Re: Lacking Concept Of Numbers >= 3
From: Roger L. Bagula (rlbtftn_at_netscape.net)
Date: 08/22/04
- Next message: Roger L. Bagula: "Re: A functional measure of roughness"
- Previous message: Bruce Ikenaga: "Re: division by zero"
- In reply to: Leroy Quet: "Lacking Concept Of Numbers >= 3"
- Next in thread: Narasimham G.L.: "Re: Lacking Concept Of Numbers >= 3"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:18:52 GMT
Language without cardinality concepts seems to impede
intellectual progress.
This sends the implication that the Neanderthals may not have
had an adequate language for them to progress to
quantitative conceptualizations and even art.
This raises the question:
Category theory may be a step backward?
Since it takes mathematics to a place where counting is
forgotten?
Leroy Quet wrote:
> Did you hear about this Amazon tribe, the Piraha?:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040820083420.htm
>
> Their language lacks words for any specific numbers >= 3.
>
> Even though they supposedly are generally intelligent and understand
> such mathematical concepts such as catagory, they cannot easily grasp
> the idea of specific integers much above 3.
>
> And unlike Piraha adults, the Piraha children did not have difficulty
> understanding larger numbers.
>
>
> Makes me wonder how much of what WE know ("know") is only a direct
> consequence of our language and experience and genetics.
>
> thanks,
> Leroy Quet
-- Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel: 619-5610814 : URL : http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn URL : http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/
- Next message: Roger L. Bagula: "Re: A functional measure of roughness"
- Previous message: Bruce Ikenaga: "Re: division by zero"
- In reply to: Leroy Quet: "Lacking Concept Of Numbers >= 3"
- Next in thread: Narasimham G.L.: "Re: Lacking Concept Of Numbers >= 3"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
