https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01429-6

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01429-6

I remember explaining to a non English speaker once; the
difference between "Much" and "Many."

Think of it like apples. You can count Apples. If you ask
me for some apples and I bring home eight dozen that's
"Too many."

You can't count flour or salt though. But, you can have
"Too much."

Right?

This is a distinction perfectly lost on whomever wrote the
article.

Being able to tell that one group is larger than another is
really no different from recognizing that one pile of sand
is larger than the next. In neither case are numbers or
counting involved.

Very different concepts...

I remember, as a kid, being taught that early man and
illiterates probably used rocks, say, to keep track of all
their livestock. A shepherd might collect one rock for each
sheep, and at the end of the day match his rocks back to
the sheep, ensuring that he's got them all.

True? Who knows.

Counting? I wouldn't say so.

Duo
pair
couple
two

These all say the same thing so why do we have a special
word for the number/value of two?

But we do. It's a unique concept. It's perfectly meaningless
utterly symbolic UNLESS and until it is actually applied to
things like apples, or walnuts or sheep...

Is this something we can see in the archaeological record?

No chance. Not with the selection bias that is paleo anthropology.

It should coincide with or (soon?) follow the evidence for symbolic
thought. This seems to stretch back to Heidelberg man.

No symbolic thinking, certainly nothing as symbolic as numbers.

WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE WOULD IT LEAVE BEHIND?

I could imagine something like a necklace, say, where you find
more than one, perhaps not dating to the same time or in
different locations, containing the same number of shells.

Hmm.

Wait. Symmetry alone might account for that. Might. But it would
be a strong start, finding some sort of uniformity in numbers... would
suggest counting/keeping track.

Any other ideas?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182390519928

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 11:34:22 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01429-6
>
> I remember explaining to a non English speaker once; the
> difference between "Much" and "Many."
>
> Think of it like apples. You can count Apples. If you ask
> me for some apples and I bring home eight dozen that's
> "Too many."
>
> You can't count flour or salt though. But, you can have
> "Too much."
>
> Right?
>
> This is a distinction perfectly lost on whomever wrote the
> article.
>
> Being able to tell that one group is larger than another is
> really no different from recognizing that one pile of sand
> is larger than the next. In neither case are numbers or
> counting involved.
>
> Very different concepts...
>
> I remember, as a kid, being taught that early man and
> illiterates probably used rocks, say, to keep track of all
> their livestock. A shepherd might collect one rock for each
> sheep, and at the end of the day match his rocks back to
> the sheep, ensuring that he's got them all.
>
> True? Who knows.
>
> Counting? I wouldn't say so.
>
> Duo
> pair
> couple
> two

individual
individuate
in.div = in.two = en.div.ide
en.dura = ndula = in.terior = un.der (shield, parent + child)

> These all say the same thing so why do we have a special
> word for the number/value of two?
>
> But we do. It's a unique concept. It's perfectly meaningless
> utterly symbolic UNLESS and until it is actually applied to
> things like apples, or walnuts or sheep...
>
> Is this something we can see in the archaeological record?
>
> No chance. Not with the selection bias that is paleo anthropology.
>
> It should coincide with or (soon?) follow the evidence for symbolic
> thought. This seems to stretch back to Heidelberg man.
>
> No symbolic thinking, certainly nothing as symbolic as numbers.
>
> WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE WOULD IT LEAVE BEHIND?
>
> I could imagine something like a necklace, say, where you find
> more than one, perhaps not dating to the same time or in
> different locations, containing the same number of shells.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Wait. Symmetry alone might account for that. Might. But it would
> be a strong start, finding some sort of uniformity in numbers... would
> suggest counting/keeping track.
>
> Any other ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182390519928