Human brains are preconfigured with instructions for understanding the world

2025-11-256:31423285news.ucsc.edu

Assistant Professor of Biomolecular Engineering Tal Sharf's lab used organoids to make fundamental discoveries about human brain development.

  • New findings suggest the brain has preconfigured, structured activity patterns even before sensory experiences occur.
  • UC Santa Cruz researchers used brain organoids to study the brain’s earliest electrical activity.
  • Understanding early brain patterns could have important implications for diagnosing and treating developmental brain disorders.

Humans have long wondered when and how we begin to form thoughts. Are we born with a pre-configured brain, or do thought patterns only begin to emerge in response to our sensory experiences of the world around us? Now, science is getting closer to answering the questions philosophers have pondered for centuries. 

Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, are using tiny models of human brain tissue, called organoids, to study the earliest moments of electrical activity in the brain. A new study in Nature Neuroscience finds that the earliest firings of the brain occur in structured patterns without any external experiences, suggesting that the human brain is preconfigured with instructions about how to navigate and interact with the world.

“These cells are clearly interacting with each other and forming circuits that self-assemble before we can experience anything from the outside world,” said Tal Sharf, assistant professor of biomolecular engineering at the Baskin School of Engineering and the study’s senior author. “There’s an operating system that exists, that emerges in a primordial state. In my laboratory, we grow brain organoids to peer into this primordial version of the brain’s operating system and study how the brain builds itself before it’s shaped by sensory experience.”

In improving our fundamental understanding of human brain development, these findings can help researchers better understand neurodevelopmental disorders, and pinpoint the impact of toxins like pesticides and microplastics in the developing brain. 

Sharf holds a CMOS-based microelectrode array chip. These devices contain thousands of miniaturized amplifiers used to triangulate the electrical activity of single neurons within millimeter-sized organoid tissue. 

The brain, similar to a computer, runs on electrical signals—the firing of neurons. When these signals begin to fire, and how the human brain develops, are challenging topics for scientists to study, as the early developing human brain is protected within the womb.

Organoids, which are 3D models of tissue grown from human stem cells in the lab, provide a unique window into brain development. The Braingeneers group at UC Santa Cruz, in collaboration with researchers at UC San Francisco and UC Santa Barbara, are pioneering methods to grow these models and take measurements from them to gain insights into brain development and disorders. 

Organoids are particularly useful for understanding if the brain develops in response to sensory input—as they exist in the lab setting and not the body—and can be grown ethically in large quantities. In this study, researchers prompted stem cells to form brain tissue, and then measured their electrical activity using specialized microchips, similar to those that run a computer. Sharf’s background in both applied physics, computation, and neurobiology form his expertise in modelling the circuitry of the early brain. 

“An organoid system that’s intrinsically decoupled from any sensory input or communication with organs gives you a window into what’s happening with this self-assembly process,” Sharf said. “That self-assembly process is really hard to do with traditional 2D cell culture—you can’t get the cell diversity and the architecture. The cells need to be in intimate contact with each other. We’re trying to control the initial conditions, so we can let biology do its wonderful thing.”

The researchers observed the electrical activity of the brain tissue as they self-assembled from stem cells into a tissue that can translate the senses and produce language and conscious thought. They found that within the first few months of development, long before the human brain is capable of receiving and processing complex external sensory information such as vision and hearing, its cells spontaneously began to emit electrical signals characteristic of the patterns that underlie translation of the senses. 

Through decades of neuroscience research, the community has discovered that neurons fire in patterns that aren’t just random. Instead, the brain has a “default mode” — a basic underlying structure for firing neurons which then becomes more specific as the brain processes unique signals like a smell or taste. This background mode outlines the possible range of sensory responses the body and brain can produce.

In their observations of single neuron spikes in the self-assembling organoid models, Sharf and colleagues found that these earliest observable patterns have striking similarity with the brain’s default mode. Even without having received any sensory input, they are firing off a complex repertoire of time-based patterns, or sequences, which have the potential to be refined for specific senses, hinting at a genetically encoded blueprint inherent to the neural architecture of the living brain.

“These intrinsically self-organized systems could serve as a basis for constructing a representation of the world around us,” Sharf said. “The fact that we can see them in these early stages suggests that evolution has figured out a way that the central nervous system can construct a map that would allow us to navigate and interact with the world.”

Knowing that these organoids produce the basic structure of the living brain opens up a range of possibilities for better understanding human neurodevelopment, disease, and the effects of toxins in the brain. 

“We’re showing that there is a basis for capturing complex dynamics that likely could be signatures of pathological onsets that we could study in human tissue,” Sharf said. “That would allow us to develop therapies, working with clinicians at the preclinical level to potentially develop compounds, drug therapies, and gene editing tools that could be cheaper, more efficient, higher throughput.”

This study included researchers at UC Santa Barbara, Washington University in St. Louis, Johns Hopkins University, the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, and ETH Zurich.

A group of 15 researchers smile at the camera.
The Sharf lab.

Read the original article

Comments

  • By Animats 2025-11-257:0217 reply

    Some animals are ready to go as soon as they are born. These are called precocial animals. They are born knowing how to walk.

    It's interesting seeing what comes built-in. You can see this if you watch a horse being born. Within the first hour, the foal will stand, and despite long legs, this usually works the first time. Lying down, however, is not preprogrammed. I've watched a foal circle trying to figure out how to get down from standing, and finally collapsing to the ground in a heap. Standing up quickly is essential to survival, but smoothly lying down is not. Within a day, a newborn foal can run with the herd.

    Of the mammals, most of the equines and some of the rodents (beavers) are precocial. Pigs are, monkeys are not. It's not closely tied to evolutionary ancestry.

    • By ekidd 2025-11-2511:125 reply

      > It's interesting seeing what comes built-in. You can see this if you watch a horse being born.

      A fascinating example of this are some Labrador retrievers. Labs are descended from a Newfoundland "landrace" of dogs known as St Johns Water Dogs. They have multiple aquatic adaptations: the "otter tail", oily fur, and webbed feet. (Some of these are shared with other water-oriented breeds.) Some lines of Labradors, especially the "bench" or English dogs, normally retain this full suite of water adaptations.

      But the wild thing about these particular Labradors is that they love to swim, and that most of them are born knowing how to swim very well. But they don't know that they know how to swim. So many a young Lab will spend a while standing on the shore, watching humans or other dogs in the water, and fussing because they don't dare to join the fun. Then they may (for example) eventually lean too far and fall into shallow water. Within moments, they'll typically be swimming around and having the time of their lives.

      The near-instant transformation from "fascinated by water and fearing it" to "hey I can swim and this is the absolute best thing ever" is remarkable to watch, though not recommended.

      I remember another Lab, who'd been afraid to go swimming, who one day impulsively bolted for the water, took an impressive leap off a rock, and (from his reaction) apparently realized in mid-air that he had no idea what he was going to do next. Once he hit the water, he was fortunately fine, to the great relief of his owner.

      CAUTION: This behavior pattern is apparently NOT universal in Labs. Owners of "field" or American Labs seem to have much better thought-out protocols for introducing hunting dogs to water, and failure to follow these protocols may result in bad experiences, dogs that fear water, and actual danger to dogs. So please consult an expert.

      • By xyzzy_plugh 2025-11-2514:424 reply

        This behavior has practically nothing to do with Labradors. Many, many dogs regardless of breed can do this. Cats too. And foxes and wolves and rats and... well pretty much all quadrupeds with reasonable sizes limbs relative to their body. You might notice it's more or less the same motion as walking. Animals that drown usually do so from exhaustion, not because they can't keep their head above water.

        Primates are relatively unique in their complete lack of innate swimming abilities.

        • By altgeek 2025-11-2515:24

          Yes, while these motor reflexes are not innate, autonomic responses remain. Search for the "mammalian diving reflex".

        • By cma 2025-11-2516:30

          > Primates are relatively unique in their complete lack of innate swimming abilities.

          Human babies can swim, so it's maybe more initially an innate one that gets lost. Though they won't be able to keep their head over water by default if that's what you meant (can be trained to as a toddler). But I'm talking about swimming on the umbilical in water births, etc., showing that there isn't a complete lack of innate swimming abilities.

        • By lupire 2025-11-2515:47

          Is it "primates" or is it the strange semi/erect limb attachment that primates have?

      • By threethirtytwo 2025-11-2514:231 reply

        You may not have noticed but you are also describing an inborn fear of deep water.

        Does the dog fear drinking water? No. So the dog specifically fears deep water. What taught him to specifically fear deep water over a bowl of water? Most likely he was also born with the fear.

        This also tells us that evolution often results in conflicting instincts… a fear of water and an instinct to swim. Most likely what occurred here is an early ancestor of the lab originally feared water and was not adapted to swim well. The feature that allowed it to swim well came later and is sort of like retrofitting a car to swim. You need to wait a really long time for the car to evolve into a submarine (see seals). Likely much earlier before becoming a seal an animal facing selection pressure to go back into being a marine animal will evolve away the fear of deep water. It’s just that labs haven’t fully hit this transitional period yet.

        • By lupire 2025-11-2515:502 reply

          Is it fear of deep water, or fear of walking on a strange surface that might be unsafe? How does a dog know water is deep? Does a dog think its water bowl is deep?

          You can pen a horse by painting stripes on the ground around it.

          • By Animats 2025-11-2518:12

            > You can pen a horse by painting stripes on the ground around it.

            No way. Horses are quite good at evaluating ground obstacles. I've never had a horse hesitate at a painted line.

            There are some breeds of cattle which will not cross a painted imitation of a cattle guard, but those are beef animals bred to be dumb and docile.

          • By threethirtytwo 2025-11-2518:32

            We know it’s specifically a fear of deep water because there is visible different behavior when dogs run on strange but solid surfaces and water in general like puddles or hosing a dog with water.

      • By Aaronstotle 2025-11-2514:08

        When I was young we had golden retriever and the first time he saw my neighbors pool he dove in immediately and started swimming. He wasn't a complete puppy so maybe he was more confident in his ability.

      • By devmor 2025-11-2513:431 reply

        > So many a young Lab will spend a while standing on the shore, watching humans or other dogs in the water, and fussing because they don't dare to join the fun. Then they may (for example) eventually lean too far and fall into shallow water. Within moments, they'll typically be swimming around and having the time of their lives.

        Interesting, I didn’t know this was a common phenomenon! It describes exactly what happened with my childhood lab - my family would go swimming at the river and he would whine and fuss at the shore, until one day he wanted to play with another dog that was in the water so badly that he just jumped in, and was swimming around like he’d been doing it his whole life already.

        • By bongodongobob 2025-11-2515:173 reply

          Every dog does this.

          • By _whiteCaps_ 2025-11-2518:52

            Humans bred out this ability in French Bulldogs :(

          • By gishh 2025-11-2518:59

            All swans are white.

          • By devmor 2025-11-2519:28

            There are a multitude of dog breeds that cannot even swim at all.

      • By bongodongobob 2025-11-2515:16

        All dogs know how to swim. Afaik all *animals" know how to swim. No idea what labs have to do with any of this.

    • By somenameforme 2025-11-257:374 reply

      One of the most curious things I learned about babies is that they are born with a walking instinct, long before they actually can walk. If you hold them up, they will move their legs in a perfectly correct walking fashion. But they lack the strength and agility to keep their body up. At around 3 months this walking instinct disappears, and then at around a year we 'relearn' to walk when we have the strength and agility to hold ourselves up.

      But if we were on a planet with significantly lower gravity, humans would likely be walking very near immediately.

      • By lordnacho 2025-11-2510:434 reply

        One of my kids could stand on the day she was born. She seemed super strong, so while I held her I just took my hands away, and she stood there and stared at the rest of the family. Lasted a good 10 seconds, then I thought it was enough.

        • By iambateman 2025-11-2515:211 reply

          According to my wife, who is an OT, children are born with a reflex that straightens their legs and which sounds similar to what you saw.

          She said they lose the reflex during their first year, and then develop the actual skill of standing separately.

          It was fun to watch with our kids, too!

          • By trelane 2025-11-2516:121 reply

            Is this separate from the prenatal kicking? Or just a continuation of it?

            • By iambateman 2025-11-2516:23

              I don’t know, it was just something she mentioned at 3am while we’re trying to put the baby back to sleep

              But I think it could be!

        • By walthamstow 2025-11-2511:10

          My boy is 2mo old and he could lock his legs with extreme strength in the first few days. I was very impressed, but my wife told me to stop letting his legs hold any weight. Apparently his uncle was walking at 9mo but his body wasn't ready and he gave himself a hernia.

        • By altcognito 2025-11-2513:07

          Babies have strong legs in order to push themselves out of the womb

        • By phkahler 2025-11-2514:49

          >> One of my kids could stand on the day she was born. She seemed super strong, so while I held her I just took my hands away, and she stood there and stared at the rest of the family. Lasted a good 10 seconds, then I thought it was enough.

          Probably a good experience. However, at that age it may have been a setback if the kid fell down and got hurt because they weren't strong or coordinated enough. The experience (good or bad) of doing something for the first time can be very influential on future behavior.

      • By dotancohen 2025-11-257:444 reply

        If we were on a planet with significantly lower gravity, walking would be much more difficult. Notably, on flat ground we absolutely must have an upward component to our application of force with the surface - this is clearly seen in videos taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions. This baby on a hypothetical lower gravity world would find standing easier, yes, but not mobility. At least not once he's taken his first few trail steps.

        • By stonemetal 2025-11-2513:011 reply

          If gravity were lower we would have evolved differently, walking would have adapted too. On the other hand babies probably wouldn't be able to walk either. Being mobile, defenseless, and not having "runaway!" as the default defense mechanism (like horses) is an evolutionary dead end.

          • By rowanG077 2025-11-2516:17

            Sure we might have evolved differently. But that doesn't mean that the human body doesn't work better at sustained 0.8G or 1.2G or whatever.

        • By mikkupikku 2025-11-2514:41

          Problem is we don't have any good data about which gravitational accelerations would be suitable for long term health. We have 1g as our baseline, and we know that months in 0g messes you up and longer is a bad idea. We don't know anything about the long-term effects of living in Mars or Lunar gravity though. It could be studied using von Braun stations, but nobody has done it.

        • By lukan 2025-11-258:041 reply

          The moon has very little gravity bringing extra problems, but maybe Mars would have the right gravity to enable Babies walk from the beginning?

          • By jonplackett 2025-11-258:072 reply

            If you enjoy this kind of speculating you might like the Expanse series of books and TV shows.

            They have humans growing up on Mars, the asteroid belt, moons. Anyone who doesn’t grow up on earth cannot go there without extreme gravity training.

            • By le-mark 2025-11-2512:473 reply

              That series strived for realism in that regard, and in using magnetic boots to work in zero gravity; which was admirable. That made the things that were not realistic stand out even more imo. The (unfortunately named) Epstein drive, a drive that consumes very little mass under constant acceleration allows for relativistic speeds in very little time (weeks). Their ships were flying from one side of the solar system to the other in weeks, but they couldn’t make interstellar flights? Also the effects of cosmic rays and hard radiation on reproduction makes the disaffected belter population seem impossible. That’s all fine of course, just inconsistent imo.

              Shohreh Aghdashloo performance was a real treat though!

              • By ghaff 2025-11-2514:54

                She was also in a show with Ray Liotta (Smith) that, in spite of some unevenness, sadly didn't make it through its first season.

              • By nilamo 2025-11-2517:10

                The Epstein drives are efficient, but not efficient enough to run for months at a time without stopping, and are thus unusable for interstellar travel. The books go into that when talking about Medina/Behemoth/Nauvoo... The whole reason it had a rotating drum was because the engines would only be active at the start and end of the journey.

              • By DennisP 2025-11-2515:47

                Regarding reproduction, I'm willing to write that off to advanced medical technology doing DNA repair. Most of the plot wouldn't be that different with slower space drives, so I wasn't too bothered by that either.

                But fwiw, it turns out it is possible to get that level of rocket performance, if ToughSF got their numbers right:

                https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-dr...

                It wouldn't look the same and the power level would be higher than what all of civilization uses today, but the amount of fusion fuel isn't all that remarkable. The design uses helium-3, which could be collected in large quantity from Uranus and Neptune.

            • By lukan 2025-11-258:242 reply

              I did enjoy the first season of the series, but then was turned off by some story arcs, but maybe I will give it a try again. Are the books more consistent?

              • By wafflemaker 2025-11-258:54

                Much more consistent. Books are huge, hence the need to shorten them.

                But IMHO, series have done a really good job overall. Given how nearly impossible it is to simulate micro-gravity, or other advanced technology.

              • By dotancohen 2025-11-259:231 reply

                Also, in season three or four suddenly everybody started cursing all the time. The series just wasn't fun to watch anymore.

                • By jazzypants 2025-11-2511:51

                  I legitimately did not notice this and I cannot imagine it affecting my enjoyment of a show.

        • By jonplackett 2025-11-258:06

          Walking would probably suck on such a planet and we would see babies bounding long distances instead!

      • By elric 2025-11-259:461 reply

        IIRC they also have a swimming/diving instinct/reflex, which they similarly seem to unlearn after a while.

        • By itsalwaysgood 2025-11-2513:191 reply

          Infants will also grip anything you place in their hands.

          • By lrivers 2025-11-2513:57

            They will also grab with their toes. Place your finger across their toes between the foot and the sweet little toesies and they will grip your finger pretty hard. We monkey

    • By iambateman 2025-11-2515:275 reply

      One of the most beautiful, amazing things about parenting a child is thinking about “where would this child be at this age if it were another animal.”

      A three day old horse can walk.

      A three year old tiger is often a MOTHER to her own cubs already.

      But then by six years-old the human child can do things mentally which are orders of magnitude more advanced than anything another animal has ever done. It’s really amazing.

      • By lupire 2025-11-2515:452 reply

        It really is strange how slowly humans grow to full size, and then stop.

        Other animals grow in under a year or two, or never stop growing until they die.

        How closely is physical size related to mental maturity?

        Do other animals mentally mature approximately when they reach full size?

        • By rsynnott 2025-11-2517:141 reply

          I'm not sure it's all _that_ unique. Elephants are physically mature at 15 to 20, say, so not that different to humans. Other apes are also similarish to humans in this.

          • By retrac 2025-11-2520:33

            Many cetaceans show similar dependency on their parents. They're also some of the few species where the females undergo menopause, like humans. (Elephants might have menopause, too.) Perhaps not coincidentally, maternal elders are very important for these species, often helping their children and grandchildren for decades after they are born.

        • By begueradj 2025-11-2520:221 reply

          Example of an animal which keeps growing until it dies ?

          • By skmurphy 2025-11-2521:17

            goldfish, lobster, crocodile, crab, python, shark to name a few. It's referred to as indeterminate growth.

      • By thomastjeffery 2025-11-2520:41

        What if a 3 day old human knew how to walk? I don't think that would look any different, because they physically can't do it anyway.

        The first couple years of human development completely change the structure of the body. Walking is only possible after a significant amount of that process has happened, and the body keeps developing even after you learn how to walk.

        A three minute old horse is both structurally and mentally prepared to run. A three year old horse will be taller and heavier, but not structurally different enough to change what walking is to their brain.

        What a horse can never do as well as a human, is to learn a completely new behavior. Our brains are unmatched for flexibility in learning. Infant humans don't need to be born with the knowledge or the structure for waking. Both can develop together over time because our brains are able to develop new behavior.

        The mystery here is the difference between a horse thinking "legs go" and a human thinking "legs that are just ready to hold me up, do what I see other people do, and don't fall over". We only have a vague linguistic model to express our understanding of the underlying complexity.

      • By Der_Einzige 2025-11-2516:171 reply

        The whole "3 year old tiger is already a mother" thing makes perfect sense when you think about relative life spans.

        I don't expect my dog to wait to have puppies until it's past 18, because many dogs don't even live that long!

        • By Retric 2025-11-2516:481 reply

          Scaling for lifespan they are having kids at ~14 which humans can do, but the average first time mother in the US is 27.5.

          • By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-2517:271 reply

            And something human beings used to do.

            • By Retric 2025-11-2517:363 reply

              The average was significantly higher than 14 even in hunter gatherer societies. Women in studied hunter gather societies had their first kid around 19 with a mix of teens and early 20’s being common.

              • By pfannkuchen 2025-11-2518:092 reply

                Wasn’t puberty later back then too? Like people weren’t waiting around post puberty saving themselves for whatever, puberty just happened alongside full adult body maturation, not before as often happens today.

                • By frankest 2025-11-2521:44

                  Puberty even today has to do somewhat with body weight. You have to reach a certain level to get it. Malnutrition may have delayed it in prehistoric times.

                • By micromacrofoot 2025-11-2520:09

                  actually the later puberty ages may have been a temporary side-effect of malnutrition common during industrialization, there's some evidence that hunter-gatherers (and even people during medieval times) had good access to animal protein, fats, and other necessary vitamins and minerals from plant life (nutrition plays a big role in puberty onset)

              • By micromacrofoot 2025-11-2517:56

                Biologically this may simply be because it's safer to give birth when you're fully grown

              • By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-2522:02

                That may be true, but I'm thinking of much of the ancient world. It would not have been unusual then.

      • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2515:464 reply

        > orders of magnitude more advanced than anything another animal has ever done.

        I can't be the only person to find thinking about cognition like this to be a little odd. It's like the biological myth of progress. It's true we can reason about the world in ways many animals can't, but we're also biased to view reason (and recursive language, which is its engine) as "more advanced" as that's primarily what distinguishes us from other animals (and even then certainly to a lesser extent than we are able to know!), and obviously we are extremely attenuated to how humans (our own babies!) mature. Meanwhile ants in many ways have more organized society than we do. Why is this not considered a form of advanced cognition? I think we need more humility as a species.

        • By iambateman 2025-11-2516:301 reply

          Next time I’m at the zoo, I’ll run this by the zebras to see what they think.

          :) I’m being sarcastic but it seems self evident to me that human cognition is a unique treasure on this planet and—while it’s true that ants and octopus and other creatures do some amazing things—-they’re not even close to us. We can agree to disagree but I’m just psyched about the psyche.

          • By G3rn0ti 2025-11-2516:59

            While I agree with you, I think, having cognition is not black and white. There are animals with great cognition skills especially among predators. Our brains are essentially anticipation machines capable of predicting the future — a trait uniquely advantageous when hunting other animals. We just happen to have specialized on this trait to the extreme (and otherwise lack good sensory organs or impressive innate weapons).

            Whenever this topic comes up I have to think about this octopus who escaped an aquarium. [1]

            [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inky_(octopus)

        • By LPisGood 2025-11-2515:531 reply

          I think it’s pretty fair to say humans have advanced cognition. There is no myth here, other animals barely use tools, change the world around them, create and pass on information, etc

          • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2515:595 reply

            > There is no myth here

            The myth is in reducing complex behavior to a single dimension and calling it "advanced" rather than, well, more human-like. I'm skeptical of the utility of this "advanced" conception. There's no objective reason to view tools, language, etc as particularly interesting. Subjectively of course it's understandable why we're interested in what makes us human.

            • By throwaway2562 2025-11-2516:192 reply

              Good grief. This is what 20 years of language policing has wrought. People who are nervous (hiding behind ‘skeptical’) about words like ‘advanced’ when, by any number of dimensions, human cognition is uncontroversially superior, more advanced, more fluid, more deep, more adaptive, more various (pick one, nervous people) to that of spiders or cows.

              Or is that all just a ‘myth?’

              • By CamperBob2 2025-11-2518:061 reply

                This entire subthread belongs on the 'HN Simulator' story.

                • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2519:45

                  Heart-making-hands-emoji-with-skin-tone-1

              • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2516:263 reply

                I'm not nervous, I just don't see the utility. Perhaps you can elucidate this for me.

                • By Espressosaurus 2025-11-2516:451 reply

                  You're communicating ideas across unknown thousands of miles with a stranger in near realtime and are able to comprehend each other, for one.

                  No cat or dog has managed that feat yet.

                  No cat or dog has managed to reproduce fire to the degree that evolution has changed their gut to adapt to the increase in available calories.

                  The big brain comes with down sides, but one thing it does have is utility.

                  Germ theory of disease has made it so a scratch isn't fatal anymore. Why, after all, do cats play with their prey? To tire it out so there's less chance of injury when they go in for the kill.

                  We just figure out how to farm it instead and mold it to our needs.

                  • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2519:433 reply

                    I don't disagree with any of this, but what is the utility of viewing this ability as "more advanced"?

                    • By throwaway2562 2025-11-2522:28

                      What is the utility of denying it?

                      What do you or anyone else actually get from such obvious absurdity, I wonder?

                      If it helps - and I have doubts - does (say) a working knowledge of Galois theory require more advanced mathematical cognition than arithmetic?

                      Would it be immoral to introduce such ghastly, hierarchical language? Etc.

                      I see you ignored the obvious rejoinder downthread, which stated that the utility of classifying behaviours or capacities is to help you predict outcomes.

                      How much more help do you need here? It’s not very complicated, but you prefer to showboat.

                    • By munificent 2025-11-2520:551 reply

                      Let's say you're about to embark on a cross-oceanic sailing voyage. For safety reasons, you think it's best to bring another living being with you who can help if things go south or you are incapacitated.

                      Are you going to bring another human, or a goat? Can a goat navigate while you sleep? Can it apply first aid to you? Can it respond on the VHF radio if you get hailed? Can it operate the bilge pump?

                      • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2521:511 reply

                        Embarking on a cross-oceanic sailing voyage seems to be a particularly human brand of tomfoolery. Why not just stay at home with the goat?

                        • By munificent 2025-11-2523:42

                          I honestly can't tell if you think you're being funny, deep, or just trolling.

                    • By antisthenes 2025-11-2522:58

                      > I don't disagree with any of this, but what is the utility of viewing this ability as "more advanced"?

                      Because that's the most accurate description of what it is. The more accurately you describe something, the more effectively you communicate, an aspect of more advanced cognition.

                • By aoeusnth1 2025-11-2516:42

                  The utility is that it's predictive of future observations, like all good language.

                • By goatlover 2025-11-2518:43

                  Tool use allowed humans to colonize the planet and outcompete all rivals. We became a super predator species. We even gained the ability to look beyond our home. We look for evidence of other such advanced tool users in space.

            • By observationist 2025-11-2516:301 reply

              Humans have fingers and thumbs and sophisticated wiring of throat, lips, and tongue.

              Wire up a gorilla with the equivalent hands and vocalization capacity, negate the wild hormonal fluctuations, and give that gorilla a more or less human upbringing, and they're going to be limited in cognition by the number of cortical neurons - less than half that of humans, but more than sufficient to learn to talk.

              The amazing thing isn't necessarily that brains get built-in environmental shortcuts and preprogrammed adaptations, but that nearly everything involved in higher level cognition is plastic. Mammalian brains, at the neocortical level, can more or less get arbitrarily programmed and conditioned, so intelligence comes down to a relative level of overall capacity (number, performance of neurons) and platform (what tools are you working with.)

              Give a whale, dolphin, or orca some neuralink adapters for arms and dexterous hands, and a fully operational virtual human vocal apparatus, and they'd be able to match humans across a wide range of cognitive capabilities.

              By co-opting neural capacity for some arbitrary human capabilities equivalent, you might cripple something crucial to that animal's survival or well-being, the ethics are messy and uncertain, but in principle, it comes down to brains.

              What makes us interesting as humans is that we got the jackpot set of traits that drove our species into the meta-niche. Our ancestors traits for adaptability generalized, and we started optimizing the generalization, so things like advanced vocalization and fancy fingerwork followed suit.

              • By kbenson 2025-11-2519:171 reply

                > Give a whale, dolphin, or orca some neuralink adapters for arms and dexterous hands, and a fully operational virtual human vocal apparatus, and they'd be able to match humans across a wide range of cognitive capabilities.

                While I don't disbelieve this out of hand, I can think of different things that might easily make this untrue. On what evidence is this assertion based? Is it just "our brains are essentially similar and much of it is not hard wired therefore they should perform the same" or is there deeper science and/or testing behind this?

                • By observationist 2025-11-2521:49

                  There's a lot of data that seems to fit. I'd say the science heavily leans this way - things like the dog/cat talking button studies, AI vocalization research in primates, whales, and birds, a whole ton of biological research across mammals, and most data start to paint a picture of mammalian brain structure being more important than particular quirks of human brain biology.

                  There are some theories of function out there, like that of Numenta, which seems consistent across mammal brains, and is at least partially explanatory of cognitive function at a cellular level. There's also value to be found in LLMs and AI research in understanding networks and recursion and what different properties of structures that perform different functions have to conform to.

                  Pilot whales and blue whales and some other species have upwards of 45B cortical neurons, and if higher cognitive function is conserved across species, then they'd have the potential to be significantly more intelligent than humans - all else being equal.

                  A useful thought experiment is to compare different species to feral humans. Absent culture, the training, education, knowledge, and framework for understanding reality, without language, natural and wild living is pretty grim and intense. There's a whole lot we take for granted underpinning our abilities to reach the heights of technology and abstract use of language and thought.

                  It could be humans and primates have some sort of magic sauce - a particular quirk of networking or neurochemistry that augments relative capabilities, as opposed to embodiment or other factors. People have sought the magic sauce for decades, however, and that doesn't seem to be a viable explanation.

            • By pyridines 2025-11-2516:10

              Animal intelligence is often underestimated, (e.g. there's a famous test that shows that chimpanzee working memory is better than ours) but our use of language is qualitatively different from other animals. Some animals have rudimentary communication, but no other animal is capable (as far as we know) of recursive, infinitely variable language structure like us.

            • By rolisz 2025-11-2516:112 reply

              Objective reason: humans have done the most change to the planet (and have put stuff into space). No other species has done that.

              • By oceanplexian 2025-11-2517:241 reply

                Also objective:

                As far as we know humans are the only species to leave Earth’s gravity well. No other species has been able to do that in 4 billion years.

                • By NobodyNada 2025-11-2518:421 reply

                  Humans have not left Earth's gravity well. We've built probes that have, but humans have only gotten as far as orbit.

                  • By pezezin 2025-11-2519:411 reply

                    Did you forget about the Moon landings?

                    • By NobodyNada 2025-11-2519:59

                      That's pretty close to escaping the Earth's gravity well, but not quite out, since the Moon is definitely still orbiting the Earth.

              • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2516:292 reply

                > humans have done the most change to the planet (and have put stuff into space).

                I think we have a long way to go to catch up with algae.

                • By kruffalon 2025-11-2517:02

                  Please never change (in thus regard at least)!

                  I agree with you, it's not obviously clear what "advanced" means in this context if we don't automatically equate it with humanlike.

                • By anthonypasq 2025-11-2516:432 reply

                  brother we could easily eliminate 99% of life on the planet tomorrow or drastically alter the composition of the atmosphere if we wanted to.

                  • By shpx 2025-11-2518:15

                    That remaining 1% are then actually the most advanced species, since they can continue their billion year existence through a blip of a couple thousand years when the environment became a bit more radioactive. We're so fragile that we're effectively biologically unstable, they're so advanced that they don't even need to know what happened.

                  • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2520:441 reply

                    It's not our capacity that matters but our actual behavior. Sure, we could cause even greater mass extinction. But will we choose preservation over suicide? That matters in evaluating our role in the hierarchy of life

            • By stray 2025-11-2518:53

              I think it's funny that humans think humans are uniquely advanced. The brain thinks the brain is the most awesome machine in the universe :-)

        • By GuB-42 2025-11-2519:151 reply

          Homan cognition is more advanced than in any other animal. I think it is clear enough. Humans are not the only animals that evolved higher intelligence, but we have a combination of attributes that made it really effective: we are larger animals (with room for a big brain) with a social structure and a relatively long lifespan (good for passing knowledge).

          Ants beat us when it comes to society, but in a sense, we may also consider multicellular organisms as a society of single cells. Still impressive, and there is a good chance for ants to outlive us as a species, but we are still orders of magnitude more intelligent than ants, including collective intelligence.

          By intelligence, I mean things like adaptability and problem solving, both collective and individual. It is evident in our ability to exploit resources no animals could, or our ability to live in places that would normally be unsurvivable to us. It doesn't mean we are the pinnacle of evolution, we have some pretty good competitors (including ants) but we are certainly the most advanced in one very imporant area.

          • By MangoToupe 2025-11-2519:44

            I think this is the best argument yet. Not sure how much I agree, but it's a satisfying analysis. Cheers.

      • By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-2517:25

        > But then by six years-old the human child can do things mentally which are orders of magnitude more advanced than anything another animal has ever done.

        It is amazing.

        I would make a stronger claim, however. That is, I would qualify these comparisons as analogous. When people say that adult members of some species are "smarter" than a human child of age X, because they can do Y while the child still can't, then this is an analogous comparison. Many intellectual errors are rooted in the false dichotomy between the univocal and equivocal. So, if I ask, if an animal of species X doing Y is doing the same thing as a human being doing Y, some people will take the univocal position, because there is an appearance of the same thing going on (few will take the equivocal position here and deny any similarity), but it is more accurate to say that something analogical is happening. A dog eating is like a human being eating in some sense, but they are not univocal, nor are they totally dissimilar.

    • By mrtksn 2025-11-2511:401 reply

      IIRC Andrej Karpathy in a recent talk made a point that reading a book isn't like memorizing the book, it's more like prompting the brain with the book.

      So maybe this concept of being ready to go at birth isn't about the animals ability to start doing things but just a way of upbringing regardless of how ready the animal is to function. Maybe pigs just start prompting early. AFAIK human babies can swim right out of the womb. In other words, maybe the distinction between precocial and non-precocial(I don't know if there's a word for that) animals isn't that clear?

      • By phi-go 2025-11-2512:431 reply

        I don't think babies can swim but they know not to try and breathe in water. Which is probably what you meant.

        • By mrtksn 2025-11-2513:051 reply

          I think it's called "diving reflex", not very sure about it all but AFAIK babies can learn to swim properly quite early which makes me think that humans too come with a lot of "ready to go" features but maybe need some prompting to surface

          • By ghaff 2025-11-2515:00

            Kids (and even adults) definitely don't know how to swim off the bat though I have no doubt they could be taught earlier than many are. There's a reason some universities have a requirement to take swimming physical education absent a demonstrate ability to swim.

    • By rglover 2025-11-2514:58

      I have an anecdote that sounds like it fits this...

      The house I used to live in had a ton of blue tailed skinks around it. You could always spot a baby by its size and brightness of the blue in its tail (juveniles have a brighter hue, adults are more brown). To avoid birds, the skinks would do this shimmy under the siding of the house just across from my back porch. What surprised me is that even the babies, maybe a few days old, all knew how to do the siding shimmy. Young, old, didn't matter, you could tell they just knew how (and why) to do it.

    • By Waterluvian 2025-11-2515:46

      I'm immediately fascinated by what I imagine are core questions explored by this domain. Largely the trade-offs. It's almost like choosing to ship a product with a hard-coded configuration vs. a more complex "discover and self-calibrate" phase.

      Would the trade-off be that precocial animals are generally "configured" for the environments in which they've evolved? If I birth (well, not me directly) a foal on the moon, will it adapt to the different gravity in the first hour or is that something that's "built-in" to their programming?

      Are these built-ins easy to override or modify? Maybe an animal being precogial doesn't negatively impact its ability to also be adaptive, which I think I'm making a big assumption on already.

    • By shevy-java 2025-11-2513:251 reply

      > Some animals are ready to go as soon as they are born. These are called precocial animals. They are born knowing how to walk.

      Early young borns that could walk, like a baby giraffe or baby rhino, often fall down or get exhausted quickly initially; tons of youtube videos show that. Humans are slow learners here, but I would not call these other animals as "born knowing how to walk" if their initial steps are so insecure. Their body structure is different though - a newborn human is basically pretty crap-built. A baby deer kind of is built differently on birth and that also makes sense if you are threatened by other predator animals like wolves or bears or lions.

      • By masfuerte 2025-11-2523:08

        There's a distinction between having the knowledge and having the physical fitness.

        When someone is confined to a hospital bed for months they find that they get exhausted very quickly when they next try walking. It doesn't mean they've forgotten how.

    • By kaptainscarlet 2025-11-2515:53

      I think all animals are born knowing how to walk, including monkeys and humans. However, that trait only surfaces at a later stage of their development.

    • By _heimdall 2025-11-2510:462 reply

      > They are born knowing how to walk.

      I'm not aware of any way we can know this. We do know that those species are born with the physical ability to walk within the first few hours after birth. How could we distinguish between whether they were born with the knowledge of how to walk as opposed to them learning it quickly since their body can physically do it?

        • By throw-qqqqq 2025-11-2516:18

          This was very interesting to read! TIL thank you

      • By csomar 2025-11-2512:582 reply

        How about running from snakes for their lives right after they hatch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el4CQj-TCbA

        • By _heimdall 2025-11-2515:071 reply

          Are you proposing that as an example that animals (and humans) seem to be born with natural instincts for survival or that we know they are born with that information?

          If the latter, how do you propose we know that as a fact? Presumably we would really need to know how that information is passed down to the child and how it knows how to interpret it. To my best understanding, we effectively stop at DNA seeming to be a complex set of instructions for how to make the animal. We don't know if or how it might encode knowledge, or if something else entirely is at play to make those instincts known to the newborn.

          • By csomar 2025-11-2516:311 reply

            Watch the video. The iguana just hatched and is already going on insane escape from snakes. That information has to be encoded there from the start. Thus without it would have been probably naturally selected out.

            • By _heimdall 2025-11-2521:41

              I agree it seems highly likely, I just can't make the leap to "has to be" when we know so little (if anything?) about how that would work.

              Maybe I'm just being pedantic here, if so that wasn't my intent. I very much agree that anything being born seems to already known more than we give credit for, I just can't do absolute certainty there.

        • By chrisweekly 2025-11-2514:071 reply

          that was amazing, thanks for sharing!

    • By whycome 2025-11-2521:12

      You can’t tell me the information and programming for all the is stored in an egg/sperm cell

    • By agumonkey 2025-11-2520:11

      I wonder at which point in evolution did organisms decide to embed prototypical structures to save time at birth

    • By BurningFrog 2025-11-2515:50

      If you're a prey animal being born in open terrain, you need to be able to run at full speed right away.

    • By foofoo12 2025-11-2510:16

      > Some animals are ready to go as soon as they are born

      That trade has an extreme genetic advantage when other animals see you as their succulent mains on the a la carte exotic wildlife menu.

    • By alfonsodev 2025-11-2510:092 reply

      is it true that it's a tradeoff ? the "more precocial" the less flexibility to learn new things ? on the contrary knowing less equals less assumptions, which needs more flexibility in exchange.

      Would be true that what is precocial in us is the ability mimic and abstract specific patterns into general rules ?

      • By BananaaRepublik 2025-11-2515:26

        Naturally, I'm a dev. Could it be something to do with limited genetic storage being dedicated to software instead of coding for hardware capabilities? In my limited knowledge, increasing DNA size comes at a maintainance cost(transcription, replication etc), so there's a soft upper bound.

      • By idiotsecant 2025-11-2510:491 reply

        It must be a tradeoff. I don't have any proof, but my thinking is that we pay an extraordinary price in terms of resources required to keep human babies safe for years before they can keep themselves safe. That is a strong selection pressure on everyone involved. The fact that it still happens means it must somehow be worth it.

        • By adrianN 2025-11-2511:58

          Humans are born quite prematurely so that the head fits through the birth canal.

    • By guerrilla 2025-11-2512:17

      > precocial

      I thought you misspelled presocial, but precoial is etymologically related to precocious, both originally meaning early-maturing or something along those lines.

    • By thaumasiotes 2025-11-2510:54

      > They are born knowing how to walk.

      This is unlikely to be a good way to think about them. The norm is for animals to be born knowing how to move. Whether they actually can move shortly after birth is more of a question of muscle development than knowledge.

      For example, when birds are held immobile until they're old enough to fly, they fly normally.

  • By w10-1 2025-11-2520:201 reply

    The title is misleading, and HN comments don't seem to relate to the article.

    The misleading part: the actual finding is that organoid cells fire in patterns that are "like" the patterns in the brain's default mode network. That says nothing about whether the there's any relationship between phenomena of a few hundred organoid cells and millions in the brain.

    As a reminder, heart pacing cells are automatically firing long before anything like a heart actually forms. It's silly to call that a heartbeat because they're not actually driving anything like a heart.

    So this is not evidence of "firmware" or "prewired" or "preconfigured" or any instructions whatsoever.

    This is evidence that a bunch of neurons will fall into patterns when interacting with each other -- no surprise since they have dendrites and firing thresholds and axons connected via neural junctions.

    The real claim is that organoids are a viable model since they exhibit emergent phenomena, but whether any experiments can lead to applicable science is an open question.

    • By nitwit005 2025-11-2521:57

      I'm afraid when it comes to the human brain, people just seem to talk about their favorite topics and ignore the article.

  • By vbezhenar 2025-11-257:5227 reply

    How newborn brain works is absolutely fascinating for me. I just don't understand how is it possible.

    Human DNA contains 1.5 GB information.

    Human body, including brain, gets built using this information only. So our "preconfigured" neural networks are also built using this information only.

    And apparently it's enough to encode complex behaviour. That's not just visible things. Brain processes a humongous amount of information, it basically supports living processes for entire body, processing miriads of sensors, adjusting all kinds of knobs for body to function properly.

    I just don't understand how is it possible just from a purely bit size approach. For me, it's a mystery.

    • By sirwhinesalot 2025-11-258:132 reply

      It somewhat makes sense if you think of it in terms of a really complicated 1.5GB metaprogram with a huge pile of conditionals that are triggered by the programs it itself writes (proteins). The final you is made up of an incomprehensible huge number of copies of the metaprogram, running different configurations, and spitting out programs to each other which then do more stuff. Our human brains can't really conceive of a configurable metaprogram that writes programs by interacting with itself in different configurations that it itself sets up.

      • By dilawar 2025-11-258:542 reply

        Something similar: Kolmogorov complexity.

        There is a finite size program that can generate infinite digits of pi (in infinite time). Kolmogorov's complexity of pi is finite even when the object is infinite.

        It's not very surprising that it takes a few GB of a program to encode conscious 'us'. Humbling to think about it though...

        • By yetihehe 2025-11-259:48

          For a demonstration of Kolmogorov complexity, it's good to watch "A mind is born"[0] by lftkryo. It's only 256 bytes, but can generate over 2 minutes of complex music and video. Also, the name is appropriate for this topic :D

          [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWblpsLZ-O8

        • By stackedinserter 2025-11-2520:561 reply

          Yeah but pi digits are essentially random noise, but any human is a precisely build system. E.g. there are exactly two identical eyes with nerves going to this precise area of brain, every time.

          It's more like mega-efficient archive utility that unzips a few GB into a human, I just can't fathom it.

          • By filleduchaos 2025-11-260:51

            That's exactly the wrong way to think about it, and I'm surprised that so many devs think of it that way. We already have programs that works exactly like that (i.e. producing rich, complex output that would be many times the size of the input code + data if encoded raw): procedural generators. It's emergent complexity, not compression.

      • By cogogo 2025-11-2512:291 reply

        It was also developed “iteratively” under extremely harsh selection criteria over a time scale that is so long it is almost impossible to reason about. An old geology textbook I had used the analogy of a geologic timeline that stretched from LA to NYC. Life appears really early (in CA somewhere IIRC) and human existence is about the width of a crack in the pavement just before you hit the Atlantic Ocean.

        • By zmgsabst 2025-11-2515:181 reply

          Using a timeline from LA to NYC, since you made me curious:

          - life formed 3.7B of 4.5B years ago, which is 700km towards NYC from LA; or about Colorado

          - proto-humans formed 2M of 4500M years ago, which is about 1.7km “from” NYC; a distance hard to compare with the whole way

          - human lifespans are about 70 of 4.5B years, which is about 6cm “from” NYC; a distance hard to compare with either 1.7km, 700km for life to form, or the whole 3966km.

          • By cogogo 2025-11-2519:17

            Ha! thanks! My memory of this was way off. But I guess I liked the idea at the time if I remembered it at all decades later. Life has been evolving for a LONG time.

    • By chromakode 2025-11-258:07

      Nature recently posted an interesting video [1] about what causes developing hearts to have their first beat. The gist is that eventually random electrical noise triggers a propagating wave which is then continued and repeated by the cellular automation nature of heart tissue. You don't need as much software if your system is composed of emergent properties.

      [1]: https://youtu.be/SIMS2h5QsZU

    • By cyco130 2025-11-259:592 reply

      As a person who knows next to nothing about how the brain or the genes that configure it work, I tend to think of this in terms of 80s video games like River Raid. The level data for these games, if stored naively, would fill the computer's available memory many times over. So they just store a pseudorandom number generator seed along with a few other parameters. Coupled with a few rules to make the level playable, it can generate a seemingly impossible number of levels with very little stored data.

      Maybe the genes just encode a few crucial rules and the rest just emerge from that.

      Oh, and I know even less about how the universe works. But I tend to think of it in the same terms: Emergent phenomena stemming from simple rules à la Game of Life.

      • By kenver 2025-11-2510:23

        Ever since I read about Rodney Brooks and his idea of the Subsumption architecture I've been convinced that something like this is going on in our minds - likely with some other mechanisms too. It just clicks for me - I'm mostly likely completely wrong, but it's a pretty cool idea, and I've used it to create some really interesting simulations.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture

      • By EvanAnderson 2025-11-2516:29

        That's mostly how I think of it, albeit the analogy I use is procedural texture or music generation in 4K demos.

        There are very simple algorithms that generate (or maybe just expose) complex structures already "present" in the universe.

    • By hobofan 2025-11-258:093 reply

      > gets built using this information only

      No they don't. There is plenty of external stimuli that also serves as input, e.g. the process of raising a child and complex thoughts that may only be transferred from grown human to grown human.

      Try raising a human in a barren cell without human contact or as part of a pack of wolfs and you'll see how much a human brain is built from "DNA only".

      • By trashtester 2025-11-258:38

        Certainly, and I don't think anyone really doubts this.

        Still, people are sometimes surprised by how DNA may affect more parts of behavior than they previously thought.

        Not necessarily by directly coding for the behavior. In many cases, the DNA will just modulate how we learn from the environment. And if the environment is fairly constant, observed behavior can correlate more strongly with DNA that one might have expected.

      • By machiaweliczny 2025-11-2510:37

        Yeah compared to animals we have a lot of extra bootstrapping outside of physics/chemistry alone via culture and stored information similar to how cell DNA bootsraps via physics, human mind boostraps via stored information in human "network" (talking, internet, books) after being born.

      • By Nervhq 2025-11-259:28

        [dead]

    • By phito 2025-11-258:132 reply

      The even crazier thing is that DNA does not encode any of that. Behaviour and morphology is not directly encoded in there, you'll only find recipes for proteins. The zigote will divide into billions of cells that share that same recipe book. Depending on the electric and chemical signals surrounding cells are sending, individual cells get their "personalities" or function. This cell colony forms an organism which emerges from the sum of morphology and behaviour of all cells. But you'll find no recipe for an arm in DNA, it is the result of the work of the collective intelligence that is your body.

      • By physidev 2025-11-258:241 reply

        I'm not sure in what sense there isn't a recipe for arms in our DNA. To me, it seems the DNA does encode that stuff, but in a highly compressed format that is then "unzipped" through the laws of physics and biology into a living and breathing being with arms.

        I mean, the information has to be in there somewhere, right?

        • By phito 2025-11-259:03

          I don't know either, maybe epigenetics play a part in this (Some information transferred from the mother cells to the child)?

      • By skmurphy 2025-11-2521:26

        If the DNA does not encode it then it's an astounding coincidence that it happens so reliably and repeatedly.

    • By simianparrot 2025-11-258:22

      Have you looked into the amazing things people do with procedural generation with only a tiny bit (kilobytes, often) of source code? My intuition is that this is vaguely analogous.

      Here's an example from 2003, where the entire source code, from music to visuals, fits in 64 kb: https://youtu.be/HtJvSvQnep0

      Here's a good gallery of such demos: https://64k-scene.github.io

    • By trashtester 2025-11-258:271 reply

      I don't think human DNA generally codes for the behavior derectly. Rather, DNA can code for how the brain learns from incoming data streams.

      If the brain naturally tunes into some sources or patterns of input rather than others, it may learn very quickly from the preferred sources. And as long as those sources carry signals that are fairly invariant over time, it may seem like those signals are instinctual.

      For instance, it may appear that humans learn to build relationships with kin (both parents and children) and friends, to build revenue streams (or gather food in more primitive societies) and reproduce.

      Instead, the brain may come preloaded to generate brain chemicals when detecting certain stimuli. Like oxytocin near caregivers (as children) or small fluffy things (as adults). When exposed to parents/babies, this triggers. But it can also trigger around toys, pets, adopted children, etc.

      Friendship-seeking can be, in part, related to seretonin-production in certain social situations. But may be hijacked by social media.

      Revenue-seeking behavior can come from dopamin-stimulus from certain goal-optimzing situations. But may also be triggered by video games.

      And the best known part: Reproductive behavior may primarily come from sexual arousal, and hijacked by porn or birth control.

      Each of the above may be coded by a limited number of bytes of DNA, and it's really the learning algorithm combined with the data stream of natural environments that causes specific behaviors.

      • By ACCount37 2025-11-259:021 reply

        A lot of animals are born "hardcoded" with most of the instincts they need to survive, so some behaviors are clearly innate.

        And "how the brain learns from the incoming data streams" is, in part, driven a set of behaviors too.

        A baby's eyes are trying to detect and track certain preset features long before the primary visual cortex learns to make sense of them. That's a behavior, and it exists for a reason. As the baby develops, the baby would try to seek out certain experiences to learn from them, which is a behavior that exists for a reason too.

        There's a hypothesis that certain mental disorders are caused by this innate learning process going off course, but it's just a hypothesis, of the kind that's hard to prove conclusively.

        • By trashtester 2025-11-2523:25

          Indeed. But most instincts involve elements of learning. Meaning the instincts may be stored using a much smaller number of bits than if they were stored as traditional IF-THEN-ELSE computer program.

          For instance, the pattern the brain seeks to optimize to learn to work may be much smaller than the full algorithm for walking.

          And if the brain learns quickly enough (and if a newborn animal started learning elements such as balance, moving legs, etc, before even being born), learning to walk may be learned in minutes instead of months.

    • By gattr 2025-11-259:34

      I think it's a wrong way to look at it. In addition to DNA information content, one should count also the complexity of the proteins and higher-level structures in the gametes.

    • By kiicia 2025-11-2511:01

      It’s like one computer with program (DNA) and helper programs (RNA) creates second generation of computer and programs (proteins, lipids, carbohydrates) that essentially create their own version of computer system in which they govern things like enzymes, hormones etc

      But keep in mind that humans are not created in vacuum. After those two levels of computer create third level that is brain, actual programming of brain is done by other living humans.

      So actual „humanity” is what persists in living population and would reset when population is culled and newborn must live and learn on their own.

      Even if such newborn would live long enough to have access to things like books, computers, even sound and video records… those would be completely useless to them because they won’t even know language and skills required to use those.

    • By Jordan-117 2025-11-2518:37

      To me, it feels similarly impossible/spooky to how image models work.

      Consider a model like SDXL:

      - each image is 512x512, plenty of detail

      - max prompt length is 77 tokens, or a solid paragraph

      - each image has a seed value between 0 and 9,999,999, with each seed giving a completely different take on the prompt

      I can't begin to calculate the upper limit on the number of possible human-readable prompts that can fit in 77 tokens, but multiply even an (extremely conservative) estimate of a million possible prompts by 10 million seeds and it's clear that this model "contains", at minimum, literally tens of trillions of possible meaningful images -- all in a model file that's under 7 GB.

      I suspect it works similarly to the biological side -- evolutionary pressure encoding complex patterns into hyper-efficient "programs" that aren't easily interpretable, but eerily effective despite their compact size.

    • By otikik 2025-11-259:541 reply

      > 1.5 GB information

      Well, nature has a big advantage over us in that it doesn't need to "make sense" of that code :). So it can, for example, do crazy reusage optimization patterns. A "subroutine" that is used in one place could also be part of a "data piece" of another part. A "header" part can also double down as a "validator" of another part. Doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to work. The only limits are the laws of physics. I would not even call it compression at this point. It's more like heavily optimized spaghetti code.

      • By EvanAnderson 2025-11-2516:32

        I find using the term "junk DNA" for non-coding DNA to off-putting for exactly this reason. There's most certainly "cruft" accumulated in any evolved organism's DNA, but the very presence of that "cruft" might just as well be serving another purpose.

    • By londons_explore 2025-11-258:30

      > Human body, including brain, gets built using [DNA] information only

      I think there is a good chance there are other substantial information transfers from one generation to the next. The total genome of all that gut bacteria is orders of magnitude larger for example.

    • By krige 2025-11-258:092 reply

      Well technically yeah but consider that it takes ~9 months for the product to function without constant life support, at least a few years until majority of the basic functions work and ~15 years until it is fully functional.

      Talk about compile time.

      • By wafflemaker 2025-11-258:57

        9 months is caused by head size to how far you can stretch the exit ratio. In a way, we are born prematurely, to lessen the probability of death in childbirth (for both the mother and child).

    • By idiomaddict 2025-11-259:001 reply

      The longer I think about it, the worse it gets.

      It’s not foolproof, but I can easily transmit a huge amount of information to someone by saying “Titanic prow king of the world scene.” In seven words, which could be fewer if I were really trying, the recipient has a moving image and sound in their head (as long as they’re the right age group- every example I could think of made me feel old).

      • By otikik 2025-11-2510:00

        > Titanic prow king of the world scene

        Well that was transmitting "a pointer" more than anything else, but yes I agree that nature could be doing the same thing. Not hardcode behaviors, but certain chemical reactions to some "pointers" that are totally environment related. Arachnophobia apparently could have a genetic component, so there could be a "spider pointer" somewhere.

    • By lukan 2025-11-258:03

      "Human DNA contains 1.5 GB information"

      If compressed, then there is room for more. (but afaik much is rather unused)

      And for me I cannot say, that life is not a mystery to me, but this specific part I have less trouble with imagining it. As little code can create complex worlds and simulate them. (a minecraft wasm build for example is just 14 mb, but fully working)

    • By js8 2025-11-2512:15

      > I just don't understand how is it possible just from a purely bit size approach.

      It's ~750MB (3 billion base pairs). But anyway, that's a size of a decent Linux distribution with tons of software.

    • By bitwize 2025-11-258:151 reply

      I think you're underestimating the role epigenetic information plays. 1.5 GiB encodes every protein used to build us, sure, but which genes get switched on when and how are sensitive to factors not encoded for in DNA, including the environment of the cell and the fundamental chemistry of biology. Epigenetic information is hard to capture but can profoundly affect how an organism develops; cloned cats, for instance, may show a vastly different fur color and pattern from the original, to cite just a highly visible example.

      • By dboreham 2025-11-2516:201 reply

        That's not additional information. It's a kind of codec for sure, but it's not magic information from nowhere. Like a compression algorithm.

        • By bitwize 2025-11-2519:37

          Not information from nowhere, no. But information from outside the genome. To use cats again, colorpoint cats such as Siamese are subject to a temperature-sensitive mutation in the genes which code for fur pigment, so the fur at the coolest parts of their body (face, ears, paws, tail) is the darkest. The colorpoint pattern is not coded for in DNA. It needs input from the environment in order to be expressed.

          It's not really compression. It's more like, you can write a much shorter Lisp program to do the same task as a C program, but you need the entire Lisp runtime to get it that short.

    • By thisisbrians 2025-11-2522:571 reply

      I'll probably get downvoted for this, but recent (last ~100 years) evidence and phenomena suggest that consciousness might be fundamental to reality, and thus there could be some other information transfer we would currently consider "woo" going on here. This is hard (if not impossible) to prove, of course, but quantum mechanics has totally bewildered many aspects of the materialist ("reductionist") model of the universe. There is a large and increasing number of physicists and other reputed scientists/researchers who are adopting some variation of the consciousness-as-fundamental stance.

      • By djmips 2025-11-2523:23

        That's been shown not to be true. Concious observers are not required for reality.

    • By throwaway19343 2025-11-2511:44

      Actually the DNA is very inefficient with many areas that appear to do nothing. 1.5GB is a ton of "source code".

      There is no significant evolutionary pressure to erase unnecessary parts.

    • By jiggawatts 2025-11-258:103 reply

      > 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...

      • By spyder 2025-11-2512:052 reply

        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.

        • By EvanAnderson 2025-11-2517:14

          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.

        • By jiggawatts 2025-11-2520:47

          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!

      • By srean 2025-11-2510:18

        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 ...

      • By vladms 2025-11-258:302 reply

        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.

        • By vbezhenar 2025-11-259:291 reply

          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...

          • By vladms 2025-11-2512:17

            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.

        • By darkwater 2025-11-258:44

          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.

    • By lukebechtel 2025-11-258:24

      Makes one curious about epigenetics!

    • By nickpsecurity 2025-11-2518:32

      "Human DNA contains 1.5 GB information."

      Human DNA is tightly integrated with its environment. Instead of stand-alone, think compressed, source code of a high-level language running in an interpreter and with a standard library with 10-100x more functionality.

      There's also how networks have combinational effects, some things in the body use temporal encodings, and who knows what else. We can't really estimate the information content of all of this put together since we don't even understand it. It is amazing, though.

    • By dboreham 2025-11-2516:19

      Remember the body had 9 months to "learn" a bunch of stuff already.

    • By podgorniy 2025-11-2510:09

      Recursion

    • By stefan_ 2025-11-2510:03

      You can make a brainfuck runtime in less than a kilobyte and it can run any program known to man.

    • By LadyCailin 2025-11-258:591 reply

      This is why I’m so insistent that LLMs aren’t the best way (if they are a way at all) to getting to human level intelligence. The maximum amount of energy and input data required for training and inference is many orders of magnitude less than we are currently using.

      • By backscratches 2025-11-2514:541 reply

        ~25 years from conception to maturity, millions and billions of years of brute force development... There is a lot of energy involved in typing this sentence to you. I am not sure LLMs use more.

        • By array_key_first 2025-11-2519:101 reply

          Yes, but the inference cost of humans is extremely low. We're constantly making decisions and generating thoughts, most subconscious, while using extremely little energy. It's remarkable how energy efficient the human body and mind, and animals in general, are.

          • By backscratches 2025-11-2519:14

            Yes it is impressive but the front loading shouldn't be dismissed

    • By wetpaws 2025-11-2516:00

      [dead]

HackerNews