<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Math Monkeys</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/</link>
	<description>A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:00:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: johnk</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-27156</link>
		<dc:creator>johnk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=2027#comment-27156</guid>
		<description>Torbjorn Larson:

I checked your web citation. It seems to be weirdly wrong.  Although the web article is entitled &quot;Generalization and Symbolic Processing in Neural Networks&quot; it is based on a single PNAS paper entitled
 
 &quot;Prefrontal cortex and flexible cognitive control: Rules without symbols&quot;
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7338.full.pdf+html

The PNAS paper is a neural net model of rule generalization, based on prefrontal cortex.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Torbjorn Larson:</p>
<p>I checked your web citation. It seems to be weirdly wrong.  Although the web article is entitled &#8220;Generalization and Symbolic Processing in Neural Networks&#8221; it is based on a single PNAS paper entitled</p>
<p> &#8220;Prefrontal cortex and flexible cognitive control: Rules without symbols&#8221;<br />
<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7338.full.pdf+html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7338.full.pdf+html</a></p>
<p>The PNAS paper is a neural net model of rule generalization, based on prefrontal cortex.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-27155</link>
		<dc:creator>Torbjörn Larsson, OM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=2027#comment-27155</guid>
		<description>Interesting and, as usual, well written!

I do have some problems though:

- It isn&#039;t apparent to me from the article how to make the distinction between estimates (that likely most animals can do) and counting (which again, likely most animals can do, see martin&#039;s refs). The next to last paragraph touches on this but seems to avoid acknowledging the &quot;symbol&quot; :-D of estimates. That can, and likely should, be elaborated. 

- I also don&#039;t like the other overloading of the meaning of symbols as expressed in &quot;lacking our symbolic brains&quot;. It is very likely that all brains, at least with a prefrontal cortex but more generally probably with analogous executive function areas, works in a symbolic manner. &lt;a href=&quot;http://develintel.blogspot.com/2006/10/generalization-and-symbolic-processing.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Models shows that a prefrontal cortex can self-organize to use symbolic thinking&lt;/a&gt;. This also predicts that we, as opposed to simple neural networks, can learn categorizing without over-training, which is also observed.

[Incidentally, this answered johnk question &quot;How do neurons do symbols&quot; already in 2005.]

At a guess we are discussing abstract symbolic thinking, which may or may not emerge from the underlying symbolic processing. 

If we (and elephants and so on) can model &quot;others&quot; and so &quot;selves&quot; to become self aware, there isn&#039;t such a great leap to abstract general characteristics or even the models themselves into symbols. It likely takes a &quot;mental&quot; effort _not_ to generalize at that stage. ;-)

Similarly, the estimate/number route suggested could have been at play. But IMHO it seems less likely than the other way round; first symbols, later specific applications and exactness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting and, as usual, well written!</p>
<p>I do have some problems though:</p>
<p>- It isn&#8217;t apparent to me from the article how to make the distinction between estimates (that likely most animals can do) and counting (which again, likely most animals can do, see martin&#8217;s refs). The next to last paragraph touches on this but seems to avoid acknowledging the &#8220;symbol&#8221; <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':-D' class='wp-smiley' />  of estimates. That can, and likely should, be elaborated. </p>
<p>- I also don&#8217;t like the other overloading of the meaning of symbols as expressed in &#8220;lacking our symbolic brains&#8221;. It is very likely that all brains, at least with a prefrontal cortex but more generally probably with analogous executive function areas, works in a symbolic manner. <a href="http://develintel.blogspot.com/2006/10/generalization-and-symbolic-processing.html" rel="nofollow">Models shows that a prefrontal cortex can self-organize to use symbolic thinking</a>. This also predicts that we, as opposed to simple neural networks, can learn categorizing without over-training, which is also observed.</p>
<p>[Incidentally, this answered johnk question "How do neurons do symbols" already in 2005.]</p>
<p>At a guess we are discussing abstract symbolic thinking, which may or may not emerge from the underlying symbolic processing. </p>
<p>If we (and elephants and so on) can model &#8220;others&#8221; and so &#8220;selves&#8221; to become self aware, there isn&#8217;t such a great leap to abstract general characteristics or even the models themselves into symbols. It likely takes a &#8220;mental&#8221; effort _not_ to generalize at that stage. <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Similarly, the estimate/number route suggested could have been at play. But IMHO it seems less likely than the other way round; first symbols, later specific applications and exactness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: johnk</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-27136</link>
		<dc:creator>johnk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:48:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=2027#comment-27136</guid>
		<description>I think we&#039;re beginning to accept the notion that the human brain is especially good at symbols and symbolic system like language and math. Carl&#039;s article summarizes some of the recent evidence supporting this. 

I&#039;ve been asking myself questions readers of this column might want to discuss:

Are symbolic representations a special type of representation? 
How do neurons do symbols? 
Are simple examples of symbolic representations present in other types of representations?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we&#8217;re beginning to accept the notion that the human brain is especially good at symbols and symbolic system like language and math. Carl&#8217;s article summarizes some of the recent evidence supporting this. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been asking myself questions readers of this column might want to discuss:</p>
<p>Are symbolic representations a special type of representation?<br />
How do neurons do symbols?<br />
Are simple examples of symbolic representations present in other types of representations?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-27132</link>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=2027#comment-27132</guid>
		<description>Very good study. I believe anyone can be good at math.  Math is a part of all of us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good study. I believe anyone can be good at math.  Math is a part of all of us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: martin g</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-27129</link>
		<dc:creator>martin g</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=2027#comment-27129</guid>
		<description>How is it then, that when I go to the local supermarket and the checkout terminal is broken, the operator  can&#039;t work out the change for a  $9.95 item  when presented with a $10 bill ?

I think a bee could do it

http://www.springerlink.com/content/e186k3381712731w/fulltext.pdf

or maybe a mosquitofish ?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r8n475m318240045/fulltext.pdf

even a  mongoose lemur . . .

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8xwtpld4f1m0553a/fulltext.pdf

or a horse . . .

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tx26u02831ph3164/fulltext.pdf

or a parrot . . .

http://www.springerlink.com/content/hr658n736238x774/fulltext.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is it then, that when I go to the local supermarket and the checkout terminal is broken, the operator  can&#8217;t work out the change for a  $9.95 item  when presented with a $10 bill ?</p>
<p>I think a bee could do it</p>
<p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/e186k3381712731w/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/e186k3381712731w/fulltext.pdf</a></p>
<p>or maybe a mosquitofish ?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/r8n475m318240045/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/r8n475m318240045/fulltext.pdf</a></p>
<p>even a  mongoose lemur . . .</p>
<p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/8xwtpld4f1m0553a/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/8xwtpld4f1m0553a/fulltext.pdf</a></p>
<p>or a horse . . .</p>
<p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/tx26u02831ph3164/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/tx26u02831ph3164/fulltext.pdf</a></p>
<p>or a parrot . . .</p>
<p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/hr658n736238x774/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/hr658n736238x774/fulltext.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Zelinsky</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-27124</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Zelinsky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=2027#comment-27124</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d be very curious about this sort of research interact with research about the Pirahã  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people  ) who don&#039;t seem to have any number words.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d be very curious about this sort of research interact with research about the Pirahã  ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people</a>  ) who don&#8217;t seem to have any number words.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julie Simon Lakehomer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/17/math-monkeys/comment-page-1/#comment-27123</link>
		<dc:creator>Julie Simon Lakehomer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:08:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=2027#comment-27123</guid>
		<description>I read your article and I love it.  I love it because it shows yet another incredible aspect of evolution.  Math, the purest of abstracts in the universe, and we&#039;re hard wired for it, and so are other species!  You can&#039;t make this stuff up!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read your article and I love it.  I love it because it shows yet another incredible aspect of evolution.  Math, the purest of abstracts in the universe, and we&#8217;re hard wired for it, and so are other species!  You can&#8217;t make this stuff up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2012-02-14 10:22:35 -->
