On Aug 13, 2010, at 5:27 PM, [email protected] wrote: > [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.
Wouldn't the Colorado River and Arizona be other patterns of value that may have bits and pieces that interconnect with the Grand Canyon? I don't see a problem. > . > > [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. > Craig:. > 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. Marsha: In my understanding, patterns are ever-changing, interconnecting, relative and impermanent. ___ 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
