Re: Language?
From: John Roth (newsgroups_at_jhrothjr.com)
Date: 11/13/04
- Next message: Ed Conrad: "An OPEN LETTER to Larry King."
- Previous message: John Roth: "Re: Language?"
- In reply to: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Language?"
- Next in thread: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Language?"
- Reply: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Language?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:11:45 -0600
"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cn31c5$5be$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <10p9ujd74d4ab70@news.supernews.com>,
> "John Roth" <newsgroups@jhrothjr.com> writes:
> |>
> |> See above. I don't believe that learning mathematics
> |> *creates* new "representation areas". On the contrary,
> |> it populates existing representation areas with new
> |> representations. There's a good deal of evidence that
> |> people who are good at mathematics (as distinct from
> |> applying mathematics) have variant brain wiring from
> |> birth. It's not created: it's inherited, it's present in a
> |> small fraction of the population, and that small fraction
> |> is overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) male.
>
> I think that is wrong. Yes, ability is congenital (NOT simply
> inherited), but learning at the level I am referring to is much
> more than learning simply new conceptual groupings.
I wish I had the refs, but I'm not an academic so I don't
have built-up reference files for a lot of stuff. This is, I
believe, data from hard-core brain studies. fMRI and
similar stuff. I'm well aware of the political implications
of what I said in certain areas, so I didn't simply say it
off the cuff.
>
> Now, it is possible that some of those "representation areas"
> are at a much higher level than mere concepts, in which case
> your point may be right, but then the term is grossly misleading.
When I say "representation area" I mean a physical part
of the brain that maintains some kind of map that can be
measured by appropriate instruments.
>
> |> > Experience is that this is almost indescribable to people who
> |> > have not developed the concepts, including mathematicians who
> |> > apply the rules without having a 'feel' for the topic.
> |>
> |> Exactly. You either have the brain areas required for
> |> those representations, or you don't. If you don't,
> |> no amount of study is going to make up for the missing
> |> feature, or for the feature that's simply wired "wrong."
>
> No, no, no. Study is EXACTLY what is needed. Some people find
> it easier than others, but the matter is most definitely learnt.
> I can tell you when I learnt certain ways of thinking, and am now
> unable to think of how I can ever have thought differently.
That's true. You had to learn how to speak, too, but you
don't remember the process because you were much too
young at the time. I don't remember learning to read because
I learned it several years before going to school (much to the
chagrin of my teachers).
This doesn't mean that there aren't specific brain areas
involved with speech, because there are, and having to
learn mathematics as an adult doesn't mean that there
aren't specific brain areas that are being programmed by
the learning process - if they're present in the particular
individual.
> |> Well, I can have a much richer representation, but that's all
> |> from my imagination. When I let it, the horse is a chestnut
> |> with white stockings on two legs, the barn is red and so
> |> forth. However, none of that was in the sentence; it was
> |> all detail supplied from memory.
> |>
> |> I had to work fairly hard to learn to avoid supplying details
> |> that aren't there in the original utterance, and it still
> |> trips me up on occasion.
>
> That's not what I mean. I mean cross-linkages and inferences
> that are there in the utterance - for me - but where many other
> people don't receive them. When I explain, many of them realise
> that they follow, but can't understand why I regarded them as
> part of the statement. And sometimes conversely.
I'm not sure what you mean, or rather I've got several
possibilities for what you mean.
Back when I was studying NLP, I went through a number
of exercises to clarify what was actually said and distinguish
it from what I had added, whether as memory, filling in
open conceptual slots, inference or whatever.
> I think that you will find that the same is true for 'primitive'
> peoples and westernised ones, and was probably much more so for
> earlier humans. How much thinking, language and genetics have
> influenced each other is something I can't guess - but I am
> certain that it is not a simple matter.
Oh, is it ever complex. That's why I'm focusing on something
that looks like it's pure language mapping into a built-in
part of the hardware. That lets me bypass a great deal
of complexity, while at the same time looking at something
that is primitive enough that it might be a quite early step
in the evolution of language.
John Roth
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
- Next message: Ed Conrad: "An OPEN LETTER to Larry King."
- Previous message: John Roth: "Re: Language?"
- In reply to: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Language?"
- Next in thread: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Language?"
- Reply: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Language?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
