No announcement yet.

Salamander can do mathematics

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Salamander can do mathematics


    Salamanders can do maths
    Amphibians hint that number skills evolved early.
    3 May 2003


    More than three objects confuse a salamander
    © Corbis

    Salamanders, given a choice between tubes containing two fruitflies or three, lunge at the tube of three1. This hints that the ability to differentiate between small numbers of objects may have evolved much earlier than scientists had thought.

    Primates can spot the greater of two quantities smaller than four, without any training. Babies choose the bowl with more cookies; monkeys go for the bucket with more slices of apple.

    The surprise, says Claudia Uller, of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who carried out the study, was that the amphibians "failed in the same way that babies and monkeys do" - more than three objects confuses them.

    "There is a limit on the number of objects that can be tracked at one time," explains Alan Leslie, who works on human brain development at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. The portion of the brain that focuses attention cannot, it seems, deal with more than four objects.

    The addition of salamanders to the list of animals with natural mathematical abilities hints that some notion of number evolved at least 28 million years ago. "It may be more ancient than we thought," agrees Marc Hauser, who studies primate math at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    But Hauser and Leslie caution that different processes may be at work in amphibians and primates. In monkeys, for example, some cells of the brain's prefrontal cortex respond to single objects and others to pairs2. The salamanders could be influenced bythe physical volume of the flies or the amount of noise that they make, say.

    "It may be a fairly basic sort of mechanism that is highly preserved in evolution," explains Leslie. Or it may have evolved independently, he suggests, like the eye.

    1. Uller, C., Jaeger, R., Guidry, G. & Martin, C. Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in an amphibian. Animal Cognition, published online, doi:10.1007/s10071-003-0167-x (2003). |Article|
    2. Nieder, A., Freedman, D. J. & Miller, E. K. Representation of the quantity of visual items in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science, 297, 1708 - 1711, (2003). |Homepage|


    "The surprise, says Claudia Uller, of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who carried out the study, was that the amphibians "failed in the same way that babies and monkeys do" - more than three objects confuses them."

    This is not failing for me.
    This is homo chimp stupidiy overlooking that it might take front for stuff more than 4, and already straining what I call the playground and you maybe anterior cingulate, to generate 2 in each or trace 2 in each, and vaguely keep track.

    But one in one brain side, one in the other brain side, and one alike middle, that is not the same difficult.

    Do not overlook too far how that front enables a limbic self more parallel processing capacities.

    But that dolphins, elephants and various others excepted, most seem to tend to have a smaller neocortex than us.

    Also in our kind the more wrinkling of the neocortex, with 4 months embryo seems not there, and more alike "sensory helmet" still, and then in the sixth months they beginn to wrinkle and look alike to sectorize more, and in the 8th and 9th this process goes on.

    My internal impression was, "sensor helmet" stage is more good for more magic more united perception,
    and more modern neocortex development sorts in our brains are to do with sector specializations, like that I co-use front for math,
    and I assume the sequencer co-uses upper frontal cortex for its motoric sequences main supervision processings and other natigational aspects,
    and that it co-uses upper front alike me lower front with some similarities.

    I mean alike being able to process more parallel, have detail memory data there, etc.

    Not, that I know really much about upper frontal at all.

    I just assume the sequencer might use it similar a bit like me front alike sort of an external bio computer to calculate me out stuff.

    If segregated off with front,
    and it were more just my limbic centered self capacities and maybe that of what I call the playground and what you might call anterior cingulate gyrus,
    I cannot do math past 4 I assume.

    And 4 would be already tricky, though I guess I could try to use the playground on #3 mode (which seems a more modern than #1&#2),
    if getting it to that which since the concussion it might not,
    and try to get it to alike generate me 2 "fields" on this side and 2 in the other, and struggling to hold for 4 parallel.

    Before the concussion with music listened to and alike channelled in there,
    went 2 for serious parallel, one on each brain half (though that can disturb brain halves balances regulations),
    or 4 sort of alike more vague and with less details.

    After the concussion it went down to nearly just only one. By now I think it is up to maybe around 3 again with some strain.

    But not 4.

    Maybe this is something to do with what you are wonderning about there,
    though on 4 drugs parallel I don't feel like thinking far now about patterings matches.

    To your information, I estimated in myself as genetic Urwesen that for over 380 million years backwards my ancestors had equivalents to my self in the brain, just first more alike on older modes and stages, and in what I call alike Middle Time (Middle Time starts premammal and goes into MAMMAL then), the self becoming more as now.

    So there are very simplified alike 2 dates for my self, one on older stages,
    and one dating to Middle Time.

    Most systems in my brain seem either old time, very old time, or middle time.
    Not that many new time.

    New seem the language structurer, the second and particularily the sixth emotion generator,
    AND that cingulate and neocortex go those sizes.

    I assume with various of the other kinds, their self resembling to an extent old I stages.
    And with us mammals that with us is more from Middle Time.

    But this with what I call front specializing out to this size, etc., and that it can calculate me math,
    this seems new time.
    And not all the others have these.
    With the dolphins and elephants I do not wish to guess.
    I assume dolphins are in some bright and in some less bright than us homo chimps.

    Anyway, if I take as genetic Urwesen
    self old modes,
    a lizard might be closer to that?

    And if I take the self Middle Time,
    which is for me simplified more like now,
    we IMO share this with many mammals.

    But front special developments, as one can also see with such embryonic pictures maybe if looking before 6 1/2 months and after 6 1/2 months,
    this is alike more homo chimp New Age stuff.

    (I discern very old, old, middle time and new time.

    Rather simplified:

    Alike the third emotion generator seems old (eg. hatches aggresion and rankfighting programs) and some stuff branching in and out there very old.

    Me alike now more and eg.1 are Middle Time

    Self older settings origins I estimated to be over 380 million years old.

    The language structurer, and also differing front size and capacities for example, are New Time.

    Maybe the lizard has more alike self old time, and us mammals alike self Middle Time,
    and us homo chimps front New Time.

    Now, this was probably very stupidly trying to simplifying it.

    But I had the impression if whoever wrote this text should happen to read this,
    maybe it would help a bit understanding about numbers?

    "The portion of the brain that focuses attention cannot, it seems, deal with more than four objects."

    Apart from that not just the sequencer and me have attentions that can run rather segregatedly in my brain, so in my brain us systems(clusters) have differing attentions, also where the sequencer might be busy seeing to getting me some stuff done I wanted, or being at some other stuff,
    and me at thinking about this or that,

    maybe don't be too sure, that there are not humans who can parallel track to up to 50.

    Though that seems exceptional.

    One seemed to think common is seven tracks,
    alike 15 is high.

    I do not wish to rate this. Guess one can ask persons how many instruments parallel they can trace differing melodies of in a song, or how many persons they can max. perceive aware parallel about.

    Maybe make a research into this?

    "The addition of salamanders to the list of animals with natural mathematical abilities hints that some notion of number evolved at least 28 million years ago."

    I'd have thought more some hundred billion years ago.
    Like if males watch the herd leader and another fight for heard leadership, be it among swimming or then also on land,
    that a lot of kinds there can count no problem till 2.

    (If not more.)

    "It may be more ancient than we thought,"


    And stop WEing.

    That you seem to restrict yourself like a Westie to just this life,
    and did not tap into internal systems data more, and do not regard yourself also parallel genetically as a hundreds of millions (or to be more precise according to Westie science one might assume over a billion, simplfied just the self in my ancestors came far later) Urwesen, is your thingie.

    In this life I am 34 years old.

    My "self" as Urwesen I estimated with the US of a Webster's area time table of over 380 million but under 440 million years old.

    Although I am aware as Urwesen I am older, for my "self" the age as Urwesen seems alike simplified around 400 millions years.

    I find it a bit strange, that you do not have the double age of genetic Urwesen with partially hundreds of millions of years old programs, partially much younger, and that you seem so restricted to just alike if I were to say I'm 34.

    That you do not have the double-age.

    I mean like I'm 34 on Westie count,
    and hundreds of millions of years as genetic Urwesen.

    Maybe you should study what I named as a verbal term "urwes" more.

    Ur means (very) old.

    Urwesen means acient being.

    With Urwissen I mean alike inherited knowledge not this life taught knowledge.
    Also alike that I can sniff food if this turned already too bad, or smells good.

    With urwes I mean the combi,
    as genetic Urwesen having Urwissen.

    Maybe learn more about urwes in your systems.
    Then you might understand various easier.

    But then again I am from a genetically differing gene line, I can't think of a correct English word, just that "atavism" is not the correct term, as there is a feature various in our clan have and not alike jumping generations the way atavism seems to mean.

    Also I am MBD and have often been called autistic.

    Maybe with me various systems of New Time got more damaged, as front,
    than of way older times and more vital in functions
    (I have the theory there can be a systematicness when oxygen goes down, for example, that first more "irrelevant" before vital sectors get damaged").

    And my branch is LSD, and there at times in the past it went more systems segregated when I was back then at researching something, and for me was just alike, eg.3 old time, eg.1 and me more like now, middle time, language structurer, new time;
    programs in eg.3 having adapted to an extent to various in eg.1, but latent shifting back to older settings capacities registered, but that this would not be good if happening.


    For me is more alike this sector, old, this sector, middle time, this sector new time.
    Me old time and more like now middle time.
    Front more like now new time.

    Simplified I think as genetic Urwesen I am too aware as a central of us systems in here in my head, that systems I share the head with, and also in the body, though there I do not understand much, are from differing main source ages, though I don't know for all.

    But if sensing, this one is probably older than me, and this one younger than me,
    it is alike that one can find it a very differing perspective, if someone does not seem to have the Urwesen perspective at all.

    Are you for yourself just the Westie age, and you are not also Urwesen?
    I mean as often so-called autist and from an a bit differing geneline with some ancient feature (though it might look more alike some pimple at fleeting look, in our clan they can go up to three assorted alike nipples with a dog ... I got one, my sister one, same side like me, my father three, I believe my aunt has hers the other side than me and my sister ... not sure how many in our clan have this ... but I found a listing said to be Chinese opinions on character traits of people with such for me remarkably accurate and I know my systems have programs from a time where my ancestors got more than just one child) ...

    I lost sentence track. Still on 4 drugs parallel. (Hm, with nicotine 5, but that I ain't count in as the rest. ... Though just smoking a cigarette on top of the rest might have had to do with giving up on the sentence.)

    I mean simplified as often so-called autist and being genetically also a bit from alike an old line for me to also be Urwesen is parts of us systems.

    Do you not have this at all?

    Are you just alike if I were to say Westie style, I am 34 years old,
    but you have not had as hundreds of millions of years old Urwesen also some access to urwes at times?

    I cannot judge this well for others, and I somehow doubt the writer of this text will ever read this, anyway.

    For me with also branch LSD, to be also Urwesen is parts of who I am and us brain&body systems more generally.

    Do you not have this perception at all and you cannot get at data in considerations about persons of more or less closely related kinds, by using also urwes?

    If not, this must be very restrictive I assume in contemplations?

    "agrees Marc Hauser, who studies primate math at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
    Oh, Havard. Ain't that the pervert place where pervert lobotomy crimes are still committed by them head-blind mind-boggling idiots?

    Style, if a person has emotional problems, drug attack systems and their receptor molecule levels with psycho drugs.

    If that ain't make the person feel better, start to e-fry the brain with electro shocks.

    If that ain't make the person feel better, start lobotomy crimes.

    Until the person might alike flee and rather say feeling better, as next they might start to mutilate the next brain sector, and then alike maybe rather fleeing with irreversible damages?

    Gee, a good Red Indian healer might have fixed the person towards O.K. enough again in 10 days or so, if taking long 6 weeks,
    and maybe using thousands of years old and long researched ways, that before Inquisition seemed to be herealands not completely unsimilar, nor compared to Fulbe Marabout or other old healer branches that totally unsimilar.

    Not sure if Harvard is still into them headblind perversions.

    Anyway, maybe study your own brain inside your own head first some more.
    Maybe then with this or that person of a related kind you understand more.

    As the Lakota might say not just at various ceremonies:

    Mitakuye oyasin.



      Maybe its my poor English but somehow I tend to get lost in logic of your posts.. [img]/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]



        "Maybe its my poor English but somehow I tend to get lost in logic of your posts.. "

        Oh, it might be also my version of "English" as someone, with German as the first language,
        and a concussion in the past seemed to have been very efficient in word swaps happening.
        Where if them occurred unnoticed by me, even I might later at rereading a text of mine, first just get there was a word swap, but not necessarily straight where, and the correction towards it making sense again.

        In case of something looking suspiciously like a word swap, it might help to mention my name, like you did, in the headline, so there are higher chances I notice,
        and quote the passage. Maybe with enough around, that I might figure out which word(s) got swapped where.
        Not, that I'm sure I can always puzzle it out.

        But some I still remember what should have gone there, and might spot a swap-word faster.
        As I had years of practice since that concussion with this problem .... sigh.

        With content questions,
        if you don't write, with what contents what aspects you didn't understand,
        how am I supposed to know where your exact understanding problems are?

        In case it was a content thingie,
        a main content of the post was,
        that the author seemed to wonder about number restrictions, like perceiving 3 or 4,
        and that I wrote, in my brain such is to do with brain systems.

        And that there are, very simplified, with some stuff 3 brain regions, that are to do with that.

        My self,

        what I call "playground" and what you might call anterior cingulate gyrus,

        and what I call "front", and what you might call some part of the frontal cortex.

        A part of the post was to do with, that in us homo chimp apes, "front" (and anterior cingulate gyrus) tend to be bigger, than in various other kinds having such.

        And with such there tend to be differing parallel processing capacities.

        And also general processing capacities differences to many other kinds,
        as simplified in my brain "front" enables also mathematical capacities,
        that seem to do with historically New Time developments of the size and specialization of "front".

        One issue was, that if thinking about other kinds restrictions on some aspects to do with parallel processing and countings,

        that with many other kinds "front" does not have the size nor specialization as with us homo chimp ape mammals it does tend to have.

        So with a salamander for example,
        maybe blindly guessing, I assume the self there is resembling to an extent my self in the brain on modi, that registered in historic origin time
        way more ancient time.

        With another of us mammals, generalized simplified, the self there I assume to resemble my self as more now,
        registering to in main developments dating back to Middle Time. (Middle Time starts a bit before our ancestors turned mammals, and then has alike a main developing time in Mamillian Time.

        If finding it easier,
        though Middle Time starts a bit before mammal,
        you could regard Middle Time to mean Mamillian Time.)

        So if thinking about mathematical capacities,
        or number count capacities of the self,
        in another person not of our kind,
        it might help to consider if the self there of that person is more alike Middle Time
        or more alike ancient settings origin time.

        Simplified, dog, like homo chimp, Middle Time.
        Fish probably more like ancient time.
        Salamander I assume also to be more alike ancient time.

        These refer to number count and thinking capacities of the self.

        When "front" comes in as with mathematics,
        it seems plain obvious, that with many kinds frontal cortex size is smaller than with us.
        With exceptions, as dolphins and elephants.

        (To what extent with the latter the equivalent of what I call "front" in my brain
        specialized also for mathematics, I don't wish to guess at all there. Also not with whales.)

        (Brb; just been something, making me wonder if this thingie might do one of it's crashs again. So I better send this now.)



          (I just had it, I was writing ... ancient ...,
          and while in the next line correcting some word there, I believe to do with taking out an "e", suddenly in the line before the e disapparated, so there just stood "ancint".
          Not, that I understand, how that's possible.
          Miracles of technology ...

          I decided, I rather send the text already written, off, before finding out, if next this thingie here might do one of its often highly inconvenient timed crashes.)

          I was at trying to simplify down stuff.

          In the human melon differing sectors can have differing historic source origin time
          of development.

          Westie terms expressed, alike, brain stem very old, basolateral amygdala a lot in mammal time,
          Broca's way younger time.

          Simplified alike (very) old, middle, and young.

          Or (very) Old Time, Middle Time, and New Time
          in us as genelines of beings
          extending over hundreds of millions of years.

          If learning internally about some systems programs, there might be right along also stuff to do with if this is from Very Old Time, Old Time, Middle Time or New Time.

          If doing something, that is to do with New Time,
          for example doing mathematics, like subtracting 7 from 15,
          and "front" in the frontal cortex calculating this out.

          And noticing, one learned also over verbal channels about this in school.
          One might think what the neuros might call Wernicke's and Broca's in context with verbal input and output,
          seem New Time systems.

          Also "front" in the frontal cortex,
          concerning current size and specialization,
          can be regarded as New Time developments in us genelines.

          If comparing to a geneline, where Old Time developments seem similar to an extent,
          as with a lizard,

          or with another mammal, noticing Middle Time developments are similar,

          then one can assume, with various aspects capacities resemble one's own systems capacities till about there.

          But not where something is coming in,
          that are New Time developments in our genelines, where a lot of other genelines alike went differing developmental ways.

          If not having ever discerned in the own melon about any of such at all,
          then, when wondering about how it is in the melon of a person of another kind,
          it might become way more difficult to think about aspects there.



            If I noticed a salamander seems to be confused by more objects than three.

            And thought about the why.

            Then I might think, three could be done in my brain with some stuff,
            one right, one left, one middle focus.
            However four might include 2 or more just one side,
            or 4 or more double-sided, which seems tricky.

            I already can find it highly straining to perceive more than 2-3 objects parallel.

            And might need a while for that.

            This might involve first looking at 2-3 a while.
            I assume that then data about these is alike stored in front.
            Next I could look at another 2 within that vision field.

            (With me rather narrow, as I am MBD, and can't process much parallel.)

            Data about these might also get stored in front.

            Next I could strain to take all 5 in parallel.

            However front, and maybe other neocortex systems, might use previously "infed" date, to make this process easier.

            With a salamander, I might assume (s)he does not have neocortex capacities just as mine
            as a homo chimp mammal.

            One look at my melon and that of a salamander in comparison,
            might arrive in a whiffy at, that for NEOcortex systems, as in my melon,
            there seems not enough space in the head of the salamander.

            Therefore it can be without much effort deducted, that NEOcortex capacities as in mine,
            the salamander might not have for options when looking at stuff.

            And then it might not seem a particular riddle, why more than 3 parallel might confuse the salamander.

            I hope this explanation made the understanding of some aspects I wrote about easier.



              If taking a genetic source origin age,
              like the oldest age of source origin of a genetic sequence, that one has,
              this might be over a billion years old.

              So if asked, how old is one there on such a cellular genetic level, the answer might be over a billion years old.

              If taking systems' programs as ages,
              like how long back date old programs in origin in one's geneline(s) for this or that,
              as for brain stem
              or what neuro calls Broca's,

              there are differing ages.

              I guess the brain stem is hundreds of millions years older,
              than what I might call the language structurer.

              If asked, how old do I think is my brain stem,
              I could give two ages.

              An age, that I regard as genetic Urwesen age,
              that with some era table for aid might be estimated several hundreds of millions of years of age.

              Or I could think, hm, I'm 34, but this developing in embryo time, makes around 35 years.

              So when asked about my systems, how old is the brain stem,

              simplified the Westie answer is 35 years old,

              and the Urwesen age answer for me as parts of a geneline extending maybe over a billion years backwards, might be several hundred million years.

              Simplified, Westie age for brain stem, 35,
              Urwesen age maybe some over 400 000 000 years.

              With my self,
              for Urwesen age, there are 2 main ages noticed by me so far. (If picky, some more. But aside from this.)

              One is from under water time.
              Estimated by me to be over 380 mio y. old.

              The other is to do with developments, that seem to be from Middle Time.

              So my self more like now,
              is regarded by me to be from Middle Time.

              But some old modi there, like an underwater modus, is regarded maybe around 400 mio y. old.

              So simplified as Urwesen my self has differing ages:
              Old modi age,
              and more like now modi age.

              An example of what registers differing source age modi,
              that still various other humans might find easy to also understand,
              is to do with stages when sleeping
              and dreaming:

              Sometimes in a dream I watch something.
              (Here called stage 1.)

              Like something happening to someone else (in that dream).

              Then it suddenly changes,
              and then it is me, it is happening to.

              (This self stage here called stage 2.)

              Self stage 1 registers in genetic source age for this to be there older,
              than self stage 2.
              Self stage 2 has more thinking.

              Self stage 1 is more just observing,
              without much thinking.

              Self stage 2 has some thinking,
              but not to the extent,
              than if "front" is fully awake and cooperating along and figuring me out stuff.

              Self stage 1 in dreams,
              resembles some old underwater programs I once came across, concerning the self.
              Watching without much thinking.

              Self stage 2 in dreams,
              seems to be, very simplified,
              between self stage 1 and awake now.

              It might be assumed to resemble thinking modes more in my ancestors quite a bit back,
              than my awake thinking now.
              And to be in source age
              between older registering modes
              and newer registering modes.

              So on that level my self has differing ages.

              If comparing to a person of another kind,
              where it can be assumed the last common ancestor between my kind and this kind was before soandso systems developed in "me" as Urwesen,
              then I can assume capacities from before in me as Urwesen,
              this person of the other kind is also having,
              if seeming alike enough there.

              But I might not assume this person has capacities,
              that in my geneline developed after split between our lines.

              So stuff to do with New Time developments in me as Urwesen,
              or with a salamander,
              stuff to do in me with Middle Time Mammilian developments of brain sectors,
              I do not assume the salamander to have.

              With Old Time capacities,
              it is differing.

              I tried to point out in that text,
              that in comparison to others,
              to consider differing internal ages of stuff,
              and when thinking about another,
              what the other has to an extent equivalent,
              and what we do not have alike,

              might help in systems' capacities understandings.

              And also differences there between us kinds.

              "Mitakuye Oyasin" means "all our relatives"
              and is used at Red Indian Lakota ceremonies.



                Some stuff I'm not sure you understand:

                Differing (non-twin) humans are differing genelines to an extent. And can have differing programs connected with that.

                One human geneline can have programs another does not have.

                Before saying just derisively,
                ey, why don't you just do like I did,
                can come considerations also beyond if there might be genetic differences.

                So if I suspect with me as MBD (Minimal Brain Damage), meaning someone a bit brain handicapped, some of the New Time stuff got damaged,
                and on LSD it having shifted in the past at times far more massively to settings, that resembled Middle Time,
                and having accessed some stuff registering Old Time or Very Old Time,

                I might just have had more access options than one, where some New Time stuff is not damaged the same.
                Systems settings totalled, simplified the other might score more percentage New Time,
                and me more percentage times before that.

                Also in the past on trips I had it happening that front registered off with me.

                This enables to discern far better,
                what the difference is with "front online"
                in capacities,
                and own capacities without it.

                I suspect with me front is damaged
                (not just from that concussion,
                from before birth onwards.)
                With that I cannot process as much parallel.

                With that external stuff (right starting with body and various head systems)
                can be far too much for me parallel.
                So I often alike "jump" between inputs.

                First this, than that.

                With a lot else I might be segregated at the time.

                Like with my body often.
                Also with various other brain systems.

                (Not, that about the latter I understand that much, nor can discern them all.)

                So for my self it might be more usual,
                to be in higher segregative stages with this or that, than for another brain, where there are no front damages.

                Another acidhead, who is not MBD,
                might still have far higher connections parallel between systems,
                than me.

                With that chances in my brain for higher discernings between various brain systems,
                might be higher,
                while for another might be too connected,
                to be able to discern better between this or that more differentiated.



                  Very simplified,
                  if I have stuff of someone of Harvard,
                  reading alike from an extremely headblind,
                  I could wonder about the following:

                  Can this person really not?
                  Too restricted by capacities, to in internal research to understand some aspects I did?

                  Or is it just blatant desinterest and attitudes.

                  So maybe if being told by some group, that this group legalized itself the head&body of another like slave-possession as their possession,
                  and trying to dictate stuff alike:
                  You are not to use this or that drug,
                  that happens to be useful for brain research,
                  them alike just bow mentally to the by them accepted owners of their heads&bodies.

                  And with that all options in brain research going off from there restricted to them.

                  Restricting themselves further, by seeking data about their own melons not in their own melons.

                  And is that the primary cause that they do not understand a lot.

                  While with a woman working at the bakery, I might not care much,
                  from Harvard I got the impression, them perverts have been long into lobotomy.

                  Or versions alike that, cutting connections between sectors.

                  Not even having bothered first far, to understand about the relevance of a sector like front in their own frontal cortexes,
                  before crippling others connections.

                  Madhead "doctors".



                    So if reading something is from Harvard,
                    I might react a bit alike mentally nettled.

                    Maybe going a bit more excessively indicating,
                    if in Harvard they'd finally start to research in their own heads systems more,
                    they might finally start to understand some stuff there way better.

                    Not that I seriously expect, there is a major politics change to be expected there any time soon. And not just there.
                    With a lot of what I call Westie science.


                      It makes sense that nature endowed animals that eat things capability of distinguishing more from less. It also makes sense that there is a limit to their ability to count more than three. After all, what is the difference between 3 and 5? The salamander probably cannot eat or catch more than 3 flies at a time and therefore being able to count higher probably does not improve the survival of the salamander or his/her ability to breed. By the way, I wonder if there is a difference between male and female salamanders? Also, being able to count higher may be detrimental. For example, being limited in counting ability would save the wasted energy that the salamander might be unnecessarily expending on pondering the virtues of not going after five flies when the three flies would have been just as good. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]


                        Wise Young,

                        as usual you do not seem to take serious what I said about why it might be three.

                        (And simplified for me even before the concussion not 5.
                        Plain front math aside.)