Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
Welp.

What did I do wrong in that other post?
You stated your disagreement with my position, and when you explained why, it was not even my position. See strawman fallacy

Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
Yes.

No, because you talked about the object properties, those-that-have-no-name-which-you-gather-through-Bodies-functions-and-conceptualize-as-Fields, not abstract ones. Yes, "color" is Fields, but the blackness of your phone is Bodies; yes, "value" is Fields, but the $100 worth of your phone is Bodies. You forgot what this started off, you said:
The extrinsic properties of objects are Bodies and I agree with that. A blue phone is a blue phone, but its exact shade of blue is not extrinsic, that is wholly dependent upon perspective and personal understandings. A 20lb barbell is still a 20lb barbell, even if you measured it in kilograms, but how heavy it is(feels) depends upon the strength of the person carrying it. A frontyard with dimension of 30x40m is still 30x40m, but how big or small that is depends on a person's perspective. All these dependencies are intrinsic and are Fields, not Bodies.


Don't confuse object properties with abstract properties, you make an awfully gross equivocation, and I'm gonna give you an example from C programming, perhaps you can understand better:

In the first case (Point), you have the definition, the Fields - and the properties of the structure are literaly fields, BTW. They are empty, it would be absurd to ask you to tell me the x of the Point because there is no such thing, the properties of the structure abstract and they are x, y and z. The object (instance of the structure) that appears in the second case (p1), when the properties are values, that is 10.0, 15.0 and -10.0. This is what the object is, a sum of values that have no name and no purpose but which you associate as something. In the example above the fact that you know what the initial purpose of those values are stands merely in making it yourself and having the names in the definition (like Ji->Pe), but you may use these values as something else entirely if you want to, also, in reverse engineering (like Pe->Ji) you have only the objects and their values whose meaning you don't initially know, but assign temporary labels to them and try to figure out what they mean.
---
Well I don't have any training in any programming languages, so you will have to translate your meaning into a more communicable context as me taking weeks or even months to cultivate a necessary background is unreasonable.