Brains Hard-Wired for Math

mcgrew writes "New Scientist is reporting that "non-human primates really can understand the meaning of numerals." The small study of two rhesus monkeys reveals that cells in their brains respond selectively to specific number values — regardless of whether the amount is represented by dots on a screen or an Arabic numeral. For example, a given brain cell in the monkey will respond to the number three, but not the number one. The results suggest that individual cells in human brains might also have a fine-tuned preference for specific numerical values." The report itself is online at PLoS Biology, Semantic Associations between Signs and Numerical Categories in the Prefrontal Cortex."

Comments

First post

[Harmonious Botch]

My brain has a fine-tuned preference for the number 'one'.

and there you see!

[Anonymous Coward]

42 really is the answer!

Numbers or numerals?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it more likely that the brain responds to numbers, and is also able to learn an association between numerals and numbers?

To say that nonhuman primates respond to numerals makes it sound like they evolved to benefit from written language, which would be kinda weird, ya know.

Re:Numbers or numerals?

[jandersen]

It isn't surprising that monkeys can understand an abstraction like 'numbers' - a brain is a neural network, and neural nets are 'abstraction engines' by definition. Consider the nature of abstractions: an abstract concept is one that describes a set of properties that are common to a class of objects. A number, for example, is the property that is common to all sets that are isomorphic in the category of sets (to spell it out: what is common to 'five apples', 'five oranges', 'five cows', ...? The number 5, of course). And what is it a neural net does? It learns to recognise patterns that are shared by all the 'objects' it 'sees' (if you will excuse the metaphor) - in other words, it creates an abstraction.

The numbers 1 and 0, although fundamental to our numerical notation, are not really 'interesting' in nature - 0 is simply 'nothing' and 1 is 'anything', they sort of fade into the background. Being able to recognise other, small numbers can be useful, however. Two fruits is one for me and one for you; if you have four children, but can only see three, then you should go looking for the last one, etc etc.

This is the way evolution works - nothing evolves with any purpose; things evolve because there are new traits that turn out to be beneficial in the given environment. And then, down the line, it sometimes also turns out that a trait that evolved at some point in the past allows the organism to do something entirely new in a new environment. So the monkeys didn't evolve to benefit from written language, it turned out that this is one of the things their brains can learn. The real question here is: Why did brains evolve - and that all starts with biofilms ;-)

Re:binary

[ExploHD]

Well, there are 11 kinds of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Obvious

[Stoutlimb]

In other news, reality is hardwired for math.

Seriously, why wouldn't a brain, which exists to process data in one form or another, respond to math positively at some level? Geometry is math, and that is hardwired in our brains to a high level. Any brain that has to process spacial information in any way must be predisposed to math.

Re:Obvious

[Lemmy Caution]

I agree...

I can't stand the over-use of the expression "hard-wired" when the data only indicates something that is universal. It implies that the structures responsible would develop in that function no matter what, without the experience in the world of, for example, things in sets-of-three, etc.

The data really supports dynamical systems models of cognitive development more than pure innatist ones. Just look at what the brain of someone blind from birth develops into, absent visual input.

I highly recommend the books of Andy Clark, particularly his "Being There," as an introduction that starts to explain just how flawed the seemingly harmless phrase "hard-wired" is.

Re:binary

[Dr. Eggman]

And those who can't count.

Re:Base?

[mdemonic]

# I wonder if the brains are wired for specific bases, like base 10.

We like it because we have ten fingers. Other civilizations have had other number systems though. The Mayans used base 20, since they had 20 fingers

title wrong

[weak*]

I've co-taught an undergraduate mathematics course. Based on this experience and many others, I assure you the human mind is not hard-wired for math.

Re:title wrong

[snl2587]

Good point. While brains may be wired for numbers, I highly doubt that any brain is hardwired for differential equations.

I really like seven...

[feepness]

For some reason I get aroused when I hear the number seven. Especially when it's followed by "of nine".

Re:Base?

[xPsi]

I wonder if the brains are wired for specific bases, like base 10. It is possible, but I'm guessing this is mostly a matter of familiarity and convention. For example, Baylonians used a sexagesimal (base 60 -- a.k.a. "thanks for frickin' 360 degrees guys"...) system. As many programmers know (do I even need to say it on ./?), base 2, 8, and 16 can become second nature pretty quickly with some practice and application.

What about the Pirahã?

[settrans]

The notion that primates are genetically predisposed to have mathematical ability is tenuous. Why should we believe there is some neural circuitry designed explicitly for math? First of all, all studies teaching non-human primates to count involve extensive training of the primates; it doesn't just "click" for them. This would suggest that it is a struggle for them to learn the concept of counting and mathematics. (Of course it doesn't help that TFA is extremely light on the gory details of the methodology and results of the study.)

Secondly, the Pirahã people of Amazonia do not have numbers or counting. Professor Everett, despite months of instruction, was unable to make any progress in teaching them how to count. The Pirahã themselves were highly motivated learners, as they didn't want to be ripped off in trade by visiting merchants, but nevertheless, they had no success in learning the most basic concepts of math. Indeed the Pirahã language has no numerals, and is claimed to have no quantifiers, either.

Relevant readings:
Everett, D.L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46, 621-646.
Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W.T. (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (in press). The components of language: What's specific to language, and What's specific to humans? In M.H. Christiansen, C. Collins & S. Edelman (Eds.), Language universals. New York: Oxford University Press.

Re:What about the Pirahã?

[svunt]

Did you just add footnotes to actually back up your claim on a slashdot discussion? *rubs eyes* You're going to destroy this site's reputation.

Re:What about the Pirahã?

[Frozen Void]

these were non-numbered footnotes so they don't count.

Re:binary

[mike260]

There actually are 11 kinds of people - one kind doesn't get the joke, one kind does, and the other nine are sick to death of hearing it trotted out at every bloody opportunity.

Re:binary

[marcansoft]

Well, there are 11 kinds of people, those who understand unary, and those who don't.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Base?

[cheater512]

There was one which used that system but it died out after the first generation. ;)

Re:Base?

[Yoozer]

Most geeks will however have trouble with base 3.

Re:Base?

[TheLink]

Nah the Mayan probably wore open toed sandals ;).

Re:binary

[Anpheus]

No such thing as 'base 1.'

You're thinking of Peano arithmetic. (Defined by nought, 0, and the successor function, S, and a few other axioms. You define 1 as "0S" and 2 as "0SS", etc.)

Re:binary

[JustOK]

Its true that there are two types of people:
1) those that can infer and extrapolate from incomplete data