Are Algebra, Geometry, Probability innate or cultural?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion explores whether concepts of Algebra, Geometry, and Probability are innate to humans or culturally learned. It presents examples from animal behavior, such as a mother rat's instinctive actions to protect her puppies and a baby's understanding of spatial awareness, suggesting that some foundational mathematical concepts may be instinctive. The conversation highlights the cultural origins of specific mathematical constructs, like the numeral zero, while questioning the innate understanding of basic counting and probability. Ultimately, it posits that while advanced mathematical concepts are cultural, rudimentary forms of Algebra, Geometry, and Probability may be inherent to human cognition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic mathematical concepts such as counting and spatial awareness.
  • Familiarity with cultural influences on learning and cognition.
  • Knowledge of animal behavior and instinctual responses.
  • Basic comprehension of probability theory, including Bayesian probability.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the innate cognitive abilities of infants related to mathematics.
  • Explore the historical development of mathematical concepts like zero.
  • Study animal behavior in relation to instinct and learned responses.
  • Investigate Bayesian probability and its applications in decision-making.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for cognitive scientists, educators in mathematics, psychologists studying learning processes, and anyone interested in the intersection of culture and innate knowledge in human development.

fbs7
Messages
345
Reaction score
37
Are the concepts of the rules of Algebra, Geometry and Probability things that all humans have some instinctive grasp at some level, or things that we basically learn from others, therefore cultural?

Let me explain. I once saw an experiment with a mommy rat. She had 4 puppies, and someone put a snake in front (in a glass, so that the snake would not eat them puppies). The mommy rat immediately carried the puppies, one by one, to a safer location, then made one more trip to check that no puppies had been left behind. That showed the poor little rat couldn't count to 4. So a mommy rat probably knows "none" and "some", maybe knows "one", but definitely doesn't know "two", "three" and "four".

Then I remember a clip of a mother with a baby on her lap, and someone walking behind them. The baby turned her head right to keep watching that person, then as the person walked behind them she turned the head left expecting the person to come into view from that angle. Amazing! A little baby on diapers, that can't do anything, already has an innate knowledge of 3D space, "left", "right", "behind" and can anticipate future trajectories!

Now, the little rat has a neural network, so I suspect it could be trained to count from 1 to 4, but that's a learned trick, not innate, and as a learned thing the rat could be taught base-3 instead of base-10. The learning depends on the culture that is teaching the concept. Similarly, no little baby is born knowing Relativity, so Relativity is 100% a cultural thing - created once, repeated forever.

I'm sure that there are aspects of say Algebra that definitely are cultural. For example zero. There's no zero in Roman numerals... CCIII = 203, no zero in Roman number there, and the history of invention of zero is documented. But the understanding of one, two, three and counting, is it possible that's an innate thing? Apparently all human groups know how to count and add (not sure about subtraction), so is it possible that if a pair of humans, one male and one female, grow isolated from everything, would by themselves develop some kind of language (because toddlers spontaneously do), and if mommy human gets 4 babies she would probably do 4 trips to save them from the snake [note 1], not 5?

If so, then is it possible that some kind of rudimentary or instinctive Algebra is innate to the human brain, as well as rudiments of Geometry and Probability?[note 1] yeah, yeah, someone will say mommy human can do two trips by carrying a baby in each arm, or one trip by making a pyramid of babies, yeah, yeah, but you got my point
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
fbs7 said:
Let me explain. I once saw an experiment with a mommy rat. She had 4 puppies, and someone put a snake in front (in a glass, so that the snake would not eat them puppies). The mommy rat immediately carried the puppies, one by one, to a safer location, then made one more trip to check that no puppies had been left behind. That showed the poor little rat couldn't count to 4. So a mommy rat probably knows "none" and "some", maybe knows "one", but definitely doesn't know "two", "three" and "four".
Maybe mommy rat couldn't count, but I am sure she had some rudimentary sense of probability. Have you heard of the fight-or-flight response?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response
Mommy rat evaluated the a priori probability of being eaten by the snake as close to 1, that's why she fled with her babies. Had she, like us humans, understood the subtleties of Bayesian probability and folded in the probability of being eaten by a snake if a snake is in a glass cage, then she would have the need to fight or flee but would have considered this a visit to the zoo with the children. :smile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
21K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K