Is Math A Built In Language? Are you born with it

[anwiii 17]

@ AnwiiI don't think it's ridiculous to think that a forest born human being "Alpha" wouldn't know that 1 orange plus two oranges gives him three oranges.

wow. really? at what age? and what would be the importance or significance that math be built in for this forest born human being? also, what else would this forest born human know because he was born knowing something as you are trying to imply?

[Okara KAmi 0]

The point of my argument was that Math isn't so much an object that you "learn" when it comes to simple arithmetics, but a logic that your brain is able to develop. But if you're insistent on examples:

 

Proceedings B's recent research on baby chicks_

Proceedings B is a biological institute by the way.

Here was the case:

"Newly hatched domestic chicks were reared with five identical objects. On days 3 or 4, chicks underwent free-choice tests in which sets of three and two of the five original objects disappeared (either simultaneously or one by one), each behind one of two opaque identical screens. Chicks spontaneously inspected the screen occluding the larger set (experiment 1). Results were confirmed under conditions controlling for continuous variables (total surface area or contour length; experiment 2). In the third experiment, after the initial disappearance of the two sets (first event, FE), some of the objects were visibly transferred, one by one, from one screen to the other (second event, SE). Thus, computation of a series of subsequent additions or subtractions of elements that appeared and disappeared, one by one, was needed in order to perform the task successfully. Chicks spontaneously chose the screen, hiding the larger number of elements at the end of the SE, irrespective of the directional cues provided by the initial (FE) and final (SE) displacements. Results suggest impressive proto-arithmetic capacities in the young and relatively inexperienced chicks of this precocial species."

- Source

 

According to the case study, newborn chicks have fundamental arithmetic awareness.

A chick. A baby chicken with a brain nowhere near as capable of the functions that a human one is.

Why did I use a reference to Animal math capabilities? Well because the top Biological schools of our time don't really have the license to test their theories on barbaric/uncivilized human beings.

 

Now humans.

What you're saying, Anwii, is that a fundamental human being can not understand, or develop and understanding, in Math.

I think that's a pretty blatant gap and logic, because if it was impossible to understand math where you hadn't before, then we wouldn't have math today. Under the assumption that Aliens didn't come to the Earth and give our forefathers the knowledge of Math to be bestowed upon the world, it is safe to assume that we understood the basics of Mathematics, which allowed us to proceed into higher order sciences.

 

Let's look at various pieces of our history that indicates that Arithmetics was understood by our kind, without a math teacher and a chalkboard present.

Ishango Bone: I'm sure you've learned about it History class. African bone made of a baboon leg I believe. Was used to tally up numbers. What does that mean? An awareness of quantity. It means that humans could tell that having one orange, and another orange, means we have two oranges. Basic addition, and an organized way to store these numbers, were amongst us a very long time ago. How long ago? The Ishango Bone dates to about 8000bc.

 

But then you might argue, 8000bc artifacts in pseudo-civilized tribes doesn't represent a true "barbaric" human. And then we might run into the fact that not a lot of tests in our age are sanctioned on "uneducated" test sample human beings. But if the fact that we HAVE math at all, doesn't convince you that at various points, Math was able to be understood by people who did not have it before them, doesn't convince you. Then maybe the fact that a chick with less than 1/20th of our brain size can recognize simple proto-arithmetics will seal the deal. But maybe you're still not convinced that if you took 3 million babies and put them all into a forest, 20 years later they wouldn't be able to understand any logic-oriented arithmetics. Then have a look at this:

 

"A German team of neurobiologists has found that rhesus macaques can engage in abstract mathematical reasoning using specific brain cells dedicated to the comprehension of math rules and relationships.

 

The finding could provide insight into the neurology behind human ability to comprehend much more complex mathematics, German scientists said.

 

"Even simple mathematical operations are highly abstract mental operations on quantities that are governed by overarching concepts and principles," explained study co-author Andreas Nieder, a professor in the department of animal physiology at the University of Tubingen's Institute of Neurobiology. "Monkeys can adopt abstract mathematical rules, and they can switch between them."

 

"That means they understand very fundamental, non-symbolic mathematical principles, such as 'greater than' and 'less than'," Neider added. His team traced this ability to neurons in the prefrontal cortex region of the primate brain -- an area that appears to be devoted to encoding the basic rules of math... [cont]"

- Source

 

Monkeys have fundamental arithmetic capability. Neurobiologists are making the connection from there, to how human beings are capable of Math as well.

I wouldn't think that our inbuilt ability to grasp logic and arithmetics would be brought so heavily into question, your lack of faith in our kind is disturbing~

[anwiii 17]

that was an interesting post, but unfortunately it is off topic. we aren't talking about baby chicks or people who have evovled to understand math where it was handed down to future generations. we are talking about if human beings have math built in to them at birth. we weren't even talking about primates.what the original topic starter was hinting at was that math is needed for human survival and we are born with a natural instict to understand math...even the most basic math. the only person who has come close to even showing a shred of evidence is biker man. he only knows what he reads though and he went so far as to say that what he read is evidence. for me, i have to question what i read about when he posted the link. although somewhat convincing, i am not convinced at all. i think more research should be done on it. if people want to spend more money on things that don't matter.i would like to know how math is needed for human survival. but i think we need to discuss what human survival is and what the purpose of a human race is to begin with without really diving too deep in to science or religion because then i could see this thread becoming more off topic.so my whole arguement will stand where i believe math is NOT needed for human survival. so if that is true, then why would math be built in to us? other species have things built in that aren't learned or taught, and the natural insticts that are built in from birth are needed for their survival. but we aren't talking about other species. we are talking about human beings.

[Okara KAmi 0]

*points to topic starter post*

 

"Do you think math is a language that we are all born with?

I mean look at it like this: Math is always math regardless of whether you have the ability to speak it or write it.

You know that 1 group of stones is large than another group of stones. That is math.

Native american indians hunted areas of buffalo that were in greater numbers because they knew their chances of getting more kills were more likely than hunting a smaller pack. That is math.

 

A plant forms in space and is round, that is math. A circle or sphere is the path of least resistance or most efficient use of space. That is math.

 

I believe we are all born with a built in knowledge of math, at least the basics, addition and subtraction.

 

Do you agree?"

 

He never said, in the topic starter, that mathematics was necessary or was in some how relevant to our survival. He said that there are traces of mathematical logic in ancient history, as well as prehistory. That's all he said. That makes this topic about:

"Is it true? Do we have a sense of Math before we're TAUGHT it?"

If you're looking for why Math = Survival for human beings, you're off topic. (Though that seems like a plausible spin off from here...) Not all species are designed specifically with parts pivotal to their survival. Proof? We have eyes, ears, legs, hands, tongues. We need NONE of the above to survive. I won't even get into the extra liver, the appendix, the frontal lobe of your brain and a few more nifty creepy things that we are born with... without needing them to survive. I can understand the tendency to think that if we are "able" of something, then we must need it somehow. But all species are born with a -HUGE- variety of mutational properties that may not be relevant to their current situation, in accordance to their gene pool.

 

Also, I explained why I used other, lesser logically developed species (chicks and apes), as part of my proof. You know... since in the civilized world, we don't really have too many test subjects. Public Rep calamity and all... But nonetheless, if the connection between arithmetics in the lesser developed baby chicken and the obvious notion that we would start out with similar grasps can not be made, I guess we can look at the flip side of the coin.

 

I'd like to see why you think Math ISN'T present in us in its most fundamental form before we're taught it. Do you have any evidence of why a baby might prefer two spoons of fudge rather than one? Do you have an explanation as to how we get scared of crowds as children, but are fine with single people? Quantitative awareness, if you would permit, is the root of all math. Understanding that things around us are in numbers, and some numbers are larger than others, while others are of equal magnitude, is how Math came about. I have yet to see proof in this topic about any occurrence in recorded history where any human civilization dating before public education was a norm, was NOT aware of numbers, inequalities, and so on. I can only speak from what I know, which happens to be remarkably small, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there WAS a race out there that didn't care if they are 1 buffalo or 17.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Okara KAmi (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

the reason why i stated that the topic infers that math would be a necessity for survival is that most everything we are born with is necessary for our survival. you did mention why we are born with an appendix. that is a good question and will remain a mystery for a long time. the reason it IS a mysetery is because what i said previously is TRUE. 99.99% of what we are born with is necessary for our survival. i know what the original topic starter stated. next time, you need to use the quote tags per the rules of the forum. and as you can plainly see, i disagree with most of what the topic starter had to say. there is a fine line in what can be considered "math" and what is common sense or logical. sorry. noticing one pile bigger than another pile is not math in my opinion. neither is the scenario of why a child gets more scared around a larger group of people than a smaller group. that is not math.you try to give an example of how math surounds us. i agree. it's all around. but that doesn't mean that math is a built in language in human beings.yes, the real question at hand is "do we know math before we are taught it". that question also means "do we know math before we are able to teach our own selves math". and this is where it gets tricky. you can't compare an ancient civilization that had the ability to teach itself basic math concepts. you have to imagine a scenerio where a baby was born and abandoned on a deserted island where there is no outside influence to learn math. there are many outside influences that could affect that child growing up. the original topic starter used stones as an example. take away the stones as an influence to the case study and what do you have? no more math regarding stones. take away all objects that could be related in doing any sort of basic math so we can get straight to point in answering this questions of whether or not we have the ability to understand even the basics of math without being taught it or influenced by it in any way, shape or form.nice try with the eyes, ears, legs, hands, tongues, etc to try and prove a point. you are forgetting one thing though. the less we are born with in the examples you gave, the less likely we WILL survive. plus, we are also getting to the age where people are aborting their fetus if they know the baby will be born handicapped. so you aren't really making a good point here in your examples. in fact, everything you mentioned IS necessary for our survival. sure, technology has helped people more and more with their disabilities as technology grows. even parents and other human being will be a crutch for someone who wont be able to survive on their own with a disability. take away the crutches, and you have a person who wont be able to survive at ALL on their own.you talk like other species of the animal kingdom is inferior and therefore used those species as an example. you can't do that because other species are born with natural insticts and even extra senses which is needed for their own survival. we cannot possibly do what some of them do when they are born with things that we aren't born with. but you insist in stating that this is part of your "proof". when i can give you examples where YOU would be inferior to THEM in some areas.i baby liking fudge has nothing to do with math. a little kid lost in a crowd and is afraid because he is unaware of where his mom or dad is, is NOT math.i don't have any proof on my side. but i do know that we are born with things necessary for our survival. we are born with things we need. so that is why i asked the question of why we need math for survival. that would be a natural ability we are born with and i CAN show proof of many experts that will disagree with your reasoning that humans are born with any natural instincts whether related to "survival" or not. i put it in quotes because i can now see by what you call your "proof" that we disagree on even THAT definition.now i will give my own example using the topic starter example that you agree with. suppose there are two piles of stones. one pile had 101 pieces. the other had 100. the person who is concluding which pile is bigger is going to say that they are equal. now this is MY proof that the original example is not math but deductive reasoning. they are doing absolutely NO MATH to determine which pile is bigger or smaller. just because the stones are in what WE call #'s, doesn't mean there is math involved to determine which pile is bigger. sorry. and yea, i don't think the indians were too picky about buffalo whether there were a lot of them in a heard, or 2-3. they would kill them none the less. but indians do know math. they were taught about #'s and how to use them to their advantage. this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original question though. the question wasn't, "are humans able to understand math concepts over time and generations and able to pass that knowledge on to the younger generations"

[Bikerman 2]

"A plant forms in space and is round, that is math. A circle or sphere is the path of least resistance or most efficient use of space. That is math."

But is it, I wonder? The planet [sic] is not round...it approximates a human construct called a sphere, but does a sphere exist in nature? Certainly there are good approximations, but an exact sphere is a mathematical construct. The same would apply to other geometrical figures.

I'd like to see why you think Math ISN'T present in us in its most fundamental form before we're taught it. Do you have any evidence of why a baby might prefer two spoons of fudge rather than one? Do you have an explanation as to how we get scared of crowds as children, but are fine with single people? Quantitative awareness, if you would permit, is the root of all math. Understanding that things around us are in numbers, and some numbers are larger than others, while others are of equal magnitude, is how Math came about. I have yet to see proof in this topic about any occurrence in recorded history where any human civilization dating before public education was a norm, was NOT aware of numbers, inequalities, and so on. I can only speak from what I know, which happens to be remarkably small, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there WAS a race out there that didn't care if they are 1 buffalo or 17.

The question I ask is whether the perception is of 17 buffalo or not. Once we learn symbology then we assign categories, but is that something we do 'inately'? Quantitive awareness depends to some extent on categorisation. We have to agree that A,B and C are of type X before we can go on to ask how many of type X we have.....

[Bikerman 2]

posted in error

Edited September 14, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Okara KAmi 0]

nice try with the eyes' date=' ears, legs, hands, tongues, etc to try and prove a point. you are forgetting one thing though. the less we are born with in the examples you gave, the less likely we WILL survive. plus, we are also getting to the age where people are aborting their fetus if they know the baby will be born handicapped. so you aren't really making a good point here in your examples. in fact, everything you mentioned IS necessary for our survival. sure, technology has helped people more and more with their disabilities as technology grows. even parents and other human being will be a crutch for someone who wont be able to survive on their own with a disability. take away the crutches, and you have a person who wont be able to survive at ALL on their own.[/quote']

If we're going to separate animals from humans because of the advantage an animal has with its animal "instincts" then we have to be equally considerate to the presence of "technology" and "civilization" in human life. In that regard, still, the aforementioned organic assets are not necessary. I would think that you're leaning a bit too deep into Lamarck-ean theory of evolution, where everything that we have now is what we need, and was brought about because the need had, at some point, come into relevance. I agree that a large degree of our current definition of Math is superfluous in the study of "inbuilt Mathematical awareness," but that doesn't mean we can disregard early awareness of inequality, magnitude, and chance, as "too primitive to be Math." I used to term "Logic" earlier here for that same reason. Because we've come so deep into the study of sciences that the concept of counting buffaloes might indeed seem distant from Math. But that is just a difference in our perspectives. I think that awareness of quantity is a sign of Mathematical logic, as opposed to what might otherwise seem to be a barbaric ignorance to the presence of different amounts of different things around us.

 

yes' date=' the real question at hand is "do we know math before we are taught it". that question also means "do we know math before we are able to teach our own selves math". and this is where it gets tricky. you can't compare an ancient civilization that had the ability to teach itself basic math concepts. you have to imagine a scenario where a baby was born and abandoned on a deserted island where there is no outside influence to learn math. there are many outside influences that could affect that child growing up. [/quote']

So you're saying a baby chick can tell the presence of "addition" and "subtraction" of yellow balls from one pile to the other, and identify which one is of larger quantity just by knowing that "some" were added to it, but a human child could not? You attribute the awareness of this rudimentary degree of logic to Animal Instinct?

 

I would have to cite my previous assertion that we wouldn't have Math today, if people couldn't understand it from ground zero to begin with. A lot of bricks in a pile don't magically make buildings, a lot of ice doesn't magically make sculptures, so you can't quite say that we have Math today because we "taught" it to ourselves, without admitting that at the very beginning, we could understand it to begin with.

 

Examples of How Mathematical Logic has been Relevant?

> Hunter Gatherers moved from region to region based off of the total population of animals there, understanding that even though they don't capture "every" animal that they try to, in a place with more animals, their chance of having a steady inflow of meat is greater.

> Early Neanderthals in the France-ish region survived periodic climate changes that their ancestors died from due to the awareness of temperature pattern and readiness to foresee the change in climate before the harsh of winter hit them.

> Mesopotamia relied on a token system to represent value.

 

It's a difficult thing to do, to analyze what role an abstract entity like the "awareness" of Mathematics plays in our survival, but I'm willing to believe that without the "ability" to quantify and analyze different categories with different numbers of occurrences, we wouldn't be as far as we are (of course).

 

@ Bikerman. That wasn't my quote, it was the topic starters.

Perfect mathematical ideas rarely ever occur, like true random, a straight line, or a perfect circle. But I'm not going to get into the adherence to mathematical logic in the universe, because you can open a clock with screw head or a Philip's head. Being able to use one doesn't make it the only way to open the clock... in my opion. [/liberalheresy]

 

now i will give my own example using the topic starter example that you agree with. suppose there are two piles of stones. one pile had 101 pieces. the other had 100. the person who is concluding which pile is bigger is going to say that they are equal. now this is MY proof that the original example is not math but deductive reasoning.

 

Being unable to tell the difference between 100 stones and 101 stones proves as much about human mathematics as telling the difference between 1000 drops of water, and 1001. Negligibility and human error are aspects of the physical world, and they don't undermine the mathematics behind it. 101 stones > 100 stones. 1001 drops > 1000 drops. Saying that a human can't tell the difference means the human wasn't given enough preparatory conditions to develop a more accurate answer, and doesn't mean the human himself makes all logical decisions based on deduction rather than awareness of inequality.

 

But on the same note, let's look at some definitions of "Math"

"mathematics: a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement" -wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns, formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions." -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATH

 

Those are the two top most Google Define definitions of the word. It doesn't help the partition in our definitions much, but I'm going to stick with my stance that fundamental math (which I'm saying we all can recognize) deals with the theory of quantities, inequalities, and so on and so forth.

[Bikerman 2]

@ Bikerman. That wasn't my quote, it was the topic starters. Perfect mathematical ideas rarely ever occur, like true random, a straight line, or a perfect circle. But I'm not going to get into the adherence to mathematical logic in the universe, because you can open a clock with screw head or a Philip's head. Being able to use one doesn't make it the only way to open the clock... in my opion. [/liberalheresy]

Ah...my fault.
On the general topic of inate maths, we certainly have mathematical abilities from around birth. Being able to touch something involves fairly complex 3-D transformations & being able to catch something involves ballistics calculations.

[anwiii 17]

ok. first of all, you aren't understanding my reasoning why we cannot compare other animals to humans. you gave the example of comparing. all i did was try to reason that we cannot do that in this discussion since it would be irrelevant. yes, they are inferior in some ways, but so are WE inferior in other ways. i hope you understand that concept so i don't have to go and list examples. i am just assuming you understand this point. in no way, however, did i ever state that a baby chick can tell the presense of addition and subtraction. i don't even know how you came to understand that that is what i said.i agree with you that math wouldn't be math if nobody was ever able to understand it from ground zero. but it can be LEARNED from ground zero. although it can be learned from ground zero, it doesn't mean math is built in to us. all it means is that math surrounds us and people are always trying to figure out and define what surrounds us. math is no different.you are still using examples of what could have been taught for decades and centuries over time. you give absolutely NO observation to how that relates to math being built in to all humans from birth. you get so off topic with your examples. just becuase we know things, DOESN'T mean why are born with that knowledge. you use a building that requires bricks. you even used the indians again as an example and buffalo where hunting is a LEARNED experience for humans. yes, hunting sometimes involves numbers, but that doesn't mean we were born with that knowledge. forgive me if i don't quote all your examples.....but they don't even show any evidence that math is built in to humans from birth. i used the example of stones as an exagerated example so let's make it less exagerated. since what you are saying is that math is mostly VISUALLY built in to humans. take one pile of stones that has 500 equal pieces and another pile which has 450 equal pieces. i can pretty much assume that most humans would be able to tell which pile is bigger, but some WONT. would that prove or disprove your theory?Being unable to tell the difference between 100 stones and 101 stones proves as much about human mathematics as telling the difference between 1000 drops of water, and 1001. Negligibility and human error are aspects of the physical world, and they don't undermine the mathematics behind it. 101 stones > 100 stones. 1001 drops > 1000 drops. Saying that a human can't tell the difference means the human wasn't given enough preparatory conditions to develop a more accurate answer, and doesn't mean the human himself makes all logical decisions based on deduction rather than awareness of inequality. 1+1=2! not 1+1=2 SOMETIMES depending on how you look at it. but that is what you are concluding since some people will see things different than other people.ok. i like how you broke in to the definition of math, but you really failed to prove a point that EVERY HUMAN that is not "disabled" in any way is able to calculate fundamental math if there are absolutely NO outside influences.now, let's break this down in to simple terms because i am still failing to see what you yourself consider fundamental math. be carefull because i just might show proof that students that have even studied fundamental math in the second grade have failed their tests. so i am sure your definition has NOTHING to do with addition, subtraction, division, or multiplication...but some other form of fundamental math. i would just like to know what this fundemental math is we are now talking about. also, it can't even be visual math since i gave an example to discredit the visual part. but you are saying that math can have logic to it? i say math does not have any logic to it. math has proofs...even elementary math. the visual part or the logic part is what surounds the actual math. the design we can actually see. i think you are getting confused between the two and combining them both thinking both have to do with math.bikerman- being able to touch something means humans have mathmatical abilites from birth? get real.....

[Bikerman 2]

bikerman- being able to touch something means humans have mathmatical abilites from birth? get real.....

It is known that babies have a 'grab' instinct from very early - from the point of birth, if not before - and they will seek to grab and hold a finger or other part of a parent in the very early stages after birth. It is suggested that this is an evolutionary adaptation from our tree-climbing days, and this can be illustrated when the baby perceives a danger of falling - the 'grab' reflex is strong and instant.

The implications are quite profound : grabbing a finger placed in the palm is not a particularly taxing problem, but working out when to grab is. Having worked on some vision-control computer systems I know some of the issues and complexities involved. How does the baby know it is in danger of falling? The available data is limited - some feedback from the inner-ear, but not much at so young an age; visual clues, but again pretty limited in very young babies, since they cannot focus properly; feedback from muscles and nerves would be the final input. Already there is some serious processing going on to work out when it is necessary to grab - and this is hours after birth, before the baby has chance to experiment by trial and error.

As the baby develops it learns to grab objects in free-space. This could be reaching out for a toy, reaching for a parent's hand. This involves a whole series of calculations, even if unconscious. There are distances to be factored, as well as movement in space. There are estimates to be made (of reach, distance, speed) and there is often some element of prediction/anticipation required. All this is going on in the brain without the baby being conscious of it. It is certainly maths and, what is more, I would be prepared to bet a substantial amount that you can't even do the maths necessary for a task as simple as catching a ball now, as an adult.
The child does it fairly naturally.

Watch a group of girls doing a skipping or ball game. Watch a juggler. The mathematics is obvious and high level. Differential calculus is the tools that we would use to tackle this sort of problem (involving multiple objects moving at different veolocities and accelerations) but the brain just needs a bit of practice in most cases and away you go.

[anwiii 17]

hmmm....interesting, bikerman.... you are the only one to give minor facts that relate to the topic here. part of your so called facts though is to presume babies have a natural instinct related to past generations and evolution. i wouldn't call it evidence, but it is certainly something to think about....i have to sober up a little before i give my full opinion here

[Bikerman 2]

hmmm....interesting, bikerman.... you are the only one to give minor facts that relate to the topic here. part of your so called facts though is to presume babies have a natural instinct related to past generations and evolution. i wouldn't call it evidence, but it is certainly something to think about....
i have to sober up a little before i give my full opinion here

It is not merely a presumption, it is supported by good evidence. Exactly the same grab response can be observed in tree dwelling/using primates such as chimps, and various monkey species. Interestingly a baby also has the same reflex in the feet, although obviously they are evolved to a point where that is of little practical use.
If you have never tried it then you might be surprised just how strongly a newly born baby will grasp a finger placed in its palm.
The evolutionary origin is also supported by other reflexes/behaviours present in babies. One such is the parachute reflex. If you watch a baby falling forwards it will instinctively throw its arms out wide. This is counter intuitive for land-dwelling species - you would expect the baby to instinctively cover the face/head region. It makes sense for an arboreal species, however, because it increases drag, slows down the rate of descent, and gives the baby a better chance of surviving a fall from height.