> > From: Richard Brodie[SMTP:RBrodie@brodietech.com]
> >
> > On Monday, October 6, 1997 8:44 AM, David McFadzean
> > [SMTP:david@lucifer.com] wrote:
> > > That's a fair criticism. Can we all agree on this
> > > much: "patterns exist"? (Actually I'm not at all
> > > sure how Richard would answer that question.)
> >
> > Richard would answer that question by saying that patterns exist only
> > in
> > the mind of the beholder. This is easily demonstrated by showing
> > people
> > drawings that can be interpreted several ways (see Goedel Escher
> > Bach).
> >
> That doesn't show that patterns exist only in the mind of
> the beholder. It shows merely that different people
> match different patterns. I content that these patterns
> people see, eg in clouds and Rorshach (sp?) ink blots,
> are *all* there. To quote myself (for what that's worth):
> nothing comes from nothing. People don't invent, they
> select.
>
> (And memes are real, too.)
>
> The attribution of properties is a bit different: it's based
> on pattern matching, but is more than that. The fact
> that all these patterns are "out there", hardly diminishes
> the subjective aspect of our perception of "reality".
> Apart from anything else, selection's subjective, isn't it!
> And we are not capable of getting within a million miles
> of ceasing to select, and seeing all present patterns at
> once, ie being truely objective.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
I think it is safe to say that patterns exists and are "out there" .
Isn't this what the whole scientific therory is based on? George
Boas in his "Limits of Reason" points out that it is the interruption
of patterns that make us stop and take stock. He uses the example of
rain. We look up from our work and say "It is raining." This means
that ordinarily it is not raining or perhaps we were not expecting it
to rain. If it rained everyday at that particular time, there would
be no need to comment on it, unless we wanted to make small talk.
It is the observation of patterns and the ability to make
predictions on those patterns
that is the basis of science, right?
I am no mathematician but I read not so long ago that there is no
such thing as random numbers. That even though numbers appear to be
random, they do, in fact, form a pattern. It may be that we must
stretch the numbers out far enough to see the pattern, but that the
pattern exists. Is anyone familiar with this? Thus, it would appear that
patterns exist, it is just that we subjectively filter out portions
or are given only bits and pieces of the big picture to subjectively
categorize.