"Malcolm"  wrote in
news:ccv9vt$171r$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> 
> "Michael Ragland"  wrote
>>
>> This is a "very" long article which traces the history of math and
>> argues it is largely responsible for current alienation in
>> civilization and from our human nature. Since "numbers"
and math are
>> often used on s.b.e. I was curious to see what other posters thought
>> of the thesis. I don't agree with everything the author says and he
>> did seem a little touched but at the same time I think he presents
>> his case. 
>>
> I don't think most of the article is really topical (yes, maths did
> evolve and continues to evolve, but we are interested in biological
> evolution). One topical point he makes is that hunter-gatherers had
> little use for number. However every language has some number terms,
> and it would be interesting to see what is the lowest that each naming
> system goes up to. English peters out in the trillions (1000 billion),
> though of course we have technical terms that go much beyond that.

I have seen a study of counting terms across languages. Unfortunately I 
can't remember the source, but the lowest named number as I recall is 
actually quite low in a number of languages - like less than twenty.

 
> It is amazing and philosophically interesting that human are capable
> of doing mathematics, though we do it very inefficiently. For instance
> a long division can be completed by a machine costing a few dollars in
> microseconds, whilst for humans it is a test of intelligence, and
> steadily drilled at primary school.
 
> They conclude
> "When the world and its thought (Levi-Strauss and Chomsky come
> immediately to mind) reach a condition that is increasingly
> mathematized and empty (where computers are widely touted as capable
> of feelings and even of life itself), the beginnings of this bleak
> journey, including the origins of the number concept, demand
> comprehension.  It may be that this inquiry is essential to save us
> and our humanness." 
 
> I think this is plain wrong. Non-computer programmers enjoy science
> fiction about intelligent robots because they don't understand the
> problems involved. There is no consensus amongst though inthe know
> about whether genuine AI is inherently possible or not, but everyone
> agrees that we don't even know how to set about building something
> like R2D2. 


I agree. Many people think computers are intelligent because they can do 
difficult numerical problems. They are apparently unaware that even with 
millions of hours of programming on the fastest computers available, 
computers cannot begin to handle language, while even severely retarded 
humans can converse. 


Yours,

Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/13/04 6:09:44 AM