Frequently asked questions..

[Cainad (dec.)]

All mushrooms "are" mushrooms, because we have created the definition of mushroom, and that definition ignores enough of each individual Thing to be able to classify them as a Set.

Mushroom¹ is not identical to Mushroom², but because our definition of "mushroom" ignores the factors of ¹ and ², we can call them the "same".

Certainly.
we created that definition to describe a pattern that we observed.  that pattern is a manifestation of attributes inherent in the mushrooms.  that we see them repeated over this range has significance to us because we note the Order that is there.  so we craft a definition to capture/signify this order.  i know that the criteria is artificial/not really real/somewhat arbitrary.  if we saw something that set off the pattern recognition widgets in our head such that we said, "that thar's a mushroom", but for some technical reason it fell out of our current criteria that we used to describe this pattern we see, then we would need to alter the criteria to more accurately reflect the pattern we see.  maybe we would have to make the criteria a little looser and more inclusive.
it could come to pass that we feel we need to do this successively enough that we see a gradient of change in our criteria for the pattern, and we end up with such a diverse set that when looked at as a whole, there is not a satisfying sense of cohesion in the set.  maybe we will feel the need to ham fistedly cleave the group in two, or some such other inelegant 'solution'.  that exposes the 'unreality' of the classification criteria, but it doesn't dismiss the fact (in my mind) that there is a pattern and an order external to our perception and classification thereof.

To turn the tables:

Okay. Why is that a fact?

[Elder Iptuous]

Thing1 and Thing2 are observed completely.  They are not the same.
We eliminate a handful of things to observe, and they are still not the same.
We eliminate an immense amount of things to observe, and we find a familiar element between the two.
We call that a "pattern".
The amount of information we have to supress in order to announce a pattern is incredibly large.  Larger, in fact, than the familiar element we are claiming relates them.  I'm not sure how someone could say that this familiar element is anything but a self-imposed illusion of Order.

two things sharing a single trait is called a pattern by only a fool.
i know that, you know that.

....but it doesn't dismiss the fact (in my mind) that there is a pattern and an order external to our perception and classification thereof.

To turn the tables:

Okay. Why is that a fact?

ah.
it was/is a default position.  it appears to be true prima facie, and i've not seen any good reason to think otherwise yet.

[Telarus]

....but it doesn't dismiss the fact (in my mind) that there is a pattern and an order external to our perception and classification thereof.

To turn the tables:

Okay. Why is that a fact?

ah.
it was/is a default position.  it appears to be true prima facie, and i've not seen any good reason to think otherwise yet.

All happening patterns consist of experience recalls.

[the last yatto]

This is how I know breaking the candies was the right thing to do.

Cause of things like this.

From what I have picked up ITT there is no right or wrong answer because order/disorder is in the eye of the beholder.

actually i think the right answer would be to hide the normal bag of M&Ms and pull out say a bag of Peanut M&Ms

[Telarus]

This is how I know breaking the candies was the right thing to do.

Cause of things like this.

From what I have picked up ITT there is no right or wrong answer because order/disorder is in the eye of the beholder.

actually i think the right answer would be to hide the normal bag of M&Ms and pull out say a bag of Peanut M&Ms

"I reject your reality, and substitute MY OWN!" [/mythbusters]

[Elder Iptuous]

All happening patterns consist of experience recalls.

could you explain this?
experience recall?  as in a memory?
what is meant by a 'happening' pattern?
and then..... why?

[Telarus]

Ok, I really have to work with Bucky's definitions tho.

Experience is always special case. (Special cases are all biterminal, i.e., having both beginning and ending.)

You experience thing₁, then later you experience thing₂. You can only perceive the Pattern by recalling your experiences of thing₁ and thing₂, and then finding the relationships.

These 'patterned relationships', are as Bucky says, "abstractly statable interrelationships existing between and amongst, but not "in" or "of," any of the special-case experience components of the relationship."

(Fungi don't have holy-spirits, ghosts,  or souls that continually sing them into existence by chanting "mushroom mushroom mushroom ... snaaaaake!", but are individual organisms that have interrelationships between and among them.)

These interrelationships are real metaphysical components of THIS REAL UNIVERSE. Don't think of them as 'unreal' like a invisible pink unicorn. But, in order for these real metaphysical components to have any meaning, there has to be a Mind. Relationships don't make themselves. On to structures (physical-or-metaphysical event-experiences that exhibit signs of patterned relationships to other event-experiences):

By definition a structure is a complex of energy events interacting to produce(exhibit) a stable pattern. Structures are always special case. Structures always have unique size (unique size means the concept of size applies... to a metaphysical concept like 'triangle' size does not apply.... to any manifest 'special-case' triangle the concept of size does apply). Structures are operational. Operational = physically realized.

[Elder Iptuous]

Ok, I really have to work with Bucky's definitions tho.

Experience is always special case. (Special cases are all biterminal, i.e., having both beginning and ending.)

You experience thing₁, then later you experience thing₂. You can only perceive the Pattern by recalling your experiences of thing₁ and thing₂, and then finding the relationships.

These 'patterned relationships', are as Bucky says, "abstractly statable interrelationships existing between and amongst, but not "in" or "of," any of the special-case experience components of the relationship."

i was copying up to this point. can't parse this statement.

(Fungi don't have holy-spirits, ghosts,  or souls that continually sing them into existence by chanting "mushroom mushroom mushroom ... snaaaaake!", but are individual organisms that have interrelationships between and among them.)

These interrelationships are real metaphysical components of THIS REAL UNIVERSE. Don't think of them as 'unreal' like a invisible pink unicorn. But, in order for these real metaphysical components to have any meaning, there has to be a Mind. Relationships don't make themselves. On to structures (physical-or-metaphysical event-experiences that exhibit signs of patterned relationships to other event-experiences):

meaning?  i'm not talking about meaning.  i'm just saying that the pattern/order is there even without mind to perceive it. as far as relations making themselves, i think they certainly do.  they exist by virtue of the qualities of the objects that manifest the relation.  not because of the mind that may or may not discover them...

By definition a structure is a complex of energy events interacting to produce(exhibit) a stable pattern. Structures are always special case. Structures always have unique size (unique size means the concept of size applies... to a metaphysical concept like 'triangle' size does not apply.... to any manifest 'special-case' triangle the concept of size does apply). Structures are operational. Operational = physically realized.

sounds good to me, but...
what do you say this means in the current conversation?

[Telarus]

It means that by definition, patterns carry meaning, and that they exist separate from any concrete/special-case example of them (i.e. structure).... Even A Hypothetical One (a metaphysical special-case experience).

They exist, but we can only infer them through the experiences we have. They are part of the experience. Take away the one who experiences and you don't have Pattern, you have arbitrary, unidentified Structure.

A pattern has an integrity(unity, whole-ness, such-ness) independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists.

[LMNO]

Thing1 and Thing2 are observed completely.  They are not the same.
We eliminate a handful of things to observe, and they are still not the same.
We eliminate an immense amount of things to observe, and we find a familiar element between the two.
We call that a "pattern".
The amount of information we have to supress in order to announce a pattern is incredibly large.  Larger, in fact, than the familiar element we are claiming relates them.  I'm not sure how someone could say that this familiar element is anything but a self-imposed illusion of Order.

two things sharing a single trait is called a pattern by only a fool.
i know that, you know that.

Ok.  Now, what is the ratio between traits shared and traits not shared before one can be called foolish?

My post below was not in jest:

This is a mushroom:




This is also a mushroom:





What needs to be ignored in order to classify these as being the same?

While there may be several points in common between these two Things, there are FAR more point that have nothing to do with each other.  At what point does it become foolish to say they are the same, and who decides what that ratio of similar/not similar is?  The observer.  The Subjective Observer.  Thus, we create the similarities, and ignore the differences.

We ignore these points to get through the day, but we also fall into the trap of thinking they aren't actually there.

[Elder Iptuous]

LMNO,
who is saying that two objects must be 'the same' in order for there to be a pattern?
there just has to be some repetition in some arrangement of some sort, right?

i'm not a mycologist, but i'm certain that there are delineating criteria that those two examples share that fit the pattern...
i've been arguing that those qualities of the objects or whatever are the pattern.  it seems clear to me that the issue is one of definitions, and is a failure on my part to conform to what is being understood here, that the pattern is the criteria and not the manifestation of it.

So, in that case i would say that Order is not the Pattern (as that is simply our perception), but is instead the physical manifestation of repeated form.  What word should i use for that?
and how does that differ from 'Order'?


Iptuous,
mushy headed humpty dumpty destroying your language.

[Iason Ouabache]

i would never ever ever never ever ever
never ever ever imagine the pd would be full of grayfaces.

It's a conspiracy.  There hasn't been a genuine discordian since 1983; they were bought out by Coca-Cola.

Ha! This means that I'm the only Genuine Discordian left!!!  Eat it, fuckers!!!!



IO, proudly sponsored by Coca-Cola.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

i would never ever ever never ever ever
never ever ever imagine the pd would be full of grayfaces.

It's a conspiracy.  There hasn't been a genuine discordian since 1983; they were bought out by Coca-Cola.

Ha! This means that I'm the only Genuine Discordian left!!!  Eat it, fuckers!!!!



IO, proudly sponsored by Coca-Cola.

Genuine as opposed to really real?

[LMNO]

Ipt, I think we've reached an impass, and are inches away from the void of metaphysics and the intrinsic "din an sich" of Things.


The question at hand seems to be, "do patterns exist if we are not there to observe them?"

There also seems to be a thin fog of Aristotle in the air, but I can't quite place it.


Anyway, I have a feeling from this point forward we would be arguing past each other, so I'm gonna let this rest, for now.

[Triple Zero]

It's a trick question. The flappy things aren't really mushrooms anyway.