Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

reply to post by NorEaster

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

What would be the chances of that?

Considering that if you get twelve people in one room and have them all write down the most identifying feature of a potted plant, you'll probably get eight different answers...

Which, to me, suggests that identity is a connection made in the mind. And connections are made differently with everyone. I might as well ask you to define a great song.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

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

What would be the chances of that?

I would say more than 100%.

That reminds me, 35.

reply to post by NorEaster


Would you agree(/do you think/do you know) electrons exist?

Would you agree(/do you think/do you know) quarks ( if not quarks at least protons and neutrons) exist?

If not any of those would you at least agree atoms exist?

Well if you agree with the first and second, I would ask, are all electrons exactly the same, or identical? if they were numbers would they all be 1's or if an electron = A ... would all electrons =A?

That next thought can be brought to the hydrogen atom. I know hydrogen atoms come into existence at different times caused by different events, but if a hydrogen atom = Proton + electrons .. are all hydrogen atoms the same?

Well thats just thinking of hydrogen atoms alone ( because it is best to start on your quest for identity at the most simple and primal level, and it is the most simple things that allow the existence of anything and everything else), but yes 2 hydrogen atoms can be in two different molecules which depend on them in a different way, and in this sense, those 2 identical hydrogen atoms can be seen as having an identity. Every hydrogen atom as identical as it is to another can be thought to have its own identity based on the fact that it is its own quanta, this one here is not that one there, they are separate entities and so as identical and same as they are, they have their own identity based on a number of different physical facts.

This is a very interesting notion you bring up, about identity but I dont know what you are actually grasping at.

If we had a room where none of the air molecules could escape, and there were 100 guitar players with 'identical' guitars,, and they took turns playing an A note over the span of an indefinite amount of time, would 2 guitarists ever play an 'identical' note?

Can you be any more plain about the significance of your identity philosophy, and what it applies too? If every bunch of particles and every single particle (bit of information) has its own identity, and has physical properties which can allow it to interact with other single particles and groups to form other identities, what does any of this mean or matter? How can it be any other way?

Nuances of Language: same and identical

Definitions of identical
similar or alike in every way
numerically identical: being one and the same individual. Tully and Cicero are identical.
quantitaively identical: exactly alike, equal, or agreeing.

Definitions of same
being one or identical though having different names. Tully and Cicero are the same person.
being of equal value, amount. These boxes have the same dimensions.
having matching characteristics. Both of these shirts are the same color.

Both "identical" and "same" can be used to describe one object that has two different names.

Identical can also be used to describe two objects that are "exactly alike, equal, or agreeing."

Same is not used to describe two objects that are equal, it is used to describe specific properties and characteristics of two objects that are equal. It makes sense to say these shirts have the same color, but it is nonsensical to say these shirts are the same. When saying two things are the same, you are implying they are the same in some way. However, you can say two objects as a whole are identical... so I see "identical" and "same" to be two manifestations of the same concept, equality. Identity is an extension to the meaning of "same." The difference is "same" is more fit to be used in everyday language while "identical" is more of a theoretical concept.

I see identity as one of those a priori concepts that we know and understand, but can't fully explain. Using language we can coin definitions that point people in the direction of the true concept of identity, but no linguical definition of identity can truly explain identity. The only way to understand identity is through yourself.

We can concieve of two objects having the same properties, but can we concieve of two objects being identical?

Thought Experiment: Mirror Universes



The universe at its creation is a singular universe, there are no parallel universes. OBJ A, a sphere, is created some time later. OBJ A then runs into a situation where there is a 2/3 chance it will turn blue, and a 1/3 chance it will turn green. In this universe, whenever there is a probability with multiple courses of action, it splits into separate universes that represent ALL courses of action. The universe acts out all possible courses of action using what I call branching universes. Universe B and C are mirror universes. Universe B&C are parallel universes with universe D.

OBJ A = OBJ B
OBJ A = OBJ C
OBJ A = OBJ D

OBJ B = OBJ C?
OBJ C = OBJ D?

Our logical language struggles with the concept of identity... I believe it is impossible to prove two objects to be identical because our logical language is too limited. However, I think I can prove it using a hypothetical situation.

Can 2 Objects be Identical: I think Yes

This question is somewhat ambiguous. Am I dealing with impercievable forms (like Plato's realm of forms), or solely with our perception of objects (empirical reality)? I think objects can be identical with regards to both.

Disclaimer: I am dealing entirely in the realm of possibility here, I am not proposing my belief of what reality is, but what it may be.

Realm of Forms

We know nothing of how a realm of forms operates, so it is useless for us to claim it works this way or it works that way. Since we don't know how a realm of forms would operate, we can't prove that two forms can't be identical... so it follows that there is a possibility that two forms can be identical.

Empirical Reality

Wittgenstein says "space, time, and color are forms of objects" (Tractatus 2.0251), and I'll buy that. If we accept this claim, for two objects to have equal relational identities, the objects' surroundings must be the same distance away, the same color, and exist at the same time.

Let's accept the existence of two mirror universes. A subject is attempting to prove that two spheres in mirror universes can be identical. In the mirror universes, the spheres have the same relational identities. The subject would be constrained by the fact that he can only percieve one of the two objects at once because they both exist in the same spot.

You also have to consider that if there are two objects, there are two subjects since they are in mirror universes. If you tell the subject to percieve the sphere, you are telling both versions of the subject. That brings up the question, which subject is the test subject? Is there a real subject and a mirror subject? No, both subjects would be equally real. This means the two subjects are both percieving the same sphere at the same place at the same time, and both of their perceptions are equally valid.

That means just by percieving one object, the subject is actually performing the act of percieving two objects by two subjects. Just by simply percieving the object, the subject has proven that the spheres are identical.

Mind-Body Supervenience
Physicalists in Philosophy of Mind say if all physical aspects of humans are equal, their mental states will also be equal. In other words, mental states are a product of the physical world. So by proving that two objects may be physically identical, I am also saying this would result in them being mentally identical.

The identity of an object is made up of intrinsic and extrinsic properties.

An intrinsic identity:
OBJ B(A) - This is saying OBJ B used to be known as OBJ A.

An extrinsic identity:
OBJ B(A) is a red sphere.

I don't know if any of this is what you're looking for, I just threw everything I've got on identity at you in hopes that it'll be useful. I'm no expert on identity and I'm not too well read on it but I have thought and speculated a lot about it.

reply to post by NorEaster


NorEaster, are you JDF by any chance? If so, nice work.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Would you agree(/do you think/do you know) electrons exist?

Would you agree(/do you think/do you know) quarks ( if not quarks at least protons and neutrons) exist?

If not any of those would you at least agree atoms exist?

They exist.

Well if you agree with the first and second, I would ask, are all electrons exactly the same, or identical? if they were numbers would they all be 1's or if an electron = A ... would all electrons =A?

All electrons possess the same general properties, but each electron has its own unique historical contextual identity, and its existence - relative to everything else that also exists - is unique, establishing an inimitable relative contextual relationship between it and all else that exists. The contextual structure and ongoing confluence delineates each electron from every other electron, so they are not the same. The identity of each electron is unique and inimitable.

That next thought can be brought to the hydrogen atom. I know hydrogen atoms come into existence at different times caused by different events, but if a hydrogen atom = Proton + electrons .. are all hydrogen atoms the same?

It's the same with all things that are otherwise identical. Context provides default identity establishment, and it's impossible to duplicate it from one similar item to the next.

Well thats just thinking of hydrogen atoms alone ( because it is best to start on your quest for identity at the most simple and primal level, and it is the most simple things that allow the existence of anything and everything else), but yes 2 hydrogen atoms can be in two different molecules which depend on them in a different way, and in this sense, those 2 identical hydrogen atoms can be seen as having an identity. Every hydrogen atom as identical as it is to another can be thought to have its own identity based on the fact that it is its own quanta, this one here is not that one there, they are separate entities and so as identical and same as they are, they have their own identity based on a number of different physical facts.

This is a very interesting notion you bring up, about identity but I dont know what you are actually grasping at.

I'm only grasping at an "approved" definition of exactly what you're examining here. That primordial level of existential Identity.

If we had a room where none of the air molecules could escape, and there were 100 guitar players with 'identical' guitars,, and they took turns playing an A note over the span of an indefinite amount of time, would 2 guitarists ever play an 'identical' note?

No. Even any 2 notes played by the same guitarist could never be absolutely identical. Too much internal and relative context is involved, and all it takes is one tiny shift in that contextual confluence for there to be an identity creating distinction.

Can you be any more plain about the significance of your identity philosophy, and what it applies too? If every bunch of particles and every single particle (bit of information) has its own identity, and has physical properties which can allow it to interact with other single particles and groups to form other identities, what does any of this mean or matter? How can it be any other way?

It can't be any other way, but the extended implications of this very basic truth reveals more about the way that reality works than you might ever imagine possible. And that's the value of understanding this. Once you know the basics of reality, and especially what CAN'T be true about reality, you can hand off the specifics to the geniuses that take what we've already handed them and overcome so much ignorance already in the kinds of breakthroughs they've achieved, allowing them to - then - open up a whole new version of what's technically possible going forward.

Seriously. If this ends up being as definitive as I believe it to be, within 40 years, those geniuses will have solved literally every intractable problem vexing this planet's human race. And the cost will be nothing more than their paychecks. Not one dime for technology. I just have a few small items to iron out - mostly pertaining to bibliography and relevant quotations. Things are set to get really interesting.

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

NorEaster, are you JDF by any chance? If so, nice work.

What's JDF?

reply to post by NorEaster


I just realized how off-topic I was. Apologies. A product of trying to think philosophy when I should be working.

Kant conceived of the "thing-in-itself." I don't know if this is the word you're looking for, but I think it might be: Noumenon.

reply to post by NorEaster

Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

This is a simple question with a very simple answer.

Identity

definition:

"Identity is the structural performance of the dna that can exist between two segments of time and that leaves residual traces behind by transmuting of the energies from an existential form to another without altering the identity of that form of energy."

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

It is 35.

If so, then what is 42?

a zine of the cosecant

it is all just a cosecant of pi???

really

and do we all need to pass the mathemtaical test you have given, to be judged verrtical, assymetrical or whatever else direction you would reqire to take us seriously or otherwise???

Originally posted by piequal3because14
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

This is a simple question with a very simple answer.

Identity

definition:

"Identity is the structural performance of the dna that can exist between two segments of time and that leaves residual traces behind by transmuting of the energies from an existantial form to another without altering the identity of that form of energy."

Oh, I so hope identity is more than that, and there is more than this to "us...."otherwise, I really am very alone...
and all life has come down to a simple algabraic equation due to behavior and predicated judgement

Originally posted by Wang Tang
I see identity as one of those a priori concepts that we know and understand, but can't fully explain. Using language we can coin definitions that point people in the direction of the true concept of identity, but no linguical definition of identity can truly explain identity. The only way to understand identity is through yourself.

This is probably true, and why I can't find a definitive definition of Identity. I guess it's good to get that hammered out, and to simply define it myself via example and logical inference within the context of revealing exactly how Identity is established and preserved and defended and promoted. It's been a week of digging to find anyone that's been credited for defining Identity, and if no such person exists, then I won't have to defend against the charge of not properly crediting such a person. That's good. The technical aspects of nonfiction can be a total grind.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I just realized how off-topic I was. Apologies. A product of trying to think philosophy when I should be working.

Kant conceived of the "thing-in-itself." I don't know if this is the word you're looking for, but I think it might be: Noumenon.

Whoa! I like that word.



I really, really like that word.

Thank you for turning me onto it.

Originally posted by tetra50

Originally posted by piequal3because14
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

This is a simple question with a very simple answer.

Identity

definition:

"Identity is the structural performance of the dna that can exist between two segments of time and that leaves residual traces behind by transmuting of the energies from an existantial form to another without altering the identity of that form of energy."

Oh, I so hope identity is more than that, and there is more than this to "us...."otherwise, I really am very alone...
and all life has come down to a simple algabraic equation due to behavior and predicated judgement

edit on 21-2-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

it's a lot more than that. Trust me. You'll leave here with everything you've created of yourself. Nothing gets left behind but the placenta.

reply to post by NorEaster

Very old word. I'm not sure it works for identity though. It seems like it's the opposite of Kant's 'phenomenon,' or what is subjectively perceived by the senses. He called it the 'thing in itself.' But that brings up ideas of the soul, or spirit—not so much identity.

I can't think of any better word. Maybe you can trail blaze in this area.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by tetra50

Originally posted by piequal3because14
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

This is a simple question with a very simple answer.

Identity

definition:

"Identity is the structural performance of the dna that can exist between two segments of time and that leaves residual traces behind by transmuting of the energies from an existantial form to another without altering the identity of that form of energy."

Oh, I so hope identity is more than that, and there is more than this to "us...."otherwise, I really am very alone...
and all life has come down to a simple algabraic equation due to behavior and predicated judgement

edit on 21-2-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)

it's a lot more than that. Trust me. You'll leave here with everything you've created of yourself. Nothing gets left behind but the placenta.

The problem I have is just this:.........Trust me. You'll leave here with everything you've created of yourself.

who is the arbitrer of what you suggest? for what i am living is not what i have created......

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Very old word. I'm not sure it works for identity though. It seems like it's the opposite of Kant's 'phenomenon,' or what is subjectively perceived by the senses. He called it the 'thing in itself.' But that brings up ideas of the soul, or spirit—not so much identity.

I can't think of any better word. Maybe you can trail blaze in this area.

From what I read, the 'thing in itself' sounds like an idea in itself. Not the action or the expression, but the actual concept. Love, imagination, thought, beauty, those kinds of things. Not the representations we see, but the idea that is described.

Noumenon, for those who didn't read the link, is concerned with the realm of knowledge not reliant upon the five senses. Ideas, imagination, all that stuff. Maybe identity is a noumenon?

reply to post by tetra50

Oh, I so hope identity is more than that, and there is more than this to "us...."otherwise, I really am very alone...

What lies between the two segments of time is your existence here on Earth which you can identify with or not...after transmuting to another existential form.

I know it is very complicated indeed.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yes it's a tricky topic, one I struggled with. I think you're right in a sense, except that pertains more to Plato's use of the term.

Here's a better definition:

thing-in-itself - a thing as it is independent of any conceptualization or perception by the human mind, postulated by practical reason but existing in a condition which is in principle unknowable and unexperienceable.

So basically the object as it is without being observed or conceived by anything.

Kant used noumenon and thing-in-itself interchangeably. Very tricky subject.

ETA:
I found a better definition: source

noumenon, plural Noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man, however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because practical reason—i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent—makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide.

Originally posted by piequal3because14
reply to post by tetra50

 

Oh, I so hope identity is more than that, and there is more than this to "us...."otherwise, I really am very alone...

What lies between the two segments of time is your existence here on Earth which you can identify with or not...after transmuting to another existential form.

I know it is very complicated indeed.

I am just looking for some hope, that we will all soon be free from this pain., everpresent painno matter what we do or care for or sacrifice, but thank you, for that small piece of hope....