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

[David Morey]

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

[DM] Well then let's see the quotes.

[Arlo]
If they are there "to latch on to", 'they' must precede 'our' experience of them. 

DM not that is SOM,  we experience patterns in experience, we are these patterns,  this is being-in-experience as Heidegger could have called it.

To latch onto" is a statement evidencing space-time. 

DM what are concepts about in your view then?

"They" (you're 'pre-conceptual patterns') must already exist in the 'sea of change' PRIOR to our 'latching'.

DM the sea of change is the sea of experience,  we cannot experience any outside but we can reason and imagine what lies beyond experience,  thst biscuits inside biscuit tins still exist,  how would you describe biscuits outside of your sight?

 Since we 'latch on to' them, they must be 'apart' from 'us' in this 'sea of change'.

DM thry are part of experience we create patterns at a higher level called concepts to latch onto these experiences

 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 time and space do not come into experience directly,  percepts pre-exist concepts they are always bubbling away in experience

[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.

DM all patterns can only be known by us either in experience or as ideas we create,  then reason can tell us they may be historically older than us or are absent from our experience and located away from us in a biscuit tin,  evrn you must know where to go to find the biscuits


 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?

DM raging,  that's you not me,  see you have got it now,  frustrating how long it takes that's all,  now MOQ works just as well wiyh anti-realism or idealism as its approach to the bigger picture of patternd and processes,  but in such a scientific and naturalistic age I'd go with realism,  see my post about Galen Strawson on putting experience back into naturalism.