At 01:54 PM 11/6/2008, you wrote:
[Marsha]
> I might find a better way to
> demonstrate the idea that patterns are conceptual.
Why not say all patterns are conceptualizable.
This establishs a necessary relationship between
patterns & concepts, without making them identical.
Craig
>From an advertisement in "Scientific American" (Nov. 2008):
"'The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, And the Unification
of Forces' by Frank Wilczek
Frank Wilczek, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics,
unwraps exciting new ideas, among them...that space is
DYNAMIC...it opens new possibilities for making
connections among PATTERNS that previously seemed unrelated.
If our fundamental equations describe partial patterns that we
can make more symmetric,...we're tempted to think that
maybe they really are just facets of the larger, unified
structure."
Greetings,
I cannot accept that patterns are just conceptualizable. Take away
conceptions and there is sight, hearing, smell, taste, or
touch. None of it making any "sense". You see only shapes of
color. Even depth is conceptualized. Depth is the patterned
relationship between patterns. New possibilities of connected
patterns should be obvious because experience is the intersection of
relationship.
Marsha
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/
.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.
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/
