[MD] now it comes

[MarshaV]

On Aug 12, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Krimel 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.  A 
> pattern has breadth and depth, as in its past existence and across many,
> many 
> individuals.  It does not exist in its entirety within one mind as a fully
> formed 
> concept, but is, indeed, a collective, pattern of value. 
> 
> What do you think about this assessment? 
> 
> [Krimel]
> I think duration is a more salient feature of "pattern" that breadth or
> depth. 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. There are features of the retina
> for example that pick out edges and line. Or as another example we detect
> motion via the "patterns" of neural firing as light excites neural along a
> trajectory in sequence. 


Marsha:
Ahhh, but the available information our apparatus detects is only a 
small portion and configured in a particular arrangement.  And many 
of our patterns, like photons and atoms and spin, are models of thought.  


> All of our sense are tuned to do something like this in one form or another.
> 
> But I see those "patterns" as Tits. The particular arrangements of primal
> stuff may be out their but it is our perception and use of them that makes
> them into patterns.


Marsha:
I understand those patterns as ever-changing and insubstantial and 
codependent on causes and conditions.   


> 
> I am not so sure about the no single mind can contain a fully formed concept
> though. Mine contains lots of them. But if you mean something like it is
> impossible to transfer them in their completeness for one mind to another,
> then sure.

Marsha:
I mean there is not an absolute boundary to a pattern.  





 
___