Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

reply to post by NorEaster


Where does the identity of "things" come into play in things like computers. Where there is a specific number of pixels on a screen that can represent information, each pixel is in a different position and by design is responsible for a different bit of information to create a whole image, but are none the less identical to every other pixel in design. And then what is responsible for creating images is...well first I should say/think, all the informational potential is already in the hardware/software of the computer... It then depends on a source of energy to make the system work, and compute information.... In a sense energy = information ... because information does not exist without energy/matter and the differences between all energy/matter is describable in terms of information,symbols,details.. Any way I didnt do this the justice I wanted, but do you think any of these ideas can be discussed in relation to yours?

I basically started trying to bring this up, to try to show how a limited quantity/quality of items, a fixed finite amount, (cpu storage,circuits,hardware,pixels,a computer has physical/spatial bounds) yet it can do so many different things,using the same pixels and same cpu storage, it can create emergent phenomenon on the screen, and all of these phenomena relate back to the same/shared simple (not so simple, but in terms of basic, primal fixed parts that are responsible for so many things) computer parts, relying on the same primal source of energy.

and if we are "sandwiched" as you described,

What lies between the two segments of time is your existence here on Earth which you can identify with or not.

zine. or not, and just because of,....

what are we to do then? for in the following, as you describe above is the purpose, for God I pray there is some real purpose that we all suffer for.......
is it not fulfilled and are we not soon free from it, and all else?

reply to post by tetra50

I am just looking for some hope

Then Hope you shall have...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by piequal3because14


ahhhh. if only we lived in a world where i believed you....no reflection upon you, just upon me for my lack of trust, and the world, for it taught me that....take care and be well...

reply to post by tetra50

as you describe above is the purpose, for God I pray there is some real purpose that we all suffer for..

Lets's call it The attenuation of....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but first we must feel....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster

 

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.

Spot on, nice word. NorEaster should enjoy.

reply to post by piequal3because14


Ahhh. i looked at your attentuation, so to speak, and saw hope, for sure. thank you for that....
but I am just the ciher through which you filtered that predicated response....

And, how interesting we should have this discussion here, for it is the essence, surely, of identity and all that attenuates..... Something in me finds comfort in what you offered, but on another level rejects it, in a way, because that part of me doubts it is intended for that specfic part of me, identity, that requires it, after all..........

nevertheless, thank you, from whatever part of me needed and received it, for I don't think anyone recognizes nor appreciates the true me or what she appreciates at all. but thank you for being there.....

Originally posted by NorEaster
In Hegel's words, "Identity is the identity of identity and non-identity.", which seems to suggest that what something is, is dependent also on what isn't it for the full description of its identity. And I have to agree that this is true, since a description - a full description - includes some level of comparison between the "it" being described and whatever else exists that can lend that description some contrast, or at least some context.

Then, there's this;

The indiscernibility of identicals
For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.

as opposed to

The identity of indiscernibles
For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.

Source

which doesn't do much more than state that some things can be theoretically identical, even if the description is reworded slightly (although the 2nd wording raised some controversy - for some reason). But that's not what I'm looking for. I want to find out how to accurately describe Identity. I don't care about whether things can be identical or not.

So, what is Identity itself? It obviously exists, even if it's not physical. Is it an objective aspect of reality? I believe that it is, since observation isn't primordial (not by any means) which renders inimitable interpretation (subjectivity) the product of developmental emergence (and not existent at some levels of physical existence - even if the level of its (subjectivity's) appearance can be argued to an impasse), which cannot be said about existential identity, since identity is the fundamental requirement within the Relative Being State - establishing the factual "this versus that" which bases the whole point of that being state.

And yet, I look everywhere for a functional definition of Identity, and I can't seem to find one that doesn't involve human beings and their notion of self.

Am I looking for a different term altogether? Can any of you philosophy majors point me in the right direction?

Oh, and please don't waste your time trying to convince me that Identity doesn't exist.

Even if this whole reality is just the product of an observing singularity, what's being observed (as illusory as you believe it is) possesses Identity - each illusion relative to every other illusion - even within the whole of the overarching illusion itself which possesses its own identity relative to each contributive illusion that combines to form it as the whole that it is. This overarching illusion also possesses an inimitable Identity relative to the observing singularity, since it too possesses its own inimitable identity - especially if it is observing an illusion that is not "it".

The above statement - as logically impossible as it actually is, since a singularity can't observe an illusion (being the only existent anything that such a singularity would have to be to be a singularity) - will be used to dismiss your arguments, so just spare yourself the grief.

So....anyone with a link to what I'm looking for? I'd hate to think that I'm the only one seeing identity as more than a philosophical assumption that's too primordial to bother with.

Identity surely exixts, and totally outside of an algebraic equation to describe it. Intent is a whole other matter, for we are living in the algebraic equation of identity of which you describe, which tends to sugjugate and navigate us, and present an "appearance," that may or may not be real, as real is made to fit the equation you describe, rather than an reality to make a new reality, over and over.....

reply to post by tetra50

but thank you for being there.....

Glad I was there and if I helped even in very infinitesimal percentage then this can be more then the definition finding itself.

And, how interesting we should have this discussion here, for it is the essence, surely, of identity and all that attenuates

Indeed it is the...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you again my friend for your comfort words.

reply to post by piequal3because14


No, thank you for yours, for I am grieving daily and in a way I feel no one quite shares.....and I sincerely hope they do not, for it is more painful than I could describe...so any "hope" you could send my way or endorse, I would so like to see and feel...and just your kind words to alleviate my suffering are so very much appreciated, for identity is so very much with us, and ever present, and if there if we are told there is only one, then there is truly two, and the next suffers for the first......and i would do anything, and already have, were it not so....

with your permission, piequal, i would friend you in my profile.... never like to do so without permission, this being times that they are....

Originally posted by NorEaster
In Hegel's words, "Identity is the identity of identity and non-identity.", which seems to suggest that what something is, is dependent also on what isn't it for the full description of its identity. And I have to agree that this is true, since a description - a full description - includes some level of comparison between the "it" being described and whatever else exists that can lend that description some contrast, or at least some context.

Then, there's this;

The indiscernibility of identicals
For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.

as opposed to

The identity of indiscernibles
For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.

Source

which doesn't do much more than state that some things can be theoretically identical, even if the description is reworded slightly (although the 2nd wording raised some controversy - for some reason). But that's not what I'm looking for. I want to find out how to accurately describe Identity. I don't care about whether things can be identical or not.

So, what is Identity itself? It obviously exists, even if it's not physical. Is it an objective aspect of reality? I believe that it is, since observation isn't primordial (not by any means) which renders inimitable interpretation (subjectivity) the product of developmental emergence (and not existent at some levels of physical existence - even if the level of its (subjectivity's) appearance can be argued to an impasse), which cannot be said about existential identity, since identity is the fundamental requirement within the Relative Being State - establishing the factual "this versus that" which bases the whole point of that being state.

And yet, I look everywhere for a functional definition of Identity, and I can't seem to find one that doesn't involve human beings and their notion of self.

Am I looking for a different term altogether? Can any of you philosophy majors point me in the right direction?

Oh, and please don't waste your time trying to convince me that Identity doesn't exist.

Even if this whole reality is just the product of an observing singularity, what's being observed (as illusory as you believe it is) possesses Identity - each illusion relative to every other illusion - even within the whole of the overarching illusion itself which possesses its own identity relative to each contributive illusion that combines to form it as the whole that it is. This overarching illusion also possesses an inimitable Identity relative to the observing singularity, since it too possesses its own inimitable identity - especially if it is observing an illusion that is not "it".

The above statement - as logically impossible as it actually is, since a singularity can't observe an illusion (being the only existent anything that such a singularity would have to be to be a singularity) - will be used to dismiss your arguments, so just spare yourself the grief.

So....anyone with a link to what I'm looking for? I'd hate to think that I'm the only one seeing identity as more than a philosophical assumption that's too primordial to bother with.

You already have enough identities on your plate. If you identify yourself with your body, that's the first deception of Self. And nobody has yet, discovered a way to label something which is nothing. No-thing, is what you are. You are the nothing from which EVERYTHING is seen and perceived.

So your search for the 'I' will be in vain, The perceiver can not be perceived. You are the perceiver of everything you perceive. Your TRUE self will always be behind that which is perceived.

Your identity is that which you use to identify yourself.

That's all I got right now.

Maybe, this is a problem with language that is not helping us find the answer. Maybe there are no physical "things", reality is just a painting of many different paints of color (energy of qualities).


For example, a "box" is seen as a "thing", but it is really a collection of qualities.

- squareness

- solidness

- emptiness inside

- openness with the potential of being filled

if any of these qualities were gone, it would not be a "box" so a "box" is really just an identification of qualities....


For example, "white-soft-solid-coldness-falling-down" are the qualities of snow, but if any of these qualities were to change, for example "clearness" instead of "whiteness" or "liquid" instead of "soft-solid" it would no longer be "snow", it would be "rain", or if it were "gaseous" instead of "liquid or solid" and it were "flowing" instead of specifically "falling down" it would be "wind" a whole different thing. If even another quality were to change, and it were "black" , it would now be fog or smoke.

In Summary

A painting is just a collection of colors. There are no "things" in a painting, that is an illusion, it is just a blending of colors. In reality there are no "things" it is just a blending of qualities. We identify grouping of qualities as things.

...a twist in the tautological knot, such as in a mobius strip, which generates a non orientable unity. (from August stern's "quantum theoretic machines")

...anticommutativity arising from a subalphabet of zero, necessitating dimensionality. (from Rowland's "zero to infinity" exposition on a universal nilpotent rewrite system)

check out the markable mark for an entertaining algebraic treatment of brown's "laws of form".

Originally posted by tetra50
with your permission, piequal, i would friend you in my profile.... never like to do so without permission, this being times that they are....

You have my permission to add me as your friend in Thy profile.

piequal3because14

reply to post by NorEaster


I think identity occurs when something possesses a state of is.
If that makes any sense to you.

I feel this is correct.

I will think about this some more so I can try to explain it better.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
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.

I like that it describes an entire suite of "things" that do exist and do affect the structure of reality, but that are not physical in structure themselves. Things like Identity, and truth and logic and survival and each expression of survival, and even gender expression. People don't often realize that these things provide "drive" and "direction" for progressive development, and are why things are the way that they are. In that sense, they definitely exist, but they aren't material or even informational. They're not physical, and have no requirement for existential genesis. And yet, they clearly exist as real and they affect what is real and especially what is physical.

Noumenon works as a basic term to refer to any one of these nonphysical agents, while keeping them delineated from those agents or influences that are emergent - like environment or context or even information set. This is probably a lot more important than you think it is, and to me, it's a real breakthrough. Figuring this stuff out is hard, but explaining it is a lot tougher that I ever thought it'd be. These kinds of established terms really make things work a lot better in that regard.

Originally posted by tetra50

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......

What you are thinking, feeling, emoting, expressing, considering, embracing, and rejecting is creating who you are, and ultimately who you'll always be once you've finished this stage of your physical development. For 9 months, you went through your 1st stage of gestation. Your material body was built, and your brain was made viable (although it'd be another 20 years or so before it was fully functional). Now, your material brain is involved in the process of gestating the human being that you'll emerge as, once this stage of development is completed. This is all a default development process, and it's completed when the material body and brain are no longer functional. No plan. No schedule. Just a natural and default process that is ongoing with each instant of your material existence.

You'll be a fully viable and uniquely developed human being as soon as your body and brain dies, and this is what everyone who's passed on before you already knows. They each know it only to a degree that they believe it, though, and this is the problem with our specific version of human being (the version created by the Homo Sapiens brain). I don't know if other versions share this problem of ignorance and delusional expectation, but we sure have it as an ongoing threat to our freedom and ultimate functionality once we've emerged as fully human.

In the afterlife, perception can literally be reality, and that's bad news if you've been programmed by family and society to expect punishment or even eternal damnation. Or if you're expecting a deity, and any of way-too-many predatory humans know exactly what kind of deity you're expecting to submit to as soon as you've crossed over.

Let's just say that it's good if you know what's real and not real, pertaining to what's here and what's there. It could save you a lot of grief.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Where does the identity of "things" come into play in things like computers. Where there is a specific number of pixels on a screen that can represent information, each pixel is in a different position and by design is responsible for a different bit of information to create a whole image, but are none the less identical to every other pixel in design. And then what is responsible for creating images is...well first I should say/think, all the informational potential is already in the hardware/software of the computer... It then depends on a source of energy to make the system work, and compute information.... In a sense energy = information ... because information does not exist without energy/matter and the differences between all energy/matter is describable in terms of information,symbols,details.. Any way I didnt do this the justice I wanted, but do you think any of these ideas can be discussed in relation to yours?

Concerning information, residual information exists as a simple response to actual activity/change that happens. "This" happens = the fact that "this" happened comes into existence, as a fact cluster of information units. Pretty simple and uncomplicated. Each fact cluster possesses contextual identity relative to the actual event itself (its place along the progressive development chain, relationship between "it" and all other preceding and succeeding events, impact on related events, author(s) of the event and their contextual profile(s), and a lot more than I care to list) and that context is permanently integral to the contextual environment (or reality confine) affecting that environment as if it were ingredients within a stew that's cooking.

Information has no half-life rate of decay, but its influence does become diffuse as each quantum of action brings yet another fact cluster of residual information into the environment - more ingredients for the stew, as it were. Each fact cluster also shifts in relative context due to newly emergent fact clusters that may be closely related to them - such as conscious intellectual rumination or emotional expression related to the original event as represented now by that fact cluster as its contextual influence within the environment as a whole. Pretty layered stuff, but it's all more of a rinse-repeat sort of complexity - well, except when you get into the Set Logic aspect of it all, but then that's what math is all about. Examining Set Logic and how it works within a dense contextual environment.

I basically started trying to bring this up, to try to show how a limited quantity/quality of items, a fixed finite amount, (cpu storage,circuits,hardware,pixels,a computer has physical/spatial bounds) yet it can do so many different things,using the same pixels and same cpu storage, it can create emergent phenomenon on the screen, and all of these phenomena relate back to the same/shared simple (not so simple, but in terms of basic, primal fixed parts that are responsible for so many things) computer parts, relying on the same primal source of energy.

I think that the best thing a TOE enthusiast can do is throw away the term "energy" and focus on information as the "energy" of physical reality. Not recorded or recordable data, but the physical information that exists and sets the existential table for all that occurs and will occur within this reality confine. It's permanent, passive, and residual, but the fact that it's permanent, passive, and residual ( acting like rocks in the road) makes it capable of creating permanent impossibilities as well as well-established avenues of access forward. And this is the true key to why reality is as it is.

I'll leave you to play with that thought for now. I've probably said too much already.