1. Language is essentially a process for manipulating symbols (words) that represent our reality.
-- No. Language is a fundamental component of humans, much of its function pre-determined, largely universal throughout the human population, very possibly forming the basis of all that we consider "consciousness." It's much more than "symbol manipulation."
2. Different languages represent reality in different ways.
--No. The old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Right up there with the ether theory in physics, just more hardy.
3. How we learn to represent reality will in turn affect our perception of reality.
-- Maybe, but what does this have to do with the language function?
4. Mathematics is also a process for manipulating symbols that represent reality.
-- The mathematical capabilities of the brain are much less understood right now than the language functions, and the relationship of one to the other is far from clear, but possibly interrelated. So probably not a relevant point, if true, which I don't necessarily grant.
5. How humans learn to represent reality through language (which comes first developmentally) will affect our ability to represent reality through mathematics.
-- What "comes first developmentally" is far from clear and is probably irrelevant. The point is that the capabilities for language (obviously) and mathematics (close to obviously) are within the *innate* capabilities of all non-cognitively-handicapped human beings.
Should you have any arguments with this, you should come up to Cambridge, MA, and see Prof. N. Chomsky, MIT, who will then proceed to entertain any argument you may have, disassemble it, and shove it up your arse - rhetorically, of course. Granted, others (Lakoff, I think, most prominently among current linguists) may support your premises, but I think Chomsky holds the intellectual cards.
----Original Message Follows---- From: Adam Pressler <adampopulist at yahoo.com> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Race Math & Language Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:15:58 -0800 (PST)
There has been a lot of response to my original thread about Race & Math (but not a lot about my closely related thread: Turing Disproves Seligman). While these responses have been interesting and worthy, they have missed the original intent of my post.
I am NOT implying that there is a racial component to IQ or math achievement. It is an immoral, and, more importantly, UNPROVEABLE PROPOSITION. Anyone (and I doubt there are many persons on this list) who wants to assert there is such a link can come on down to Dallas, where I will first buy you a beer at the Old Monk. I will then proceed to entertain any argument you may have, disassemble it, and shove it up your arse - rhetorically, of course ;-)
But I digress....
What I was proposing has to do with the affect of language on perception. My proposotion goes like this:
1. Language is essentially a process for manipulating symbols (words) that represent our reality.
2. Different languages represent reality in different ways.
3. How we learn to represent reality will in turn affect our perception of reality.
4. Mathematics is also a process for manipulating symbols that represent reality.
5. How humans learn to represent reality through language (which comes first developmentally) will affect our ability to represent reality through mathematics.
Even if my proposition is true (which is far from certain), this language effect would certainly be less important than opportunity to and quality of education. But it might have some import such as helping people designing curriculum.
So, Im hoping someone has some insight into this proposition. If you don't care to post it, please meet me at the Old Monk for a beer.
Adam
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com