From: rcte4@jetson.uh.edu (Carpenter, Scot M.)
Subject: Patterns (was Re: CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.165044.26051@tandem.com>, kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose) writes...
>In article <12AUG199210174609@jetson.uh.edu>, rcte4@jetson.uh.edu (Carpenter, Scot M.) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug11.143846.24840@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>> > 
>> >     One final comment:  humans are very good at finding patterns,
>> >     even when they do not exist. 
>> 
>> 
>> 	This strikes me a bit strange - If a subjective pattern is found, 
>> than it does exist.  I think that your statement is indicative of the whole
>> subjective/objective reality conflict; I infer that you mean that even if I
>> detect a pattern in data, unless I can find a function that describes it in a
>> manner that is consistent with existing "scientific knowledge," the pattern
>> doesn't really exist.
> 
>Scot,
> 
>I believe the argument is that people have a tendency to find order
>and patterns even when they do not in fact exist.  Nothing strange
>about it at all; just a result of how we view the world.
> 
>There is a book published recently that addresses this very 
>subject -- written by Thomas Gilovich, it is titled "How we
>know what isn't so -- the fallibility of human reason in
>everyday life".  I have just begun to read it, so I can't
>summarize his arguments, but the preface promises that the
>book will explore the ways people discern patterns in things
>that are random. 
> 
>____________________________________________________________________
>Ken Rose    (kenr@storage.tandem.com)

      I don't disagree with the idea that people have an innate urge to 
find and create patterns from almost any physical or abstract collection of
data; what I object to is the idea that just because the data is judged
"random" by some measure the pattern does not exist.
      I think we are dealing with people's world views - as Dale Bass said,
he used the word "exists" loosely; in your post you say "do not in fact
exist," to me (here we go with attribution theory....) this is indicating
a bias toward the objective, measurable view of reality.
      The ability to verify perceived patterns against social consensus is
a measure of sanity; paranoid psychotics assume the patterns of persecution
they experience are real and act on them; socially sane people reject the
same feelings as unlikely until they have additional evidence.
      Where the difficulty, for me, comes in is how do we judge perceived
patterns which do not "exist" in any measureable way, i.e. are "random,"
yet share consensus?  The Pollock painting is an example - to some it is
random dribbles; another, fairly large group find non-representational 
patterns that are significant in an esthetic sense.  A work by John Cage
is certainly not melodic, but is it random, or is it "music" in the 
sense of having a composition (pattern)? This consensus seems to be a
sensitivity that is developed over time by repeated exposure to similar
types of patterns, and is admittedly not 100% reproducible, yet artists
are comfortable with it. 

      In a sense, I am arguing against our present views of randomness.
There are subjective patterns that are useless (such as prejudices and
false stereotypes), and there are other subjective patterns that can not
be quantified or rigorously defined, yet are either consensual or are useful
to the individual, if not to society.

      I believe that there is some order to the second type, but it has
not been discovered yet.  This is an act of utilitarian faith; I enjoy
abstract expressionism and many other things that I can't fit into a 
regression model.  If science is to be our only model for the world, it
will someday have to address these phenomena also.

|	Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict		|
|	accordance with the limitations and incapacities of  		|
|	the human misunderstanding. - Ambrose Bierce			|
|	Scot Carpenter RCTE4@Jetson.uh.edu 				|
Newsgroups: soc.college,comp.sys.mac.programmer,misc.education