The category error

Our conceptual error runs deeper than conflating two processes. We’ve made a category mistake about what “pattern” and “recognition” actually refer to.

What we typically call “pattern” refers to perception-side patterns (visual, auditory, tactile, intellectual). What we call “recognition” typically refers to reaction events (motor, emotional, linguistic responses). To us, in order to accept that someone recognizes something, a reaction is needed—we cannot separate “reaction” and “recognition.”

But here’s the critical insight: in order to have proper recognition of similar objects, the reaction should be similar in every case. That is, reaction itself follows a pattern.

Perception-patterns and reaction-patterns are ALL patterns—just different types within the same constellation.

We’ve been treating perception as “the pattern” and reaction as something separate called “recognition,” when actually: - Both perception and reaction are patterns - They are learned together as unified constellations - What we call “recognition” is the activation of this unified constellation that includes both perceptual and reactive patterns

This is why the distinction between “pattern” (perception) and “recognition” (reaction) is a false dualism. Both are aspects of integrated pattern-constellations that form during learning and activate together during what we mistakenly think of as two separate events.

¹

¹