[Serious Phil] The Viability of the Substance/Property Distinction

[Peter D]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind@> wrote:
>  
> > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "Peter D" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "SWM" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ---  It is generally the case that one man's substance (that pile of goo on the sidewalk, for instance) is another man's properties 
> > > > 
> > > > It is never the case where substance is defined as propertyless.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In which case there is nothing left!
> > > 
> > 
> > Says who? 
> > 
> 
> Tell us what's left.

Propertyless substance.