Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    23 Jun '20 09:551 edit
    This is a weird finding for the study of human brain function;

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-insight-awareness.html
  2. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    23 Jun '20 15:271 edit
    @humy said
    This is a weird finding for the study of human brain function;

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-insight-awareness.html
    A possible reason for why RFS is unable to see or recognize numbers is that numbers by themselves are not things. A number is an abstract informing us about something... it tells us how many.
    The statement "I have a tuba" is a complete thought and doesn't require an explanation.
    However if someone says "I have 8" the question "8 what?" naturally arises. The statement "I have 8" is an incomplete thought.

    What if instead of showing RFS the number '8' he was shown a picture of 8 faces. Would he be able to determine how many faces he was seeing?
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jun '20 04:36
    @lemon-lime said
    A possible reason for why RFS is unable to see or recognize numbers is that numbers by themselves are not things. A number is an abstract informing us about something... it tells us how many.
    The statement "I have a tuba" is a complete thought and doesn't require an explanation.
    However if someone says "I have 8" the question "8 what?" naturally arises. The statement "I ...[text shortened]... r '8' he was shown a picture of 8 faces. Would he be able to determine how many faces he was seeing?
    Lemon Lime shows ignorance of mathematics.

    "numbers by themselves are not things"
    --Lemon Lime

    FALSE in mathematics.

    Here's how natural numbers can be defined in ZF set theory.

    "In Zermelo–Fraenkel (ZF) set theory, the natural numbers are defined recursively by letting 0 = {} be the empty set and n + 1 = n ∪ {n} for each n. In this way n = {0, 1, ..., n − 1} for each natural number n. The first few numbers defined this way are:

    (RHP cannot print the mathematical symbols.)

    The set N of natural numbers is defined in this system as the smallest set containing 0 and closed under the successor function S defined by S(n) = n ∪ {n}."
    --Wikipedia
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    24 Jun '20 06:395 edits
    @duchess64 said
    Lemon Lime shows ignorance of mathematics.

    "numbers by themselves are not things"
    --Lemon Lime

    FALSE in mathematics.
    He obviously wasn't implying numbers aren't just purely mathematical 'things' as in an abstraction and you know that and are just giving your usual hateful racist anti-westerner BS propaganda rhetoric against us making you no better than those that give hateful racist anti-black rhetoric and you fool nobody here.
    I noticed from your previous posts your understanding of mathematics is nothing to brag about and DeepThought once said he thought it was "nothing special". So you are also being a hypocrite; But you are being a hypocrite anyway for calling us racist when you yourself are racist.
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    24 Jun '20 07:101 edit
    I am sure most of you have now already heard of such cases but I still find it interesting that brain damage can not only result in strange inability to see numbers but can sometimes instead lead to GREATER mathematical ability!
    Here is just one real life example of that;

    YouTube
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    24 Jun '20 07:321 edit
    [slightly off-topic]
    I wasn't specifically looking for this but I stumbled on this video that explains that the common propagated idea that we unusually only use about 10% of our brain is in fact just BS myth (which I already knew) and also explains WHY it is BS myth because it explains why that would make no evolutionary sense since there would be a huge biological cost to have a useless 90% mass of brain we don't use and natural selection would have resulted in us evolving to lose that 90% mass of brain if it was indeed not used!
    YouTube
    [/slightly off-topic]
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87234
    24 Jun '20 13:05
    @lemon-lime said
    A possible reason for why RFS is unable to see or recognize numbers is that numbers by themselves are not things. A number is an abstract informing us about something... it tells us how many.
    The statement "I have a tuba" is a complete thought and doesn't require an explanation.
    However if someone says "I have 8" the question "8 what?" naturally arises. The statement "I ...[text shortened]... r '8' he was shown a picture of 8 faces. Would he be able to determine how many faces he was seeing?
    The article implied it was something to do with the symbol. Also, he couldn't recognise faces superimposed over the number. The article doesn't say whether he can cope with a question like: "What is five plus three?", but does say that he can't read "5+3". So he's seeing the symbol, but it's being scrambled somewhere along the line. He doesn't have the same problem with letters so it's not that it is a symbol, it's specific to the symbols used to represent numbers.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    24 Jun '20 14:19
    @deepthought said
    He doesn't have the same problem with letters so it's not that it is a symbol, it's specific to the symbols used to represent numbers.
    yes, and that's the part I find really weird.
  9. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    24 Jun '20 16:471 edit
    @deepthought said
    The article implied it was something to do with the symbol. Also, he couldn't recognise faces superimposed over the number. The article doesn't say whether he can cope with a question like: "What is five plus three?", but does say that he can't read "5+3". So he's seeing the symbol, but it's being scrambled somewhere along the line. He doesn't have the same problem with letters so it's not that it is a symbol, it's specific to the symbols used to represent numbers.
    The problem seems to hinge on what the symbol represents, and not the symbol itself. If the symbol 'R' was understood to be a number and the symbol '5' a letter, the subject would likely be able to see the 5 but not the R.

    Neural pathways and processes for understanding letters and numbers are established when we are children. So it seems the inability to see symbols representing numbers is a neurological problem. It suggests the internal mental process for 'reading' symbols is somewhat different for letters and numbers, but the wild part of this is the inability to so much as see the symbols themselves.

    edit: The only thing I can think of that makes sense is that the mental processing of letters and numbers is not in the same place, or wired up in the same way. The inability to so much as see the symbols for numbers could be directly related to physical damage to a part of the brain holding that information.
  10. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    24 Jun '20 17:17
    @duchess64 said
    Lemon Lime shows ignorance of mathematics.

    "numbers by themselves are not things"
    --Lemon Lime

    FALSE in mathematics.

    Here's how natural numbers can be defined in ZF set theory.

    "In Zermelo–Fraenkel (ZF) set theory, the natural numbers are defined recursively by letting 0 = {} be the empty set and n + 1 = n ∪ {n} for each n. In this way n = {0, 1, ..., n − 1} f ...[text shortened]... set containing 0 and closed under the successor function S defined by S(n) = n ∪ {n}."
    --Wikipedia
    I have 14

    How many do you have?
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    25 Jun '20 06:28
    @humy said
    He obviously wasn't implying numbers aren't just purely mathematical 'things' as in an abstraction and you know that and are just giving your usual hateful racist anti-westerner BS propaganda rhetoric against us making you no better than those that give hateful racist anti-black rhetoric and you fool nobody here.
    I noticed from your previous posts your understanding of m ...[text shortened]... hypocrite; But you are being a hypocrite anyway for calling us racist when you yourself are racist.
    Note that the lying hateful racist troll Humy somehow claims to
    find any comment about racism iny post on pure mathematics.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    25 Jun '20 06:33
    @deepthought said
    The article implied it was something to do with the symbol. Also, he couldn't recognise faces superimposed over the number. The article doesn't say whether he can cope with a question like: "What is five plus three?", but does say that he can't read "5+3". So he's seeing the symbol, but it's being scrambled somewhere along the line. He doesn't have the same problem with letters so it's not that it is a symbol, it's specific to the symbols used to represent numbers.
    If it's only an issue of visual processing, the thread's title would be less misleading if it were
    "The man who can't see numerals."
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    25 Jun '20 11:248 edits
    @duchess64 said
    Note that the lying hateful racist troll Humy somehow claims to
    find any comment about racism iny post on pure mathematics.
    your post wasn't purposely about "pure mathematics" but rather, and we know this from what you racist rants against many other posters in previous threads hypocritically calling THOSE posters racist, a hateful racially motivated claim about Lemon Lime's "... ignorance of mathematics" (your words in that post that you imply is just only all about "pure mathematics" ) just because you think he is a 'westerner', and we all know about your racist views and rhetoric against westerners because we all have read all that BS before, and with the maths you posted that obviously most of us science experts ALREADY know about being a stupid cover for that which convinces nobody here. If he was of exactly the same race and country or origin as you and you knew it then you wouldn't have call him "... ignorance of mathematics".
    + you have demonstrated in some previous posts that your understanding of maths is nothing special and certainly nothing to brag about. My understanding of maths is ALSO nothing special and certainly nothing to brag about BUT the big difference here is that, unlike you, I do NOT pretend it is superior to yours or most people's here, let alone pretend that has something to do with race.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    25 Jun '20 14:231 edit
    @humy said
    your post wasn't purposely about "pure mathematics" but rather, and we know this from what you racist rants against many other posters in previous threads hypocritically calling THOSE posters racist, a hateful racially motivated claim about Lemon Lime's "... ignorance of mathematics" (your words in that post that you imply is just only all about "pure mathematics" ) just ...[text shortened]... it is superior to yours or most people's here, let alone pretend that has something to do with race.
    Note that the obsessed hateful racist troll Humy show derangement in attributing any racism in my post.

    Note that I wrote nothing about Lemon Lime's supposed 'race'.
    I wrote only about his ignorance.

    If Humy believes that only white people are ignorant of mathematics,
    that's his racist stereotype, not mine.
    In reality, all kinds of people start out being ignorant of mathematics.

    I have studied ZFC set theory, and most readers here evidently have not.
    It can be learned by people of every 'race'.

    I infer that Humy's an extremely 'racially fragile' self-pitying white
    man who seems paranoid about any white people being criticized as racist.
    Humy"s racist paranoia seems to make him deranged.
  15. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    25 Jun '20 15:05
    @humy said
    yes, and that's the part I find really weird.
    @deepthought He doesn't have the same problem with letters so it's not that it is a symbol, it's specific to the symbols used to represent numbers.
    @humy yes, and that's the part I find really weird.

    In the article it says he can't see the numbers 2 through 9.
    So apparently he can see 1 and 0 (zero)
Back to Top