[MD] now it comes

[Krimel]

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.  

[Krimel]
True enough but fortunately for us complete information is not required for
us to derive meaning. All we need get from "information" is improved odds.

I would argue, like just about everyone since Darwin that we gather the
"information" that we gather because of both its abundance and its potential
to reduce uncertainty. 

Because of these we can infer things. We use inductive processes to go
beyond the information given to built patterns of patterns of patterns.


> [Krimel]
> 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.   

[Krimel]
Right, we are inducing SQ from the field of DQ. We have to create meaning.
It doesn't stick out its thumb like some hitchhiker waiting for us to give
it a ride.

> [Krimel]
> 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.  

[Krimel]
Right patterns themselves for the most part have chaotic boundaries. They
are static within certain bounds and under certain conditions. They persist
to the extent that the processes involved don't exceed the fault tolerance
of the particular pattern.