To Craig:
I wrote: The ommelete and toasts and coffee, or
whatever I may eat at breakfast are not a pattern.
Wouldn't you agree?
Craig wrote: "Nope. As 'pattern' is used in the MoQ,
the omlette, toast and coffee
are (inorganic) patterns. The coffee, for instance,
can be experienced
as a dark liquid, as a hot liquid, as a
coffee-tasting liquid, as the
contents of a cup, etc. Each of these is a pattern,
IMO."
Now we are getting somewhere. As I just remarked to
Ron our disagreement may stem from ascribing different
meanings to the word Pattern.
Since you say that a cup of coffee can be
experienced in various ways and each of these ways is
a pattern, may I conclude that your meaning of pattern
is something like "everything that can be experienced
is a pattern"?
Please correct me if I am misreading you.
Suppose I were to accept (provisionally) your above
meaning in order to explore its consequences... Let me
see where would it lead:
If I were to propose that the only things that
exist for me are those I am aware of. (I wouldn't be
saying that things I'm not aware of do not exist at
all; only that they don't exist for me). Furthermore,
since I'm only aware of those things I experience
(including second-hand experiences like being told
about them) and since everything I experience is a
pattern, I'd be led to conclude that 'my world' is
made exclusively of patterns.
I don't see anything wrong with the logical
reasoning up to now, do you?
The widest sense of 'thing', IMO, is "an entity, an
idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to
have its own existence." that covers pretty much
everything.
Since every thing in my world is a pattern, nothing
in it is a no-pattern or 'not a pattern'. Or, to put
it otherwise, in 'my world'(the world as I experience
it)only patterns exist.
Could I conceive things that are not patterns?
No, I suppose I can not,inasmuch as I can not
conceive a no-thing.
Now, here I'm taking a large leap (you tell me
if you find it too large): since patterns and things
are identical, by saying pattern I am not saying
anything additional to 'thing' . (The information
conveyed would be the same in both cases). So, instead
of saying static patterns I could say static things;
instead of saying behavioral patterns I could say
behavioral things; instead of saying thought patterns
I could say thought things and "static patterns of
value" would become "static things of value".
Can you detect the flaws in my logical
reasoning? I hope you may. Otherwise, according to
your meaning of Pattern and within the assumptions I
introduced, we've just made patterns to disappear.
SaddeningÂ… I liked patterns.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
