The whole point of this post was that you can’t objectively quantify similarity between patterns, that doing that is inherently a subjective judgement call.
I was already talking about objectively in my post:
I fear that there is no real way to do this objectively [...]
It would be preferable to measure objectively, because, for one, different cultures and people can converge on the same ideas thus promoting accurate cooperation.
I agree that it would be useful to have an objective measure of identity, as it would be useful to have an objective measure of morality… But alas I fear both of those fall prey to the is-ought dilemma
The whole point of this post was that you can’t objectively quantify similarity between patterns, that doing that is inherently a subjective judgement call.
Subjective is distinct from un-quantifiable. There are plenty of quantifiable, subjective things (say, value of an object to a potential buyer).
I agree completely (but patternism doesn’t do that either)
Ohhh, so now you’re talking about OBJECTIVELY quantifying patterns. Now we’re getting somewhere.
Is there a reason that you think ways of measuring identity should be objective?
I was already talking about objectively in my post:
It would be preferable to measure objectively, because, for one, different cultures and people can converge on the same ideas thus promoting accurate cooperation.
I agree that it would be useful to have an objective measure of identity, as it would be useful to have an objective measure of morality… But alas I fear both of those fall prey to the is-ought dilemma