(April 5, 2013 at 10:32 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The ability to recognize a pattern presupposes a pattern to be recognized. How is it possible for us to rationally make distinctions from the seamless continuum of reality? For example, where does a corner end? The use of words and symbols to convey meaning requires more than the referent objects themselves. Foundational certainties must exist in order to identify referent objects.
Certainly, there is no objective standard for what constitutes a legitimate pattern, which is why people very frequently see patterns where none exist, such as the practice of matrixing. Cars don't have faces, but the standard layout of headlights and grille resemble the layout of a face and the brain may make the suggestion to itself that it has a face.
It doesn't have to be a strictly rational process (obviously, it isn't a lot of times). So, we don't need foundational certainties. We did not evolve in an environment which demanded precise calculation. In most practical applications (especially before the development of civilization), our brains don't need precise delineations. They need best guesses. They need the ability to make quick decisions with limited information to deal with the majority of problems they face. Calculation to precision takes time and energy, sometimes prodigious amounts of both. It's the same with symbols and language. Individual words tend to be simple and often have different meanings based on context. We convey complex information using the more complex structure of sentences, which can be as long or short as is necessary to get a point across. None of it is very precise.
