Phil Form : Patterns : Icons

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... portion/p1

I was wondering if anyone had any arguments that patterns are objective — Gregory

I'd say that objective patterns (interrelationships) are all we see in the world. The personal meaning of those patterns is subjective. We perceive abstract patterns out there, then conceive them as-if concrete objects in the mind. For example, a sinuous movement on the ground is quickly interpreted as a snake, even it is a dragging hose.

Real Patterns : The central concept of the philosophy presented is the concept of "pattern": Minds and the world they live in and co-create are viewed as patterned systems of patterns, evolving over time,
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Pattern-P ... 1581129890

Patternity : https://www.patternity.org/philosophy/

Patterns without meaning : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page36.html

[Gnomon]

Is Hoffman claiming that the way a bird sees the world could not be translated into a form that we could understand? — Banno

No. The underlying patterns of information are the same for everyone. It's the "icons", mental constructs, that differ among observers. That's why Science is an attempt to remove the personal bias from our observations. And mathematical models (equations) are about as close as we can get to the fundamental Information patterns of reality. Unfortunately, bird concepts, translated into abstract math, would not mean much to the average human.

[Gnomon]

Would you accept a correction: No. That which underlies patterns of information are the same for everyone. — tim wood

OK. But what is "that which underlies patterns"?

[Gnomon]

I hope he is a bit clearer that that in his explanations. — Banno

Have you read any of his argument against reality? If you don't want to read the book, there are several videos on related topics. But you may not like what he's implying. His theory is a form of Idealism, in which what you see as real is a mental model, not the underlying essence of reality. His argument makes sense to me, but then I am not a committed Materialist.

Hoffman TED talk : https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... anguage=en

[Gnomon]

Any information can be encoded as a string of bits. We can then calculate the entropy of that string. No 'icons' would be involved - unless bits are considered icons. — Banno

Are you familiar with "black hole" physicist John Archibald Wheeler's "It From Bit" hypothesis? In Hoffman's theory, Icons are what we believe to be real. Is a "bit" of information real? In what sense?

It From Bit : “All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe… Observer-participancy gives rise to information.”
"“Reality is what we take to be true,” pioneering physicist David Bohm asserted in 1977. “What we take to be true is what we believe… What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.”
https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/0 ... t-wheeler/

[Gnomon]

The presence of a pattern implies a pattern generator. A finality. There is some larger process that is placing constraints on irregularity or uncertainty. — apokrisis

Yes. Patterns are not random, they are caused. And the "finality" is the First or Final or Ultimate Cause. The "larger process" is a Teleological System with Laws (constraints) and just enough freedom from determinism to allow for the creativity of "uncertainty". Do you have a more specific name for your "Pattern Generator"?

[Gnomon]

Practical knowledge tells us it is what you think it is. — tim wood

Yes. In practical Reality, what you see is what exists. But in theoretical Reality, what you see is a mentally constructed image (icon) of abstract energy patterns. Hoffman is not an experimental (biological or neurological) scientist looking through microscopes. He is a theoretical (cognitive) scientist, using metaphors to describe things we can't see, such as Ideas.

[Gnomon]

The key insight is that reality is the evolving product of top-down constraints interacting with bottom-up constructive degrees of freedom — apokrisis

That is also a "key insight" of my Enformationism thesis.

Creativity -- Freedom with Constraints : The process of evolution can be construed as an ongoing reckoning of Cause & Effect events. Another way to put it is to say that Natural Selection is the product of freedom-of-action (randomness) and constraints-on-action (selection).
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html

[Gnomon]

I buy this. Slight edit: Yes. In practical Reality, what you see is what exists. But in Reality, what you see is a mentally constructed image. Yes? No? — tim wood

Yes. That mental image is what Hoffman calls an "icon", by analogy with the symbols on your computer or phone screen that represent the low-level functions of abstract mathematical processes in the processor. We don't need to know the nitty-gritty details, just what to expect from what we "see".

[Gnomon]

One starts off the general conception of the Cosmos as case of "there is nothing, so build me something". The other says "anything and everything is possible, but that in itself is going to result in aself-selecting competition". As in a quantum sum-over-histories, reality is what is left over once all the possible alternatives have cancelled each other out to leave a single sharp outcome remaining. — apokrisis

Actually, I have discussed both sides of the something vs nothing dichotomy. In unlimited Eternity-Infinity all things are possible, but in our constrained space-time Reality, only some things are actual. That's how I conceive of Natural Selection : random evolutionary change (including mutations) produces a variety of possible options, but the Selection process "chooses" which will go on to the next stage of evolution. Presumably, "unfit" options are the ones that "cancel each other out", via direct competition for niches. In that sense, evolution is a win-lose game. But ultimately the world as a whole is a winner, it progresses in quality.