... statue that's properties have changed. There is nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures objecthood - they are both valid things ... both 'exist' - in our minds! Phisically speaking, it's just clay. It's subject who sees the statue. So it's class ClayStatue extends Clay implements Statue;) Seriously, don't forget that 'objecthood' implies subject. Regards...
...>> > Extensions are pointing to flaws. Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties (attributes). ... of course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "...
.... Extensions are pointing to flaws. Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties (attributes). Sure, but a ... of course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "...
.... Extensions are pointing to flaws. Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties (attributes). Sure, but a...Then of course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?...
... be. Sigmund. Extensions are pointing to flaws. Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties (attributes). Sure, but a statue can... of course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist...
... at the end, thus: A) No I'm not. I've just pointed out that you were mistaken to _only_ recognize one. But notice how quickly you changed to another when I rolled the clay up! You did it with incredible flexibility and speed. B) But, look, your logic would mean that if noone is there to impose that context, well... then there wouldn't be a thing ...
... appears at the end, thus: A) No I'm not. I've just pointed out that you were mistaken to _only_ recognize one. But notice how quickly you changed to another when I rolled the clay up! You did it with incredible flexibility and speed. B) But, look, your logic would mean that if noone is there to impose that context, well... then there wouldn't be a thing there at ...
...participating observers brains. Thus only a clay object is on the table. ...not consider any attributes of that clay object as separate objects. But the...separation between the table, and the clay, is yet another representation you have...fact that you call it a "clay object" is no different than calling it a "clay ballerina" ... <snip discussion> Very good! Just a ...
...@4ax.com... s.j.lagoe wrote: Josip Almasi wrote: Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's changing properties (attributes). Sure, but a statue can be...Then of course it is the statue that's properties have changed. There is nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures objecthood - they are both valid things right, and the both "exist"?...
... Like JJ said, it was clay all the time, but it's ... There is nothing special about the clays objecthood compared to the figures ... grounds of such a question. The clay figure of the ballerina was destroyed and a ball of clay put in its place. At the ... of the bet the ball of clay did not exist and so couldn'... on the table. Talk about "the clay" is a mere obfuscation. "The clay...
