<p>One could say that brain is not hardwired for abstract ideas... why?
There are exhaustive work by Piaget in which he claimed about stages of thinking.
Modern researches argue that only 25-35% of High-school students dont entry Formal operational stage which is approximately abstract thinking.
So average Joe is hardwired for 3 dimensional vision and concrete thinking.</p>

<p>update1: From theoretical perspective of evolutionary psychologist or biologist, it could be assumed that in one moment on earth it was more important for organism how to organize themselves, or how to find food etc then how to see in more dimensions. There is obvious difference in various species and vision, we can assume that it was developed chronologically or at once.
but if it was chronologically the adaptation motive was the main motive. In that manner one of definition of inteligence is ability to adapt.</p>

<p>update2: i watched this video lecture and there are several errors in his statements: 1)time is perception of human, it is question if it is something which is universaly acknowledged. 2) 1, 2, 3 are not numbers - they are Plato representation of numbers which we adopt 3) this is more important 3 dimensional visionary system is like time, something we belive exists, but n-dimensional system and 3 dimensional system have only word 'dimension' in common. they are not same 'dimensions' you think it is the same because the name is same. Simmilar mistake is between Jungian word Extraversion and Eysenck or B5 term. Do you understand now? So people want to put in coordinate system something what does not belong there.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T13:17:03.220Z
Ok. I just cannot understand why people, who are both hardwired neither for abstract thinking nor n-dim visualization, can do the first but not the second, according to Susskind? How susskind be right? Is he right? Why are we slaves of our neural architecture w.r.t visulalization but not wrt abstract thinking? Why we can penetrate the abstract thinking barrier but not the n-dim visualization?
Val
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T13:21:29.063Z
i tried to answer that in second part of sentence. is there any evidence that there is more then 3d in real world? is there any organism (except God and Angels) which have vision of 3d?
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T13:22:53.350Z
Adaptability just explains that you can learn both abstract thinking and visualization. It does not explain why you can learn first but not the other.
Val
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T13:41:50.223Z
I will have exactly the same argument in argument with evolutionist. But they assume that you have abilities which help species survive. So first it was vision which adapt and after that abstract thinking. you have species with dolphins which have 3d sound systems, but im not aware of 4d sensory system.
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T14:01:48.787Z
Why students can develop the abstract thinking but not 1d sensory system? Why do I need 1d sensory system for visualizing 1d space? Which kind of sensory system is needed for abstract thinking?
Val
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T14:29:08.657Z
visual system is not hardwired, you have experiments with impaired people who are blind, after surgery they DO NOT SEE as people with usual development. with ocullomotor aided perception and vision, also stereoscopic sight is product of both eyes, so if there is one eye they have 2d vision... once again dimension in mathematical sense just aid mathematical representation of the system they are not same dimensions. word for n-dimension could be epsilon-gamma. in that case you will not ask this question, you will ask then: is there link between radiation and abstract gamma thinking
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T15:06:21.037Z
Nothing makes sense. All words are useless because they do not mean what they mean. That is why Susskind came up with n dimensions and visualization. Only abstract thinking is reality.
Val
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T15:15:21.003Z
yes words are not precise. ie 'red color' i can bet that lot of people think red color is hardwired in brain, but there is only frequencies of electromagnetism, objects, and reflections outside our eyes. we can sense this reflection and we call it 'red color' but there is no evidence that we see same picture. so imagine now that susskind has thought, you listen to his 'unprecise' words and decode it. do you think that he gave you his thought or you think that you know what he is thinking...
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T16:16:56.983Z
You could say what he meant to say, whether his words have meaningful interepretation rather than claiming that visualization of 3d has nothing to do with visualization of 3d.
Val
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-10T13:06:56.040Z
2013-07-10T13:49:48.477Z
2013-07-10T13:49:48.477Z
ICanFeelIt
<p>In <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/046502811X" rel="nofollow">The Theoretical Minimum</a>, in lecture 1, Leonard Susskind says that you can only visualize 3 dimentional images. (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=iJfw6lDlTuA#t=574s" rel="nofollow">see yourself</a>). Therefore, he says, in order to deal with N dimensions, you need to deal with abstract algebra. I wonder why the brain is hardwired for abstract algebra. </p>

<p>It might be worth to note that mnemotechnicians remind us <a href="http://www.google.ee/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CCsQFjAA&amp;url=http://www.brainathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/How-to-Memorize-EVERYTHING.docx&amp;ei=Do2eUuPCBovhywPErYHYCw&amp;usg=AFQjCNFtQm1Bq1wABu7cE2WgpiKYYCHJQA&amp;sig2=_iJ64WhCGt2VGs_tLzZskw&amp;bvm=bv.57155469,d.bGQ" rel="nofollow">that your mind thinks in pictures, and remembers pictures, not words or abstract thoughts</a>?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-14T19:06:12.830Z
Here is the opinion of an advanced mathematics student. I don't believe the brain is "hardwired" for abstract mathematics (note that "abstract algebra" is actually a specific branch of mathematics). Perhaps it is more capable of abstract thinking in general, compared to other animals. For many, learning math requires arduous hardship, and even for those to whom math comes easily, intuition seems to universally be something developed and honed through experience rather than something already had. One might ask why the human brain has such hardware *potential*, I guess.
anon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-15T07:25:47.973Z
@anon Yes. Your answer lacks the contrast with the visualization capacity. For me, the intuition is something like visualization. Intially, the picture of studied subject is blank. But, any subject, if it is not a mess, it has a structure. As you gain intuition, the picture starts appearing. You start seeing some contours of objects, their relations and ways to pass from this point to that point, similarly to orientation in 3d space with only exception that in abstract subject you have something like graph instead of 3d sweep. So, I wondering: what is the difference with visualization?
Val
<neuroscience><neural-network><cognitive-neuroscience>
Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?
Val
# Why neural architecture is not hardwired for N-dimensional vision but hardwired for abstract math?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-06-22)

In [The Theoretical Minimum](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/046502811X), in lecture 1, Leonard Susskind says that you can only visualize 3 dimentional images. ([see yourself](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iJfw6lDlTuA#t=574s)). Therefore, he says, in order to deal with N dimensions, you need to deal with abstract algebra. I wonder why the brain is hardwired for abstract algebra.

It might be worth to note that mnemotechnicians remind us [that your mind thinks in pictures, and remembers pictures, not words or abstract thoughts](http://www.google.ee/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http://www.brainathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/How-to-Memorize-EVERYTHING.docx&ei=Do2eUuPCBovhywPErYHYCw&usg=AFQjCNFtQm1Bq1wABu7cE2WgpiKYYCHJQA&sig2=_iJ64WhCGt2VGs_tLzZskw&bvm=bv.57155469,d.bGQ)?

**Tags:** neuroscience, neural-network, cognitive-neuroscience

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Here is the opinion of an advanced mathematics student. I don't believe the brain is "hardwired" for abstract mathematics (note that "abstract algebra" is actually a specific branch of mathematics). Perhaps it is more capable of abstract thinking in general, compared to other animals. For many, learning math requires arduous hardship, and even for those to whom math comes easily, intuition seems to universally be something developed and honed through experience rather than something already had. One might ask why the human brain has such hardware *potential*, I guess.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Yes. Your answer lacks the contrast with the visualization capacity. For me, the intuition is something like visualization. Intially, the picture of studied subject is blank. But, any subject, if it is not a mess, it has a structure. As you gain intuition, the picture starts appearing. You start seeing some contours of objects, their relations and ways to pass from this point to that point, similarly to orientation in 3d space with only exception that in abstract subject you have something like graph instead of 3d sweep. So, I wondering: what is the difference with visualization?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-07-10. Score: 1

One could say that brain is not hardwired for abstract ideas... why?
There are exhaustive work by Piaget in which he claimed about stages of thinking.
Modern researches argue that only 25-35% of High-school students dont entry Formal operational stage which is approximately abstract thinking.
So average Joe is hardwired for 3 dimensional vision and concrete thinking.

update1: From theoretical perspective of evolutionary psychologist or biologist, it could be assumed that in one moment on earth it was more important for organism how to organize themselves, or how to find food etc then how to see in more dimensions. There is obvious difference in various species and vision, we can assume that it was developed chronologically or at once.
but if it was chronologically the adaptation motive was the main motive. In that manner one of definition of inteligence is ability to adapt.

update2: i watched this video lecture and there are several errors in his statements: 1)time is perception of human, it is question if it is something which is universaly acknowledged. 2) 1, 2, 3 are not numbers - they are Plato representation of numbers which we adopt 3) this is more important 3 dimensional visionary system is like time, something we belive exists, but n-dimensional system and 3 dimensional system have only word 'dimension' in common. they are not same 'dimensions' you think it is the same because the name is same. Simmilar mistake is between Jungian word Extraversion and Eysenck or B5 term. Do you understand now? So people want to put in coordinate system something what does not belong there.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Ok. I just cannot understand why people, who are both hardwired neither for abstract thinking nor n-dim visualization, can do the first but not the second, according to Susskind? How susskind be right? Is he right? Why are we slaves of our neural architecture w.r.t visulalization but not wrt abstract thinking? Why we can penetrate the abstract thinking barrier but not the n-dim visualization?  
> **username_2**: i tried to answer that in second part of sentence. is there any evidence that there is more then 3d in real world? is there any organism (except God and Angels) which have vision of 3d?  
> **username_0**: Adaptability just explains that you can learn both abstract thinking and visualization. It does not explain why you can learn first but not the other.  
> **username_2**: I will have exactly the same argument in argument with evolutionist. But they assume that you have abilities which help species survive. So first it was vision which adapt and after that abstract thinking. you have species with dolphins which have 3d sound systems, but im not aware of 4d sensory system.  
> **username_0**: Why students can develop the abstract thinking but not 1d sensory system? Why do I need 1d sensory system for visualizing 1d space? Which kind of sensory system is needed for abstract thinking?  
> **username_2**: visual system is not hardwired, you have experiments with impaired people who are blind, after surgery they DO NOT SEE as people with usual development. with ocullomotor aided perception and vision, also stereoscopic sight is product of both eyes, so if there is one eye they have 2d vision... once again dimension in mathematical sense just aid mathematical representation of the system they are not same dimensions. word for n-dimension could be epsilon-gamma. in that case you will not ask this question, you will ask then: is there link between radiation and abstract gamma thinking  
> **username_0**: Nothing makes sense. All words are useless because they do not mean what they mean. That is why Susskind came up with n dimensions and visualization. Only abstract thinking is reality.  
> **username_2**: yes words are not precise. ie 'red color' i can bet that lot of people think red color is hardwired in brain, but there is only frequencies of electromagnetism, objects, and reflections outside our eyes. we can sense this reflection and we call it 'red color' but there is no evidence that we see same picture. so imagine now that susskind has thought, you listen to his 'unprecise' words and decode it. do you think that he gave you his thought or you think that you know what he is thinking...  
> **username_0**: You could say what he meant to say, whether his words have meaningful interepretation rather than claiming that visualization of 3d has nothing to do with visualization of 3d.  

---

