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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[DM]
I drop objectivism as per the MOQ

[Arlo]
Yeah, you SAY this over and over, but you simply continue to do nothing but provide evidence to the contrary.

[DM]
They are our experience,  not pre-experience,  it says nothing about space-time. Now once we see experience is made up of a sea of change but with some patterns or percepts to latch on to...

[Arlo]
If they are there "to latch on to", 'they' must precede 'our' experience of them. "To latch onto" is a statement evidencing space-time. "They" (you're 'pre-conceptual patterns') must already exist in the 'sea of change' PRIOR to our 'latching'. Since we 'latch on to' them, they must be 'apart' from 'us' in this 'sea of change'. And, is this 'sea of change' entirely 'percepts' that are there for us 'to latch onto', or is there more in the 'sea of change' than these pre-existing 'percepts' (which by your own analogy are removed in both time and space from us prior to 'latching') that we 'latch on to'? 

[DM]
...but retain realism as a good intellectual idea for understanding experience.

[Arlo]
Turner has already suggested that the MOQ's pragmatic ontology allows for acting AS IF patterns precede experience (inorganic patterns precede biological patterns) is a high-quality idea, but this grounded in the epistemological understanding that they DO NOT. If you accept this (as you say you do), 'realism' adds nothing but a subtle dismissal of the epistemology. And if not, it adds absolutely nothing. No one is disputing that this pragmatic ontology is not valuable, so who are you raging against? What does your 'realism' bring to the value-table in terms of everyday activity that the MOQ's pragmatic ontology already does not offer?