Complexity increasing with yet another loop.In fact Cohen Kadosh found that the specific instructions by the experimenters lead to different patterns of activation. — Isaac
...numbers are represented in the brain not as the concept 'three' but as a combination of patterns, language, magnitude, numerosity, and even more synaesthetic relations. — Isaac
Interesting then that Subitising seems, according to the study I mentioned, to use the same networks as counting - is that the same as numerosity?Magnitude estimation and numerosity are two different processing streams and shouldn't be confused. — Isaac
Which in my ignorant head harmonises with the Wittgensteinian rejection of concepts as pieces of furniture in minds. If we are to look to use instead of meaning, we would not expect to find a "spot" in the brain for each number, but instead to see something reflecting the range of stuff we can do with numbers. — Banno
Interesting then that Subitising seems, according to the study I mentioned, to use the same networks as counting - is that the same as numerosity? — Banno
The relation is as real as the things. — unenlightened
The science will settle the issue. Subitizing is not just pattern recognition, but involves counting.
Edit: Just to make my point clear, your claim was that subitising is just pattern recognition. In this study it was shown that pattern recognition showed up in groups of four or less, and also in groups of more than four. That is, pattern recognition was found in both subitising and counting. It has a part to play, but is not the whole of the story. — Banno
There just aren't any relations being pointed at, like there are things being pointed at. Unless you're Plato. — bongo fury
And if you don't reference it or contemplate it, then there's no subject of discussion. — Wayfarer
I am questioning that they exist 'objectively and mind-independendently', — Wayfarer
Cheers. I think this subitising discussion is off-topic; — Banno
but on the other hand... — Janus
"1" has the superficial grammar of a noun, but this is misleading.
Rather "1" is to be understood through its role in the process of counting. It is understood in learning how to count, not in pointing to individuals.
And of course this goes for other mathematical entities, too. They are things we do, not things we find. — Banno
When you put the spoons back in the draw, they do not cease to exist — Banno
We can of course say the spoons still exist outside of our interaction with them, but saying so is meaningless outside of some use such an utterance serves relative to our pragmatic purposes. — Joshs
...it seems beside the point to posit persisting self-identically foe (for?) the objects that are not currently being used by me. — Joshs
Indeed, it was going beyond the recognition of the iconic patterns that was thought important. — Banno
The recognition that this 'G' is a letter G no matter what font it is written in, is a skill that is a layer above the basic pattern recognition and into the more Bayesian modelling (though we didn't think of it in those terms then). It's as much about suppressing extraneous data as it is about processing relevant data. — Isaac
When you put the spoons back in the draw, they do not cease to exist. You do not go to the shop to buy new spoons because you surmise that since can't see the ones in the draw they no longer exist. — Banno
...it seems beside the point to posit persisting self-identically for the objects that are not currently being used by me.
— Joshs
And yet it is what you and I do; here, you in looking for the reply you now read; me in writing it with an expectation that it reach you. Beside the point? What could be more salient here, now than your reading this? — Banno
Maybe I’ve been reading too much phenomenology — Joshs
Therefore there is a spoon. — Banno
...phrenologists... — Janus
You don't have to be interested, though — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.