‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Two parallel neural ectoderm progenitors contribute to the developing brain

664 points · 258 comments · emigre

  1. meindnoch · · focus · HN ↗
    Fun fact: 80% of the brain's neurons are in the cerebellum, not the cortex.

    In other words: only <20% of pur neuron budget goes to higher cognition (thinking, language, seeing, hearing). 80% is spent on motor skills.

    1. dinfinity · · focus · HN ↗
      > 80% is spent on motor skills.

      The cerebellum isn't just for motor skills. It's more of a place where very commonly used patterns get a bunch of dedicated wetware so the computation is superfast and precise. In an (undoubtedly very limited) analogy a bunch of FPGAs to complement the general processing. It does make a lot of sense to use this functionality for motor skills, though.

      See:

      - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC4089997&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC4089997&#x2F;

      - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;38663092&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;38663092&#x2F;

      1. LoganDark · · focus · HN ↗
        So the 80% is spent on, more generally, habits and intuition. Makes sense.
        1. itsalwaysgood · · focus · HN ↗
          It&#x27;s spent on &#x27;fast, effortless&#x27; recall. Maybe, long-term memory, or memories associated with activities like balance, singing, and anything that requires precise steady control.

          A keeper of balance and rhythm, if you want to think of it that way, and anything that is too much of a burden to creativity: a mind is a bunch of ideas (thoughts) collected into a moment in the mind, all the ones needed for controlling things like balance and rhythm are best handled in an autonomously looped fashion (think Cybernetics: control loops that guide an agent).

          The article mentions the forebrain controls creativity, reasoning, higher-level thinking. And the hindbrain controls muscles of the throat, tongue, etc: so speech, singing. We all reach for some &#x27;flow&#x27; state: perhaps it&#x27;s this state where the 80% and 20% are more in harmony within the mind. Where what we create with our minds is appreciated, and the outer loop that critiques ourselves lays quiet. &#x27;Flow&#x27; is achieved.

          Everything becomes an autonomous loop: which is the study of Cybernetics, and (coincidentally?) the birthplace of AI.

          If we follow the pattern of simulating biology, I would expect some ratio of compute could be determined &#x27;optimal&#x27; for the new Dream-RSI technique recently: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dream-rsi.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dream-rsi.com&#x2F; to eventually move towards &#x27;80%&#x27; of compute for autonomously controlled systems, and 20% towards &#x27;something else&#x27;. The ratio won&#x27;t be there in the beginning because an AI system has different autonomous needs.

          Through testing and iteration, we&#x27;ll arrive at some ratio as technology matures: my guess is it will match the one we find in our own heads: 80% for autonomous functions, 20% for creativity.

          Keep in mind, dreaming and recursive self-improvement as it is now, is a big unknown: nobody knows what ratio is best, but honestly it&#x27;s less important because we&#x27;re all looking at &#x27;Quality&#x27; of results right now.

          But as the technology matures and moves into robotics and more, and more complexity is required to &#x27;do work&#x27;: I expect 80% to be accurate.

          1. LoganDark · · focus · HN ↗
            The result is the same: mindless scrolling consumes 80% of my brain while the 20% struggles to ever get anything done :)
            1. itsalwaysgood · · focus · HN ↗
              If everything is a push, and a pull, then choice and decision must be important.

              Nobody tells you what to think. It&#x27;s simply easier not to.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.