Slashdot Mirror
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."
My brain has a fine-tuned preference for the number 'one'.
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.
And those who can't count.
Demented But Determined.
# 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
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.
The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
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.
"When I wake up in the morning I piss cryptographic excellence." - Bruce Schneier
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.
There, fixed that for you.
Most geeks will however have trouble with base 3.
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.)
Its true that there are two types of people:
1) those that can infer and extrapolate from incomplete data
rewriting history since 2109