>>11278533Try not to fall into the "He has an answer for everything; HE must be the one that's wrong here," lol
>So there are rocks with rockness and rocks without rockness?Rockness coming entirely from the mind does not imply anything objective, i.e. neither that there are rocks without rockness, nor even necessarily rocks with rockness. And rocks without rockness is entirely nonsensical, i.e. them being "rocks" is their rockness. Identity is subjective.
>Ok, what do we have: bunch of molecules with "bunch-of-moleculesness" and bunch of molecules without "bunch-of-moleculesness". Does that make sense? I'm not sure.I'm still convinced everything forward is an attempt at an argumentum ad absurdum. Ya, when one chooses to define anything, e.g. p is q, you could say you have pness and qness, but this seems to make things arbitrarily linguistically complicated.
>So every rock is a rock with rockness regardless of anyone knowing about it, right?...no. At the least, if at least one person knows about "it," the rock has rockness, i.e. I don't think it need be directly observed. Whether it does or doesn't need be directly observed doesn't seem to be of any consequence.
>If it's only in my mind, then there are rocks without rockness, I'm confused.You assume rocks can still somehow exist without rockness. What I've been trying to say is that rocks and rockness are equivalent, i.e. there are no "rocks" without rockness. When they're rockness isn't assigned by some mind, they cease to exist as "rocks." The only thing this could imply about noumenal or objective reality is that there, things aren't categorized into things and don't have names.
>So there's no such thing as a "ship of theseus", right?That problem presupposes there is such a thing, and is merely concerned with under what conditions ship of theseusness is not maintained. About this problem, I think the "new" ship is the ship of theseus only if someone thinks it is.
>but what if someone disagrees>>>/elsewhere/ 
