My objection to this argument is with recognition, take of blue for example: how can my recognition of blue occur if I or it are not the same as we were the first time I cognized blue?
Recognising something as "blue" is a thought process, that attaches to a range of visual experience the idea of blue. Physically, there are always different photons contacting photoreceptor cells and triggering a number of biological processes. In the Buddhist system of the 18 dhatus, visual consciousness occurs only when there is a visual form, and it happens only moment by moment. So, there is nowhere to be found any constant element.
The argument usually goes that if there were any perception or cognition that was permanent it would always be experienced. That is, a permanent thing permanently causing.
If I am not the person who cognized blue that first time, how is it that I can recognize it? If the color blue is not the same color as it was when it was first cognized, how can it be recognized?
A form/colour is perceived by various mental processes. Mental processes constantly change. You don't always think of blue, do you? That one can recognise in separate instances that something is blue only means cognitive connection between visual perception and ideas of colours. It does not mean that you see the same thing every time, that's only a very superficial (non-analysed, naive) approach.