Frequently asked questions..

[AFK]

Which existing discussion?  So far this thread has covered:  why are discordians fat?, movies, drugs, pd.com drama/in-fighting, i think there was something about dildos for awhile, M&M's & Chaos, and now patterns. 

[Elder Iptuous]

RWHN,
i would respond to the planet example in pretty much the same way as i would the mushroom example:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=16651.msg883474#msg883474

i agree with you that the criteria that we use to model the pattern is a mental construct and is subject to being broken or modified.

[Adios]

I think, maybe, the solar system is another good example.  For decades the solar system featured a lineup of 9 planets.  They were all classified as planets based on multiple observed criteria.  The problem, if you want to call it a problem, was it was based upon what we could observe at the time.  It was based upon the finite ability to observe the solar system based upon the finite defined properties of existing technology.  So, to go back to stuff LMNO talked about earlier in the thread, there was all of this information that was being filtered out, simply because we didn't have the capability to observe it, and thus, comprehend it.  

And then, technology improved over the decades, and eventually someone discovered Planet Eris, and the rest of the Kuiper Belt.  And then, we had 8 planets, and all of these other things flying around the solar system.  So, the pattern changed, because our observations changed.  

That is why it is somewhat inprecise to suggest that patterns exist, by some kind of universal True nature, whether or not we observe them.  The pattern that informed the 9-planet model didn't exist with or without our observation.  It relied upon our observation and interpretation.  And as our ability to observe expanded, we decided the 9-planet patterns was false and that this new 8-planet pattern was true.  It is very likely that this pattern will one day found to be false as well and new technologies will reveal that yet, another pattern, is the true pattern.  It seems like we don't really have the proper technology (mental and machine) to honestly be able to come to that conclusion.  

Good example.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rat, 'the cognition is not the pattern' seems analogous to 'the map is not the territory' to me...

YES! Bingo! That is the correct motorcycle!

The territory is made of unique stuff... when we humans perceive the territory and build a map to explain it we note similarities and use them. The similarities exists in the Really Real Reality... but not necessarily the 'pattern' it only exists in the 'map'.

X and Y have similarities = True
X and Y are a pattern = True only in our perception...

[Elder Iptuous]

Rat, 'the cognition is not the pattern' seems analogous to 'the map is not the territory' to me...

YES! Bingo! That is the correct motorcycle!

The territory is made of unique stuff... when we humans perceive the territory and build a map to explain it we note similarities and use them. The similarities exists in the Really Real Reality... but not necessarily the 'pattern' it only exists in the 'map'.

X and Y have similarities = True
X and Y are a pattern = True only in our perception...

Like i said, it's just a matter of the language.
I'm saying that the similarities are the pattern.
our perception of that pattern and the criteria that we decide upon to model those similarities are what is just in our heads.
i base this use of the language upon the use of the phrase 'pattern recognition' which implies existence independent from the observer.
If the pattern is, as you suggest, the perception of the similarities, then what do you call the set of similarities themselves?
Furthermore, whatever you call that set of similarities, then since we agree that they exist really for real in the real world, (and are generally the result of some mechanism) then these represent ORDER, apart from our perception of it.
(that was my original contention....)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rat, 'the cognition is not the pattern' seems analogous to 'the map is not the territory' to me...

YES! Bingo! That is the correct motorcycle!

The territory is made of unique stuff... when we humans perceive the territory and build a map to explain it we note similarities and use them. The similarities exists in the Really Real Reality... but not necessarily the 'pattern' it only exists in the 'map'.

X and Y have similarities = True
X and Y are a pattern = True only in our perception...

Like i said, it's just a matter of the language.
I'm saying that the similarities are the pattern.
our perception of that pattern and the criteria that we decide upon to model those similarities are what is just in our heads.
i base this use of the language upon the use of the phrase 'pattern recognition' which implies existence independent from the observer.
If the pattern is, as you suggest, the perception of the similarities, then what do you call the set of similarities themselves?
Furthermore, whatever you call that set of similarities, then since we agree that they exist really for real in the real world, (and are generally the result of some mechanism) then these represent ORDER, apart from our perception of it.
(that was my original contention....)

Similarities represent Order?

I disagree... similarities are simply elements/values that are similar.

The red apple and the red firetruck are not "ordered" simply because they both happen to reflect similar wavelengths of light....

[Adios]

I see a pattern developing here.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I see a pattern developing here.

[Elder Iptuous]

Similarities represent Order?

I disagree... similarities are simply elements/values that are similar.

The red apple and the red firetruck are not "ordered" simply because they both happen to reflect similar wavelengths of light....

Similarities represent order.
in your example, i would say that the similarity represents the pattern and order of the way light interacts with various materials.  if i'm not mistaken, the wavelengths of light that are absorbed leading to our perception of color are dependent upon the valence shell of the atoms that make up the substance of the object.
the apple's atoms absorb the same frequency of light that the firetrucks paint does.
that's the pattern.
yeah. i would call that order.
and i would say that it exists regardless of whether you observe it or not.
'but that's really incidental to the firetruck and apple, though', you say?
well, yea.  you picked one superficial similarity between two disparate items, so the order that that similarity represents is going to be pretty tangential, right?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Similarities represent Order?

I disagree... similarities are simply elements/values that are similar.

The red apple and the red firetruck are not "ordered" simply because they both happen to reflect similar wavelengths of light....

Similarities represent order.
in your example, i would say that the similarity represents the pattern and order of the way light interacts with various materials.  if i'm not mistaken, the wavelengths of light that are absorbed leading to our perception of color are dependent upon the valence shell of the atoms that make up the substance of the object.
the apple's atoms absorb the same frequency of light that the firetrucks paint does.
that's the pattern.
yeah. i would call that order.
and i would say that it exists regardless of whether you observe it or not.
'but that's really incidental to the firetruck and apple, though', you say?
well, yea.  you picked one superficial similarity between two disparate items, so the order that that similarity represents is going to be pretty tangential, right?

Depends... maybe the firetruck reflects 655nm and the apple reflects 656nm, except the bits where it got bruised and the one bit which was facing away from the sun and reflects 570nm (yellow) instead. Also there are splotches on the firetruck which reflect 440nm light (which say "Foobar Co. Volunteer Fire Dept" if you happen to be a human that can read English).

So they are only a pattern when we observe the bits that are similar to us aka "red".

If we measured all of the reflecting light from a firetruck and an apple, we would probably see large differences in the numbers. The "pattern" exists then at one level of abstraction "red' but not at a lower level (the actual measurement of reflected light).

It seems sophomoric, but I think it cuts to the heart of the Discordian philosophy of Order and Disorder being illusions.... in some sense.

In some sense, of course there are patterns and order in the Universe. In another sense, there aren't. And of course in some very real sense, the whole argument is meaningless....

[LMNO]

I think I get this...

There are things in this universe, unique.

those things are independent, but they are full of other things.

THEY DO NOT CONNECT THEMSELVES.


They exist independently.  They are not aware that there are other things that share similarities.


THEY ARE DOTS.


IT IS UP TO SOMEONE TO CONNECT THE DOTS. 




So, the dots exist, but the connections between the dots do not, until someone draws them.

[Adios]

I think I get this...

There are things in this universe, unique.

those things are independent, but they are full of other things.

THEY DO NOT CONNECT THEMSELVES.


They exist independently.  They are not aware that there are other things that share similarities.


THEY ARE DOTS.


IT IS UP TO SOMEONE TO CONNECT THE DOTS. 




So, the dots exist, but the connections between the dots do not, until someone draws them.

This is where I ended up after all the conversation. It's just us putting things together in a way to try and make sense of it all.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Perhaps we can all agree that a pattern is some condition which exists that allows the human mind to reliably predict something it isn't yet aware of. The value of patterns go far beyond just being recognizable, discernable arrangements of events or objects. They play into our cognitive need to categorize things, people, and events - not just to make sense of what is happening now but to plan for what hasn't happened yet (from our perspective).

In one way this is our imposition of "order" on an inherently "disorderly" universe, but I think that is far to simplistic an explanation for patterns and their usefulness. By virtue of the fact that in many cases (with exceptions, of course) these objectively "arbitrary" things we describe as patterns do in fact allow us to predict the future, there must be more to them than simply our own blind wandering about and labeling things to make ourselves feel comfortable.

I don't know for sure what is going on, any more than the next person does, but I suppose that when we pick out a pattern we are recognizing something of an inherent order to the universe that stretches far outside of our perceptual and cognitive range. Or, if not "order" per se, then at least some property of the universe that we perceive as order. In fact I think it's likely that "order" and "disorder" are entirely meaningless terms objectively and that what we experience as "order" is simply some function or property of the universe we have become familiar with.

[LMNO]

I think Vex is sitting on the correct barstool.

[Adios]

I forget who mentioned the relationship this has with the BIP but I think that perspective has to be considered. There may be an exact pattern but we may be unable to see the overall because our minds just aren't ready yet.

Another question I have is if we are able to pull back far enough will there always be a pattern?