On Aug 4, 5:07 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg 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?
>
>    The problem is not with the "objective" but with the "observe".  
> Facts that we can observe (in the most general sense of infer from aided
> perception) are facts for dead people too, but it's not clear that they
> can "experience" them.  The whole discussion is about what it takes to
> "experience" something.  If there are somethings which we cannot
> experience, e.g. the personal visions of a mystic, then those are not
> objective facts.  I think "objective" should be roughly thought of as
> "that on which we can have inter-subjective agreement".

That is my point exactly: inter-subjective agreement is as close to
objectivity that we can get. Since dead people cannot agree to our
inter-subjective frame of reference, our 'facts' do not necessarily
apply to them. They apply to what is left of them only. Sameness,
therefore, X=X or X=Y therefore is a core consistency in our inter-
subjective PRIF (Perceptual Relativity Inertial Frame), and one which
makes of the fabric of PRIFness itself, but it is not necessarily
anything more objective than that. Something like uniqueness or "?"
may be ontologically deeper than sameness.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to