[MD] Static patterns are ever-changing?!? i

[David Thomas]

>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 2:20 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> dmb:
>> What reason does anyone have to think that static patterns are anything other
>> than the concepts derived from experience?
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> Try to understand 'undifferentiated'!
> From the 'undifferentiated' comes differentiated perceptions and conceptions.

[Dave]
Exactamente,Marsha! But........

Let's try this thought experiment with possibly the most ancient sense,
smell.

We take the broadest cross section of people from across the globe and place
them in an fMRI machine for a smell test. We make a devise to introduce a
discrete smell, say of the herb rosemary, close to their noses. We ask them
to push a button if they "smell a "distinct" smell." If they push the button
we ask, "Have you ever smelled this before?" If yes, we ask them to,"Name
That Smell,"(game show idea?) But it's the "No's" were really after. We tell
the "No's" we are going to introduce a series of smells (vanilla, cinnamon,
rosemary etc) and when they think they smell the one that they first smelled
they are to push the button.

The hypothesis being that perceptions can be differentiated, an analog
stored in human memory and retrieved with no "intellectualization"
, no "conceptualization" involved. I believe that modern science and the
data would clearly suggest that this is so. If this does not convince we
extend the experiment to the Serengeti plains of Africa. We modify the
experiment to introduce into the air two smells. The smell of rosemary and
that of carrion and observe how the various animals behave. I suggest that
when we introduce the rosemary smell we would observe very little or no
change in behavior. With the carrion all manner of animals would arrive to
check it out. Starting with the flies, followed by, lions, and tigers, and
bears, Oh my! Here come the vultures.

Since under the MoQ only humans have the ability to "conceptualize" (ie at
the "highest" level writing, defending, and publishing master and doctor
thesis explaining why vultures do or do not "conceptualize" vis-à-vis Kant's
theory of aesthetics) something else is clearly going on here. At the
minimum static patterns are more than just concepts.  Or maybe
"undifferentiated" DQ is not really undifferentiated? Up to and including
the thought that.... the whole MoQ idea is,,,,,, heaven forbid,
......bonkers!

No need to answer with your patented, " You've fallen into SOM and can't get
out." Try really reasoning.

Dave