~~"If you see a person as a set of coordinates, then the boundaries become clear."~~
Well, naturally. If you see anything as a set of coordinates, the boundaries become clear. You might as well say "If we set clear boundaries for something, its boundaries become clear." If X, then X.
~~"I'm not offering you any truths, just a different way to look at the same things which yield slightly different interpretations."~~
Fair enough, and there's nothing inherently wrong with setting boundaries on identity, I just see no reason, evidential or otherwise, to do so. Assuming that these boundaries are valid, what do you think would happen when brains are combined or some other drastic change to the brain is made? Can these boundaries survive even cursory reductionism? More importantly, do you think they should be able to?
~~"Who told you the universe "is actually more homogenous than our intuition tells us"?"~~
If you'd like me to append the phrase "I'm not sure about this, but it sounds good to me" to every statement I make, I will. :) Personally I think it's implied. I'm just attempting to remove humans from the equation. Without us walking around, trying to describe things, terms like "red" or "lake" would have no meaning. I see no reason why "life" or "sentience" would have meaning independent of themselves either. That's all I was trying to communicate.
~~"OK, so let's talk about things that are not "just as arbitrary and human as anything else". You go first."~~
I try to limit it as much as I can. Of course it's not complete, in order to be totally successful I would have to stop being human, which can be quite a trick. Would you agree that there are *degrees* of arbitration, however?
~~"I'll tell you when I get to t(n+1) :-)"~~
I'm gonna hold you to that. :) Come t(n+1), don't leave me sitting here thinking "Where in the hell is Aurino?! He had an appointment scheduled!"