On Aug 4, 1:08 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:14 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 1:35 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 1:54 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sameness is part of the phenomenology of pattern recognition, which is
> > > > a property of the subject. The subject's perception determines the
> > > > degree to which one complex of phenomena can be distinguished from
> > > > another. Ontologically, objectively, it may be that nothing is the
> > > > same as anything (possibly even as itself?)
> > > Or it might be that there are a bunch of robustly objective
> > > facts about identity.
> > If there was such a thing as an objective fact, then it would be
> > experienced by dead observers as well as living.
> That's a monumental non sequitur.
Why? In order for something to be a truly, absolutely objective fact,
it would have to permeate all contexts. The only facts we can ever
access are those which are accessible and detectable by what we are
and what we can use. Why should we assume that those facts are
applicable outside of our range of possible experiences?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at