have a good understanding of how life began.

Back to the brain, it's power consumption to capabilities, weight to capabilities is just insane. The link to brain size and intelligence is a mystery as well - jumping spiders, octopus, corvids, parrots ...

vladms 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is still a big discussion of nature vs nurture. Did not follow the subject you mention but many things can be in fact just learned.

Also, as mentioned previously, there is more than the DNA at work - like at least epigenetics, but I guess the fetus is influenced a lot by the mother's body.

vbezhenar 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

With humans, we can even imagine that mother body teaches child brains via placenta or something (I don't think that's what happening, but whatever).

However think about birds. They lay eggs. So there's no direct connection between mother body and child body. Yet it works somehow...

vladms 14 hours ago | parent [-]

The yolk (used directly in the embryos development) is generated during 10 days (https://www.purinamills.com/chicken-feed/education/detail/ho...). This could give the opportunity to pack a lot of "indirect information" to be used by the future embryo.

Regarding "teaching" the child while in the womb, it is exactly what is happening, see: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/baby-talk

I do agree that some organisms will transmit more "information" (via multiple ways, chemically, mechanical, etc.) than others (like maybe the birds) but the fact is the DNA is just a part of the development process and even if maybe it is "the first one", it will not "pack" everything.

darkwater 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Epigenetics and mother's body influence feel - to me - like magic more or less the same. And the nature vs nurture regarding tastes developed either early or later on, well, as a father of 2 siblings who are radically different in certain tastes, I don't really know where I would have nurtured them into being different. I try to introspect a lot on that, maybe we did something but honestly... I don't think so.