4 ms·

The article starts with, "Human beings try to find patterns to explain the reason behind almost every phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean that there is a pattern

by jrapdx3 10y ago

The article starts with, "Human beings try to find patterns to explain the reason behind almost every phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean that there is a pattern to rely on." The second part of the sentence is true, on further observation some patterns prove not to be patterns. However the first half, the attempt to explain why we "find patterns" isn't convincing. Instead, replace that phrase with this: "based on brain construction, we humans are predisposed to find patterns in data we encounter". This idea holds up to evolutionary scrutiny, organisms have mechanisms biased for self-protection and finding food and other resources through various forms of pattern recognition. IOW we find patterns we're neurologically capable of finding, particularly in regard to survival and reproduction. Perhaps it's more accurate to assert we "find patterns" useful in making predictions about our present and future state within the environments we occupy. The fact that patterns may not turn out to be authentic is simply part of a process of refinement of pattern-seeking and improving value as predictors of future states. We may call a pattern an "explanation" but nothing is actually "explained" as shown by the fact we reserve the right to enhance or revise the "pattern", or what we insist it predicts, at any given time. Edits: grammar and clarity

Retra 10y ago
Our brains are basically built to do pattern matching. Though, truthfully, I find that is too abstract of a way of putting it, and in fact, people tend to associate "meaning" with "pattern" and thus you end up with statements like that one. What I would say the brain is good at is finding patterns in terms of identifying what is appropriate, with a particularly general understanding of "appropriate." There's a huge evolutionary drive for this. It's a bit disjointed to say wolves howl with each other because "brains detect patterns" and somehow find them useful. It's much clearer when we say that "brains encode patterns in terms of appropriateness", and thus wolves howl with each other because their brains know it is appropriate to do so. Just like germ's biology encodes that it's appropriate to wiggle harder in salty water, or how a person knows that certain words are correct in specific situations. So our brains are more like engines for mapping patterned associations to feelings of appropriateness in context.
- jrapdx3 10y ago
  Appreciate your interesting thoughts on the subject. It certainly does appear that brain circuits are evolved to respond to patterns in data, for example, visual neurobiology has been studied extensively re: how visual systems can identify patterns in visual data. Not exactly sure how you define "appropriate" in this context. Like an astronomically complex "neural net", the brain integrates "input" into pattern recognition, so it's a form of classification filtering that allows recognition of phenomena. On the basis of experiences, the classified patterns are bound to probabilistic prediction estimates, in turn informing choice of actions. Though I know much less about wolf vs. human behavior, if analogous to human speech, howling is an action taken in response to evaluation of current environment, e.g., pattern of other wolf activity, presence of prey, etc. We might infer howling is "appropriate" under some condition, but really it's tautology, because it's equivalent to stating we observe howling under some condition. IOW the latter is a description that's complete and sufficient regarding what we "know". It might be clearer to rephrase "appropriate" to "what is and what works", though "what works" is probably superfluous to understanding the process. IOW an attempt to "explain" the pattern recognition and response phenomena adds nothing to our knowledge, and in fact adds a level of indirection that tends to obscure the nature of process. I should let it go at that because it's late and I'm tired. Saying more leads to multi-dimensional consideration of the nature of brain/body operations. If you are really interested in arcane and slippery meta-level or higher-order viewpoints I'm happy to say more, but better when it's earlier in the day and my head is clearer.
  - Retra 10y ago
    You're right in that it doesn't seem to add any information. It's possible that there's nothing more to learn, but it's also possible that the distinction would manifest in a subtle way that your current formalized understanding doesn't employ sufficient granularity to capture. I guess I prefer the term appropriate because it more cleanly handles the case when the patterns "don't" match: by indicating that such situations don't exist. There's always a pattern to match, just as there's always some action that's learned (or instinctually) appropriate to any given situation. If you're trying to see appropriate as "what works", then you're probably more strongly aligning the meaning with a rational process than what I intended, but I don't think you're wrong. Either way, it bears keeping in mind that our day-to-day language isn't really optimized for discussing these kinds of things, so there's bound to be multiple layers of confusion.

by jrapdx3 10y ago

Retra 10y ago

Our brains are basically built to do pattern matching. Though, truthfully, I find that is too abstract of a way of putting it, and in fact, people tend to associate "meaning" with "pattern" and thus you end up with statements like that one. What I would say the brain is good at is finding patterns in terms of identifying what is appropriate, with a particularly general understanding of "appropriate." There's a huge evolutionary drive for this. It's a bit disjointed to say wolves howl with each other because "brains detect patterns" and somehow find them useful. It's much clearer when we say that "brains encode patterns in terms of appropriateness", and thus wolves howl with each other because their brains know it is appropriate to do so. Just like germ's biology encodes that it's appropriate to wiggle harder in salty water, or how a person knows that certain words are correct in specific situations. So our brains are more like engines for mapping patterned associations to feelings of appropriateness in context.

jrapdx3 10y ago
Appreciate your interesting thoughts on the subject. It certainly does appear that brain circuits are evolved to respond to patterns in data, for example, visual neurobiology has been studied extensively re: how visual systems can identify patterns in visual data. Not exactly sure how you define "appropriate" in this context. Like an astronomically complex "neural net", the brain integrates "input" into pattern recognition, so it's a form of classification filtering that allows recognition of phenomena. On the basis of experiences, the classified patterns are bound to probabilistic prediction estimates, in turn informing choice of actions. Though I know much less about wolf vs. human behavior, if analogous to human speech, howling is an action taken in response to evaluation of current environment, e.g., pattern of other wolf activity, presence of prey, etc. We might infer howling is "appropriate" under some condition, but really it's tautology, because it's equivalent to stating we observe howling under some condition. IOW the latter is a description that's complete and sufficient regarding what we "know". It might be clearer to rephrase "appropriate" to "what is and what works", though "what works" is probably superfluous to understanding the process. IOW an attempt to "explain" the pattern recognition and response phenomena adds nothing to our knowledge, and in fact adds a level of indirection that tends to obscure the nature of process. I should let it go at that because it's late and I'm tired. Saying more leads to multi-dimensional consideration of the nature of brain/body operations. If you are really interested in arcane and slippery meta-level or higher-order viewpoints I'm happy to say more, but better when it's earlier in the day and my head is clearer.
- Retra 10y ago
  You're right in that it doesn't seem to add any information. It's possible that there's nothing more to learn, but it's also possible that the distinction would manifest in a subtle way that your current formalized understanding doesn't employ sufficient granularity to capture. I guess I prefer the term appropriate because it more cleanly handles the case when the patterns "don't" match: by indicating that such situations don't exist. There's always a pattern to match, just as there's always some action that's learned (or instinctually) appropriate to any given situation. If you're trying to see appropriate as "what works", then you're probably more strongly aligning the meaning with a rational process than what I intended, but I don't think you're wrong. Either way, it bears keeping in mind that our day-to-day language isn't really optimized for discussing these kinds of things, so there's bound to be multiple layers of confusion.