[ExI] Pure Philosophy Dispute: Are Categories Objective?
jef at jefallbright.net
Fri Jun 22 16:34:26 UTC 2007
On 6/21/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Jef writes
> > My point involves the understanding that categories don't "exist"
> > ontologically, they are always only a result of processing in the
> > minds of the observer(s).
> AH HA! A genuine old-fashioned fundamental hard-core
> knock-down drag out philosophical dispute! Oh, but
> it's been a long time! This should be great.
> You are dead wrong.
> Categories are mainly *objective* features of our universe.
Lee, I have no interest in arguing "pure philosophy" with you, and
there's already an immense literature of semiotics. I "took the bait"
when I saw you pontificating to Thomas about your ideas of personal
identity based on physical/functional similarity, and I felt motivated
to offer to him and any other seekers lurking on this list the
understanding that while correct, it is impractically narrow in its
application, and that a view of personal identity based on perceived
agency is more coherent and extensible.
On your personal web page you say
"Interests: Cryonics, Mathematics, History, Chess, Philosophy, Polemics"
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. The art or practice of argumentation or controversy.
Arguing with you, Lee, has always perplexed me in a way that I've
experienced only with you and my ex-wife. I dealt with her because of
our shared interest in the kids, I find myself dealing with you
because of a shared interest in the community and topics of the
extropy list. In both cases, perplexing in the way you break the
rules of logical discourse while pleading ignorance or injury.
I've received enough offlist support to know that my contribution
wasn't entirely in vain. Time for me to wise up now and focus on the
More information about the extropy-chat