On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:41:37 Tom Wade VMS Systems wrote: ...that our brains have been proven to be "made to >>use base 10"!!! That's the essence of the research I was talking about. > >Could you cite the source of this 'proof' ? > I'm afraid I can't. This was one of the things I ran into a few years ago and I unfortunately did not have the bright idea to write the reference down. Deeply sorry, my friend. But I believe one would be able to dig this with some search engine or something. Good luck doing that though. I'm deeply sorry if I can't be of more help.
In any case I do remember that this was welcomed by the scientific establishment and hailed with great fanfarre because of the kind of conclusion it was boasting. >The brain is an incredibly complicated device. Given the diverse set of >languages that the brain can handle 'naturally', the difference between >decimal and duodecimal arithmetic is insignificant in comparison. > Of course! But please note that, *like computers*, despite such complexity and ease with which we can handle other stuff, it would NOT preclude that its *circuitry logic* would be decimal-based!!! And that's apparently what that research piece was all about, i.e. to find out what kind of "base logic" is behind our brain when it comes to its math abilities. >>Our brain circuitry is very much like a computer's *in >>concept*! > >I disagree. The conceptual circuitry of a computer is very simple. It is a >linear device that executes a set of discrete instructions one after another. >It works in black-and-white. 0 is off, 1 is on. Of course, but what would our brain's be??? That is the question! Apparenlty we are not like computers with 0's and 1's, but "wired" differently. And scientists are not any closer to arrive at that point of understanding yet, unfortunately. ... >Since we evolved with ten fingers, base 10 arithmetic would suggest itself >to early innumerate people. Perhaps we may have to stop right here and now. Since I do NOT believe that we 'evolved' to arrive at our current 'ten fingers' scenario, discussing it any further would probably be too difficult. Therefore, we probably should just agree to disagree. > Once this convention became established, that >is what people would use. Again, this thing was much deeper than just convention, Tom. That's the whole point. Scientists were investigating what kind of "design" was behind our math abilities and base 10 as a "circuitry logic" appeared to have been a reasonable conclusion they arrived at, what can I say?... > Given the dearth of communities of isolated >people with a different number of digits, it is difficult to get empirical >evidence of this link. ? I've honestly never heard of any 'evidence' of a 'link' existing to previous "ancestries" that would be different from '10 fingers'! But even if we assume there has been, the fact of the matter is: our *current* homo sapiens form DOES seem to show efficiency at base 10 systems. And that is all that matters to me, IMHO, concerning this debate. How it was or ever been is for anthropologists and other branches of science to discuss with very little impact on what PRESENTLY is! Agreed? At least this much? > However, any attempt to 'prove' that people would >be less efficient at non-decimal bases would be like proving that French >is not as easy to speak as English if the sample consisted solely of people >who have been using English up to then. > Well... If you'd like to propose such hypotheses, please be my guest and submit a course of action, Tom. I'd probably side with you that perhaps the results would be inconclusive. However, if some people have derived the sort of conclusion I reported earlier why not give it credit or at least give it due consideration? What if they were right after all? ... >Essentially this is saying "if God intended us to use octal arithmetic, he >would have given us eight fingers" which is reminiscent of the old adage >about whether God intended us to fly given the absence of aerodynamic >appendages. Both could be countered by the observation that if God had >intended us to stay on the ground, and be limited to decimal natural numbers, >he would not have given us brains capable of inventing things like the >aerofoil and the square root of minus one :-) > NO, no, of course not, Tom. These are not the same thing. Please realize that being able to use our potential to develop ourselves beyond what we are "naturally" capable of doing have nothing to do with whether we should or should not use our *NEW* found "powers" or progress (or even old for that matter)!!! If we're now able to count in 16, 12, or whatever, fine. But this would not change the fact that perhaps we should stick with our strengths for some applications! Reasonable? In other words, it's obviously not because we're "good" at base 10 that we should NOT TRY OTHER SKILLS! If they'd suit us or be useful, wonderful. Therefore, I don't think we're disagreeing here, honestly. >I would have thought that the higher use of whole numbers as opposed to >fractions and decimals would be more 'efficient' for our brains (which is >why working in millimeters is easier than working in inches), which would >make duodecimal better as it would have more integral divisors. However, >this is conjecture. What matters is experimental evidence, which is why >I'm interested in seeing this research. >... Great! And I deeply admire your willingness to delve deeper into this subject. I just regret not being able to give you more references or something about this fascinating subject. However, in the meantime, much still needs to be studied and done about understanding our marvelous human body! With high respect, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
