[Marsha] > This is my favorite thing to think about. A pattern, > to my understanding, is held only in bits and pieces > in a single individual, making it definitely > relative.
. IMHO this view loses a lot of explanatory value. If we want to explain the Grand Canyon by the pattern of the Colorado River, that pattern has to be in Arizona, not you or I. . [Krimel] > I also think that "pattern" as a concept > is the product or our > interaction with the world not a necessary feature > of the world. We are > biologically programmed to detect patterns. > But I see those "patterns" as Tits. > The particular arrangements of primal > stuff may be out there but it is our perception > and use of them that makes > them into patterns. . This seems contradictory. If something is a TiT, then what it is, is not dependent of us. So a pattern cannot be a TiT. Nor is it clear that a "particular arrangements of primal stuff" is not a pattern. Craig 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/md/archives.html
