Pattern recognition
Posted by (name deleted) on May 23, 2017 at 9:17pm in Small Talk

Curious as to others thoughts & opinions on the fact that we base ones intelligence in some part in pattern recognition and the quicker you can see a conclusion from a pattern and be correct in that conclusion would seem to me that it is a basic survival technique. If a god existed would it be necessary to do so, if things were to happen as a "god" dictates then we could not trust in pattern recognition.

This discussion was mysteriously closed for reasons unknown, but I wish to continue it with this thought:

"Pattern recognition" is a term that comes to us from The Department of Redundancy Department because is there any other way to recognize something beyond recognizing a pattern?

Views: 298

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think you're right, since a definition of a pattern can be a "recognisable structure". 

There are patterns in nature we don't recognise.  But if we identified them, then we would recognise them. 

Well, there is making a pattern, denying a pattern, being wrong about a pattern, arguing about what the pattern represents, and so forth, so, distinguishing these from recognizing the pattern does actually add some clarity.

In the context of intelligence, the referred to thread, pattern recognition would be distinguished from pattern perception: In that many people perceive there to be a pattern when none exists.

The ability to also recognize the absence of a pattern would be more intelligent than seeing Jesus in a Pug's anus, etc....albeit, the endless patterns of Jesus on toast, mold stains, clouds, etc...doesn't bode well for that added intelligence being too universal.

:D

lol!!  But what if you're surrounded by improbable and highly specific coincidences in your favour, as Belle is reporting?  Is this a pattern, or not?  It's difficult to say. 

Typically, the "pattern" is simply how we perceive what is actually random, through the lens of confirmation bias.

To pick some examples of things that most people seem to have a "Baseline Impression Of":

Weather, relative to what we feel is "Expected Weather"

The Younger Generation's values and work ethic, relative to the older generation's.

MOST people, if polled, will tell you if the weather has been unpredictable lately, or not, and, if the younger generation is more moral and harder working, or not.

As we HAVE a record, going back to the earliest recorded history, of those two specific issues, we have an EXCELLENT record of how people, throughout all recorded history, felt about these baseline issues.

Universally, the ancient people to today's people, ALL said the weather has been especially unpredictable lately...AND that, basically, the younger generation is going to hell in a hand basket.

So, obviously, the BASELINE concept of what the weather SHOULD be, has ALWAYS been WRONG...and, has ALWAYS assumed that "Normal Weather" was something they expected, for some reason, DESPITE it never actually BEING normal in their actual experiences.

The same goes for the younger generations.  ALL generations essentially saw the younger generations as less hard working, less moral, and likely to be the ruination of mankind.

As what we SEE, historically, is that this is simply not the case, THAT baseline, of how hard working and moral we are, relative to the younger generations, has ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.

So, how the effin hell did thousands of generations get these baselines SO wrong, SO consistently?

Its easy if you use confirmation bias to CREATE the baseline, and then interpret any deviations from THAT as the exceptions.

That way, you can view your own hard working moral life as represented by the examples of hard work and morality, ignore the examples of laziness and immorality, albeit view the younger generation's examples of hard work and morality as the exceptions, and their examples of laziness and immorality as the representative examples.

If you decide "a normal day" is a nice sunny day with a comfortable temperature...then, all the not as nice days are now the exceptions from "Normal".

So, when MOST people look for a "pattern" of unusual events to justify a belief system, etc...they baseline the "Not unusual events" so as to CREATE "Unusual Events".

Suddenly finding yourself 10 miles up, but falling towards earth, along side a potted petunia, when previously having lunch in your kitchen an instant beforehand, WOULD BE "Improbable".

If it was a petunia you lost 40 years earlier, that WOULD BE a specific coincidence.

OTHER things that seem to happen all the time, based upon people's shared experiences, are obviously not AS improbable or AS MUCH OF a coincidence....and yet, are compared to a make-believe baseline that moves the bar, so that signing up for a genetic matching service, that finds a match, is compared to the petunia improbability.

In reality, things labeled as improbable, in the context of proof of the supernatural, tend to be more probable than improbable.

Its simply confirmation bias used to create a false baseline to compare the story with.

:D

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service