5 ms·
That might as well be a shortcut, as in your brain has done 2*2 so many times that you have an immediate path for that fixed answer... if this is the case there
by n0on3 7y ago
That might as well be a shortcut, as in your brain has done 2*2 so many times that you have an immediate path for that fixed answer... if this is the case there's no actual calculation performed, as in you can't do the same thing for "what if you slice 73 carrots in half"...
- anotheryou 7y agoI'm kinda shure I do it visually :) But yea, get's more difficult with 73. But even there I might determine "visually" that cutting across a row of carrots halfs each of them. So the 2 in 73*2 ist still determined without words.
- the_seraphim 7y agoIve got about 150 pieces of carrot... because i know that 73 is close to 75 and i know that 2*75 is 150 chunking and rounding likely involved.
- Faark 7y ago> if this is the case there's no actual calculation performed There is no conscious calculation performed. The result might be fetched from memory, but there might also be subconscious processes involved. And that seems to be what the argument is about. Grandparent claims we cannot count without language while the article claims we have estimation hardware builtin (that's count-ish, imo). That's not really conflicting, since GP implies a specific counting process that's usually done consciously. Do the clapping, ask someone unsuspecting how often you have clapped, and he'll probably be able to tell the number without concisely counting. Even for a stream of sensory inputs. But yeah, consciously thinking about something usually involves words for many of us, as that the most common/effective way for our thoughts to interact with the world.