53 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
You should talk to this guy The way you talk about patterns reminded me of that post. By “pattern” do you just mean that some things are similar to other things? Like, if no minds existed anywhere in the universe, two green blades of grass would still make a pattern?
By pattern I am looking at the way one uses it to find the similar.
In software engineering one does a lot of pattern matching. I see “concept formation” as “coming up with the pattern” and “concept recognition” as “pattern matching” once you have the pattern.
(I will look at what the guy says further)
I am not talking about the pattern that grass makes. A blade of grass has a pattern to it. That pattern does not exist in a table or car.
I use pattern more like “definition”.
The aspect of concepts that stands out in this context is that it is a template to recognize (potential) referents with.
If I know “table-ness”, then I recognize the pattern, the design, the outline, the definition … when I see another one, a new one.
I am actually wondering what you and others think in this regard, I have my confusions. I want to see if I am completely off.
My understanding is that if there were no minds, there would be no patterns (in this sense).
I define patterns as a set of relationships.
Does a relationship exist based on consciousness recognizing it, or is a relationship physical/metaphysical?