Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Besides, observation is an active interpretation of identity.

Since identity is a form of label, active observation is a prerequisite for giving anything an identity. Otherwise, there is no identity, just existence. Identity is not required for existence, but existence is required for identity.

I think you have that backwards. Existence cannot be achieved by that which cannot possess identity. If "it" can't be delineated out from that which contains it, then "it" can't be said to exist. That basic philosophy 101.

Thus, observation forms your identity.

Internal (historical) and relative context forms identity. That's also philosophy 101.

Or, if you exist and are capable of observing, you observe yourself or something else and form an identity for either yourself or that something else from your observations.

You can form an opinion (perception) about what you observe, but that's all you've dominion over.

If something is observed by two points of perspective, its identity doesn't change into two distinct identities as a result of those two points of perspective.

No, the identity becomes an amalgamation of those two individual perspectives of the one identity. One can look at the color aquamarine and call it blue, which another calls it green. Or one can look at maroon and call it purple while another calls it red. Identity is as much as perspective as it is a fact.

Again, you're confusing identity with translation of perception. That's way down the existential progressive development road, and long after identity has already been of primary importance within the reality sphere under evaluation.

Observation doesn't affect what is being observed.

Um, yes it does. Anorexia, depression, anxiety, tension, schizophrenia...all of these are affected by how people observe you. An inanimate object isn't affected, but as I said before, identity is the summary of observation from within and/or without.

Try NOT making this about people. See how well that works for you with this specific take on identity that you've expressed. Like you said "An inanimate object isn't affected", which should kill that entire notion off immediately, since it obviously doesn't define identity itself, but only pertains to how human minds perceive their own identity. Perception isn't reality. It's not even an accurate interpretation of reality.

It can affect the course of ongoing activity of the observed thing, but the thing itself is not altered. Its identity remains intact.

Considering identity is determined by observation, that all depends on what is being observed and how it is interpreted.

Identity isn't determined by observation. Reread the OP. I refuse to beat a dead horse here.

Thanks anyway.

Don't thank me yet. I'm not done here.

I may be done responding to you, though. I have no interest is pointless debate. I'm trying to construct a bibliography for a book I've written. I'm just hoping to find a physicist or philosopher who's broken unique ground on the subject of identity as a primordial agent. I have no interest in litigating what I already know to be true. I'm not gaining in any manner in that effort.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Observation doesn't affect what is being observed. It can affect the course of ongoing activity of the observed thing, but the thing itself is not altered. Its identity remains intact.
]

NorEaster is correct, observation DOES affect what is being observed, and it DOES affect the course of the ongoing activity...

SEE: Quantum superposition.

Additionally, I do not see observation as being relevant to the question, "What is Identity?"

..............IDENTITY..............
As i was walking up the stairs
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish i wish he'd go away

You may be over thinking,if some thing has form it has identity,of course humans are so great,they can have more than one.

Originally posted by yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Okay this is the deep end of the pool, so don't drown me.

Identity presumes uniqueness. For something (or group of somethings) to have identity, there has to be some characteristic or set of characteristics to be able to differentiate the subject/object (group or individual) from everything else that exists.

At the basic level, two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so whatever exists as a unity has an identity. Nothing else can occupy the exact same space at the exact same time as I do, so that's one aspect, and maybe the basic aspect, of my identity.

Throw me a bone.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

This was pretty much what I was going to say; I thought of it while reading the first page.

Identity is the set of characteristics which differentiate a subject from all others. These characteristics may include composition of particles, the arrangement and orientation of those particles, and the position in space-time.

reply to post by Glass

Originally posted by yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Okay this is the deep end of the pool, so don't drown me.

Identity presumes uniqueness. For something (or group of somethings) to have identity, there has to be some characteristic or set of characteristics to be able to differentiate the subject/object (group or individual) from everything else that exists.

At the basic level, two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so whatever exists as a unity has an identity. Nothing else can occupy the exact same space at the exact same time as I do, so that's one aspect, and maybe the basic aspect, of my identity.

Throw me a bone.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

You make two huge statements.
1. Identity presumes uniqueness
2. Two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Both statements are flaws of logic. How are you able to support these statements?

reply to post by straddlebug

Originally posted by yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Okay this is the deep end of the pool, so don't drown me.

Identity presumes uniqueness. For something (or group of somethings) to have identity, there has to be some characteristic or set of characteristics to be able to differentiate the subject/object (group or individual) from everything else that exists.

At the basic level, two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so whatever exists as a unity has an identity. Nothing else can occupy the exact same space at the exact same time as I do, so that's one aspect, and maybe the basic aspect, of my identity.

Throw me a bone.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

So, characteristics do contribute to the establishment and the default preservation of inimitable identity, as the internal/relative contextual slurry that they constitute, but identity itself is what's being established and preserved. It's not what's acting to establish and preserve, and this is the conundrum. Identity itself exists, and yet I can't find a proper definition of what it is as the existential staple that it is.

The role of Identity is overwhelmingly important, and a lot of what I've determined is based on the primordial nature of Identity as the "Holy Grail" of all that exists - since survival is the main concern of that which exists, even at the quantum level of existence, and identity is the indication that existence has been achieved and, so far, preserved by the existent something. But the basic definition of Identity eludes me, even though I understand what it means to the business of existence, how it is achieved and how it is preserved.

Damn, I wish I had a bone of my own. (so to speak...)

reply to post by NorEaster

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Okay this is the deep end of the pool, so don't drown me.

Identity presumes uniqueness. For something (or group of somethings) to have identity, there has to be some characteristic or set of characteristics to be able to differentiate the subject/object (group or individual) from everything else that exists.

At the basic level, two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so whatever exists as a unity has an identity. Nothing else can occupy the exact same space at the exact same time as I do, so that's one aspect, and maybe the basic aspect, of my identity.

Throw me a bone.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

You make two huge statements.
1. Identity presumes uniqueness
2. Two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Both statements are flaws of logic. How are you able to support these statements?

These two statements are perfectly logical.

1. Identity can't exist without an inimitable contextual balance being struck. i.e. uniqueness

2. Another word for two things attempting to occupy the same space is "collision". It's not logically possible in this reality confine, and this is because space is integral to the natural laws of the material realm of this confine due to the fact that the material realm of this confine is based on the quantum of action, and how it seeks and preserves identity survival. That survival requirement makes it logically impossible for two such quantum units to share the same unique quantum unit of space relative to all other available units of space.

This no-two-activities-in-the-same-space/instant rule has been overwhelmingly upheld again and again, and one or two misinterpreted experiment results here and there haven't got the power or authority to rewrite the natural laws of this reality confine. After all, there's no Court of Real where a slick lawyer can argue against what's clearly obvious, just because he thinks he's found a loophole. Some of you kids on this board don't seem to get that this reality business has existed long before you showed up with your Youtube videos and demands for change.

reply to post by NorEaster

I think you have that backwards. Existence cannot be achieved by that which cannot possess identity. If "it" can't be delineated out from that which contains it, then "it" can't be said to exist. That basic philosophy 101.

What if you're the only person in the universe and you're in a coma? Do you still have an identity? Or are you nothing because there is no one to give you an identity? Additionally, there are mysterious things out there, in the ocean and in space, under the ice and deep inside the earth, that exist but have no identity because they don't identify themselves and no one has discovered them yet.

These things don't have an identity. But they still exist, regardless of whether we know it or not.

Internal (historical) and relative context forms identity. That's also philosophy 101.

Observation forms context. If you don't register what you are observing, context goes in one ear and out the other.

You can form an opinion (perception) about what you observe, but that's all you've dominion over.

Identity IS perception. Objective and subjective is another tangent of that, but I'll leave that alone for now.

Again, you're confusing identity with translation of perception. That's way down the existential progressive development road, and long after identity has already been of primary importance within the reality sphere under evaluation.

If we were unable to perceive, would we be able to form identities? If we were unable to hold onto anything we perceived, and acted as a waystation for stimuli, would we still be able to point at a rock and say, "There's some igneous stone"? In order to form any kind of identity, form any kind of label, you have to perceive it first.

Active perception is called observation.

Try NOT making this about people. See how well that works for you with this specific take on identity that you've expressed.

I've never yet met a rock that demanded to be recognized. I've never drank a cup of water that demanded rights. I have yet to encounter a blade of grass that complained because it was too hot. None of these things carry identity apart from that which is given to them by a species capable of perceiving, analyzing, forming a conclusion, and communicating said conclusion to others to create a general identity concerning that which was perceived.

Identity is a luxury.

Like you said "An inanimate object isn't affected", which should kill that entire notion off immediately, since it obviously doesn't define identity itself, but only pertains to how human minds perceive their own identity. Perception isn't reality. It's not even an accurate interpretation of reality.

And yet, humans are the only ones who talk about identity. What does that say about the reality of identity?

Identity isn't determined by observation. Reread the OP. I refuse to beat a dead horse here.

I have an object in sitting next to me on the table. You cannot see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it obviously. And I'm not going to tell you what it is. However, I'm going to ask you to identify it without any means of observing it.

...Not so easy when you can't observe, is it? I don't think it's a dead horse at all. And I think I've just proven my point.

I may be done responding to you, though. I have no interest is pointless debate. I'm trying to construct a bibliography for a book I've written. I'm just hoping to find a physicist or philosopher who's broken unique ground on the subject of identity as a primordial agent. I have no interest in litigating what I already know to be true. I'm not gaining in any manner in that effort.

You didn't start a thread on identity because you already know everything about it. You started it to get outside opinions, which I have obliged in providing. You haven't yet successfully refuted everything I've presented to you, so I would appreciate if you'd reciprocate the time I've invested in exchanging ideas with you. After all, it's pretty rude to ask a question and then refuse answers just because you don't like them.

I would like an answer concerning the object still sitting next to me. Can you guess what it is? Or do you need to - observe?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I think this is a case of mistaken identity

ie. you are presenting a definition of identity which does not coincide with the identity which NorEaster is attempting to understand.

These two identities have different identities.

Confused yet?

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by NorEaster




That identity survival exists on a much more primordial level - sub-particle, in fact. It takes a lot to explain and even more to prove, but it can be done. At our own level, we compete for identity survival and promotion (another survival strategy, which works on the premise of "infecting" as much as possible with enough our own Identity as we can so that "it" succeeds our own material demise - living on as a logical proxy presence). Definitely explains the visceral need for many to "make a name for themselves", and the deep satisfaction that comes from having accomplished such a thing. From the least to the greatest in this material realm, the basics exist in abundance.



Check out "holon theory". This is yet another identity survival strategy - becoming one with a larger, more permanent whole, in order to have your identity survive your limited capacity to survive as a lesser holon. Like belonging to a famous family, or becoming important within a political party. Even if you die, your party (an extension of your identity) lives on, and affects the world on your behalf. This is an example of relative context as contributive to existential identity.



I'm going to agree with you. It was to establish an identity. Nothing existed - or rather, it would have if there'd been such thing as Identity to establish that nothing did indeed exist. Reality isn't as hard to clarify as most folks think it is.

You just have to realize that things like Identity do actually exist as real and impactful. Philosophy was the science of its day, and that's important to always remember.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I think you have that backwards. Existence cannot be achieved by that which cannot possess identity. If "it" can't be delineated out from that which contains it, then "it" can't be said to exist. That basic philosophy 101.

What if you're the only person in the universe and you're in a coma? Do you still have an identity? Or are you nothing because there is no one to give you an identity? Additionally, there are mysterious things out there, in the ocean and in space, under the ice and deep inside the earth, that exist but have no identity because they don't identify themselves and no one has discovered them yet.

These things don't have an identity. But they still exist, regardless of whether we know it or not.

A glaring difference of argument: I believe "These things DO have an identity".

When I consider basalt at the bottom of lake superior (whether it exist or not), if nobody observes the basalt, it exist and it has identity.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm sorry that you wasted any time with this thread, but it wasn't my fault that you did. I know exactly what it is that I'm talking about. I was just hoping for some directions to a physicist or philosopher that had established some fundamentals so that I could quote him or her, and maybe get an established definition of what Identity - as in the primordial requirement on that which exists if it is to be logically termed as existent - has been officially declared to be.

I did make that statement in the OP that this isn't a debate thread, so....

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I would like an answer concerning the object still sitting next to me. Can you guess what it is? Or do you need to - observe?

edit on 21-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I may not know the identity of the object sitting next to you, but that does not mean that it has no identity.

If it has no identity, then it follows that it has no characteristics: no physical form, position, etc. You would be unable to even refer to it as an object.

reply to post by NorEaster


"I was just hoping for some directions to a physicist or philosopher that had established some fundamentals so that I could quote him or her, and maybe get an established definition of what Identity"

LOL - what a misguided goal. I love your thread in spite of all the incongruent "observations".

reply to post by NorEaster

Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

Tough question. No philosophers have cracked this nut. But maybe because it is so obvious.

I always thought that 'identity' is merely the idea or memory one has of himself. Like other ideas, they don't become tangible until they are expressed outwardly through such things as style, mannerism, and (ugh)...interior decoration.

Every time I make a conscious change to my identity, i do so to express what I think about myself, perhaps in order to convince others of my thoughts.

I spent a summer being a body painter, painting nude bodies for music festivals (perhaps the best job ever) and I noticed that once the paint was applied people felt they were someone else. It was like the painting wasn't part of their identity, so they felt different than the way they conceived themselves, despite being the exact same physically.

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

"I was just hoping for some directions to a physicist or philosopher that had established some fundamentals so that I could quote him or her, and maybe get an established definition of what Identity"

LOL - what a misguided goal. I love your thread in spite of all the incongruent "observations".

Man, wouldn't that be something if nobody's definitively established the identity of Identity?

What would be the chances of that?