[MD] now it comes

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[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