Centexgal,
[aside]
It would be helpful if you use the quote facility so we know by more than context to whom you are responding.
You can use either the quote button on the bottom right corner of the individual's post, or you can use the quote tags by hand.
E.g., [quote=Centexgal]Stuff[/quote] produces
Centexgal said:
At minimum, you could put the person's name to whom you are responding at the top of your post.
[/aside]
OK, so are you applying your theory consistently and throughout?
I certainly hope so.
Because if you are then the mind should perceive like things as at least alike.
Exactly. This enables communication.
Some points: As far as we know, the mind is dependent on the body. That is, there is no evidence that the mind exists apart from the body. As such, given that by definition all humans have a common ancestor, we all have very similar brain structures and therefore similar perceptions and interpretations.
The question, for example, of whether we all see red the same way becomes trivial when we understand the physical constructs (rods and cones) that enable humans to see color at all. As I understand it, they are of various sizes and shapes that filter different wave-lengths of light (color). The mechanics of seeing color are the same for all humans. Subtracting anomalies such as red-green color blindness, we see color the same way. Now what one does with the information is another matter.
But, it is the basic commonality that allows us to communicate. It is the differences that cause us to fail to communicate -- and make life interesting. Indeed, it may be taht the differences in our perceptions that make communication useful. If we all saw something the same, there would be no need to gather a consensus. The process of gathering the consensus enhances our perception of reality.
If patterns are something else outside the human mind, so to speak, and even though everyone's perception is different, shouldn't like things still show some sort of commoness? Therefore producing a pattern in the perceived.
Sure. See above. Our common ancestry makes communication possible and perceptions similar enough to understand one another; but we are not so similar as to make communication a waste of time.
Any thing other would suggest that everything thing around us is just utter and complete chaos. Does that even make sense? It makes sense to me as I am trying to make sense of what you said!
Well, it wouldn't make everything chaos ... it would just make it impossible for humans to wend their way thru the world. The species would cease to exist.
But again the fact that we sometimes see things differently doesn't mean that one person is necessarily right and the other is necessarily wrong.
Back to rhythm: Suppose we have this pattern on paper: stomp, clap, stomp, stomp. Suppose you are asked to extend the patern. It would be reasonable to write down the whole pattern as s-c-s-s-c-s (two sets of s-c-s). It would also be reasonable to write s-c-s-s-c (that is, a lot of tend to automatically hear the two sequential stomps in the original sequence as 1/8 notes [twice as fast as the original notes] -- try it.
The first answer might arguably be better since the second assumes information not provided, but so many of us can't help hearing that second pattern.
The question might be then, does the pattern exist? To answer yes is to suggest there is only one right answer to the question. To answer no is to admit that the pattern exists in the mind.
There is objective reality. We come to an agreement on what that reality by comparing our perspectives and coming to consensus. Often times coming to consensus is trivial. "That car is red" might be such an example until someone asks "blood-red or fire-engine-red".
