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

[MarshaV]

Hi Dave,

Could there be more to static quality than concepts and percepts?  Sure.  The Buddhists present the aggregates: the aggregate of form; the aggregate of feelings; the aggregate of perception; the aggregate of volitional activities; the aggregate of consciousness.  It's a very detailed system of explanation and links to dependent arising.  At the moment, the best I can do is consider, reconsider and keep an open mind.  
 
 
Marsha




On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:32 AM, David Thomas <combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> 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
>