[MD] now it comes

[Krimel]

> [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.

[Krimel]
There is nothing we can point to as a TiT. If we could, it wouldn't be one.
You a quite right in this; a pattern cannot be a TiT. In fact TiTs cannot be
TiTs, which is the whole problem with them philosophically. They are
inferred from experiences as the "real" part in the process of experience
just as "we" are the "self" part inferred from the same process. All of the
concepts we spin out of this process are secondary products.