Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

reply to post by NorEaster


I see how you so readily agreed with that post, when my post was essentially the same concept and you argued it up and down. Was it because he didn't specify the details of what he was saying? Is that why? He didn't give you enough details to argue with?

Because from where I'm sitting, he pretty much said exactly what I did. I wouldn't be pointing it out, but that kind of thing irks me. I get treated like I'm an idiot, then someone comes along and words it differently and they get treated as an equal. That irks me.

" I want to find out how to accurately describe Identity. I don't care about whether things can be identical or not." - NorEaster

Questions:

Consider i, any i. For conversation, use i = 35. However, i could be 42 or Taygeta - it does not matter, you have i.

Consider only i = 35 where there are no other i. Does i have properties, exist, not exist - What is i?

Consider i1 = 35, i2 = 35 or 2i and i1 = i2. There are only 2i and no other i. Is i changed?

Consider i1 = 35, i2 = 42, or i1 != i2. There are only 2i and no other i. Is i changed?

Consider u is i. There is no other i, there is no other u. Does u have properties, does u exist, not exist - What is u?

Consider u1 and u2 or 2u where u1 = i and u2 = i. u1 = u2. Is i changed?

Consider u1 and u2 or 2u where u1 = i1 and u2 = i2. u1 != u2. Is i changed?

Consider U and I where U = (u1, u2, u3...ux) and (i1, i2, i3...ix). Infinite u and/or infinite i. Is i changed?

Can anything be said of i in the context of Identity?

Originally posted by NorEaster

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.

If it is realized that there is no identity there that can be defined maybe it should not be assumed that there is one.
What is happening is that the attention is seeking, it is looking for something that it has believed was there - a definite separate entity with an identity.

What would make 'identity'? Identification with an idea.

The mark of the beast just popped up -I dent. The belief in the separate I.

Originally posted by NorEaster

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.

edit on 2/22/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

I found this to be a superb answer to things I previously wrote and questioned in this thread, and wanted to thank you for it.

reply to post by NorEaster


A ant hill full of ants. Most of these ants may look identical to us, but each one has its unique experience and relation to itself, its neighbors and loved ones, and nature. But doesnt the hardware of the ant (and software) limit what the ant can think. And the same can be said for humans. Of course by the very nature of being an individual self, it is impossible to go through life and be "exactly" the same as another individual self in every microsecond of every day, and so plain and simply, identity is being a self/individual. Being alive. And alive things can realize and know the identity of every part of this universe that isnt alive. Because what isnt alive, is still individual pieces or parts.

You have a firm belief that after we die we will enter our own personal universe where we can imagine whatever we want and experience it for maybe an eternity. How did you come to this conclusion, is this intuition? Of course it is nice to believe this, but why do you think the universe would be so kind to allow every living being within it to become their own god of their own isolated universe? If I interpreted wrong let me know.

I'm going try and chime here, hopefully I understood your OP

In graphics programming the way I distinguish Identities is the history of Identity occupant.

Lets say I have 50 particles that all the properties are identical (name, mass, velocity, ect) and then we let these particle loose and let them roam around and interact with each other. The particles have no way of distinguishing from one another but what does make them different is the interaction footprints they accumulate over time which is the history of the particle by where they've been, which particles they've interacted with would be unique and different from one another thus giving identity.

So in a sense, what gives identity to the observer is the history of the observer. I hope I got that right.

Originally posted by samaka
I'm going try and chime here, hopefully I understood your OP

In graphics programming the way I distinguish Identities is the history of Identity occupant.

Lets say I have 50 particles that all the properties are identical (name, mass, velocity, ect) and then we let these particle loose and let them roam around and interact with each other. The particles have no way of distinguishing from one another but what does make them different is the interaction footprints they accumulate over time which is the history of the particle by where they've been, which particles they've interacted with would be unique and different from one another thus giving identity.

So in a sense, what gives identity to the observer is the history of the observer. I hope I got that right.

There is too much information to accurately describe identity and by the time you do the identity you are attempting to describe will have evolved in ways. Take consciousness for example, your identity, your body, memories,thoughts,feelings, personality, likes dislikes, etc. everything about you. It is said that every 7 years the human body is composed of entirely new atoms (or it maybe cells or something) what does this say about identity? Also your identity and thoughts and personality is made possible by the quadrillions of particles in your brain "doing activity" hundreds of thousands of things per second. Who knows what happens in the brain for the simplest thought to be created, or what occurs in the brain for you to remember who you are every millisecond, or how any memories or information is stored in the brain. Yet these are the things which allow a human identity to exist. It would also be argued however, regardless of these memories and thoughts and personalities ( a brain dead human for example) still objectively has an identity because it is exactly what it is, just as every particle is exactly what it is (that is the nature of identity, the fact that there is quantity,.... ( would be an interesting kink in this discussion there is one physicist ive heard at least mention the possibility that only one electron exists, "electron field" and all electrons in atoms are merely local excitations of this field.. something I was trying to get at with a previous post discussing a computer)).. So I would say Identity exists objectively (even though an observer outside the universe could say, that is the universe,, a related system.. everything in that can be catagorized as being related and having a related identity to the universe) and there are different levels of identity... we can identify a plastic cup being different from a tree.. yet 100 plastic cups created from the same factory mold share a more similar identity, but then we can still say they are obviously all different because they are composed of different atoms,,, and then we can say yes but those atoms they are composed of are all similar and share an identity,,, yes, but they are all different because quantity exists...

And I would say identity exists subjectively,, in a fleeting manner.. because I can think and feel about my self how ever I want for a limited amount of time, until I receive brain damage or am shown an irresistible proof of a truth which i cannot ignore, thus changing an aspect of my identity... When you were a child surely your identity was different then it is now. If you never learned a language would your identity be different? If you went blind and deaf at age 3 would your identity be different? If immediately after you were born you were placed in the woods with a pack of wolves would your identity be different?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

And I would say identity exists subjectively,, in a fleeting manner.. because I can think and feel about my self how ever I want for a limited amount of time, until I receive brain damage or am shown an irresistible proof of a truth which i cannot ignore, thus changing an aspect of my identity... When you were a child surely your identity was different then it is now. If you never learned a language would your identity be different? If you went blind and deaf at age 3 would your identity be different? If immediately after you were born you were placed in the woods with a pack of wolves would your identity be different?

I think you are discussing the properties or state of identity. Where I think OP is discussing identity separate from the properties of identity. Something I was trying to get at above when considering i = 35. No matter the properties, number of identities, or allowing for time/changes in properties and number of identities, identity is unchanged.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by samaka
I'm going try and chime here, hopefully I understood your OP

In graphics programming the way I distinguish Identities is the history of Identity occupant.

Lets say I have 50 particles that all the properties are identical (name, mass, velocity, ect) and then we let these particle loose and let them roam around and interact with each other. The particles have no way of distinguishing from one another but what does make them different is the interaction footprints they accumulate over time which is the history of the particle by where they've been, which particles they've interacted with would be unique and different from one another thus giving identity.

So in a sense, what gives identity to the observer is the history of the observer. I hope I got that right.

There is too much information to accurately describe identity and by the time you do the identity you are attempting to describe will have evolved in ways. Take consciousness for example, your identity, your body, memories,thoughts,feelings, personality, likes dislikes, etc. everything about you. It is said that every 7 years the human body is composed of entirely new atoms (or it maybe cells or something) what does this say about identity? Also your identity and thoughts and personality is made possible by the quadrillions of particles in your brain "doing activity" hundreds of thousands of things per second. Who knows what happens in the brain for the simplest thought to be created, or what occurs in the brain for you to remember who you are every millisecond, or how any memories or information is stored in the brain. Yet these are the things which allow a human identity to exist. It would also be argued however, regardless of these memories and thoughts and personalities ( a brain dead human for example) still objectively has an identity because it is exactly what it is, just as every particle is exactly what it is (that is the nature of identity, the fact that there is quantity,.... ( would be an interesting kink in this discussion there is one physicist ive heard at least mention the possibility that only one electron exists, "electron field" and all electrons in atoms are merely local excitations of this field.. something I was trying to get at with a previous post discussing a computer)).. So I would say Identity exists objectively (even though an observer outside the universe could say, that is the universe,, a related system.. everything in that can be catagorized as being related and having a related identity to the universe) and there are different levels of identity... we can identify a plastic cup being different from a tree.. yet 100 plastic cups created from the same factory mold share a more similar identity, but then we can still say they are obviously all different because they are composed of different atoms,,, and then we can say yes but those atoms they are composed of are all similar and share an identity,,, yes, but they are all different because quantity exists...

And I would say identity exists subjectively,, in a fleeting manner.. because I can think and feel about my self how ever I want for a limited amount of time, until I receive brain damage or am shown an irresistible proof of a truth which i cannot ignore, thus changing an aspect of my identity... When you were a child surely your identity was different then it is now. If you never learned a language would your identity be different? If you went blind and deaf at age 3 would your identity be different? If immediately after you were born you were placed in the woods with a pack of wolves would your identity be different?

My response to this is your identity is ongoing, fluctuating with everything you experience, and so, given your question at then end, different than what, when and how? Yes, of course, because when I was born, I wasn't blind and deaf nor raised by wolves, but now that I am/was, it doesnt make me any less me, does it?

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by ImaFungi

And I would say identity exists subjectively,, in a fleeting manner.. because I can think and feel about my self how ever I want for a limited amount of time, until I receive brain damage or am shown an irresistible proof of a truth which i cannot ignore, thus changing an aspect of my identity... When you were a child surely your identity was different then it is now. If you never learned a language would your identity be different? If you went blind and deaf at age 3 would your identity be different? If immediately after you were born you were placed in the woods with a pack of wolves would your identity be different?

I think you are discussing the properties or state of identity. Where I think OP is discussing identity separate from the properties of identity. Something I was trying to get at above when considering i = 35. No matter the properties, number of identities, or allowing for time/changes in properties and number of identities, identity is unchanged.

"Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?"

That is what im discussing.

Oh so there is no such thing as subjective identity? something I tried to ask questions about in my previous reply... No matter what identity is unchanged you say. So every tiniest particle of matter at the beginning is each its own identity, and then time goes on and these particles interact in different ways and can contribute to creating new identities. Every particle in your body has its own identity and journey from the beginning of its creation yet it when they come together they can create you, and you as a baby had a subjective identity, as a teen you could have identified with certain music and movies, and had thoughts and feelings, and a year later could have had the exact opposites, wouldnt your identity have changed? If you get alzheimers and start forgetting who you are will your identity subjectively change? Or are you saying subjectivity is meaningless, all that is real is objectivity, the quantity of objects, how they move and interact. The world of your mind, thoughts feelings, memories, desires, personalities, beliefs do not objectively exist and have nothing to do with the concept identity? Are you saying a persons identity is that which if we observed them every second their entire life, and wrote down everything they did every second, that is their objective identity, and this is how we can know the identity of everything that exists?

Originally posted by tetra50
I found this to be a superb answer to things I previously wrote and questioned in this thread, and wanted to thank you for it.

Thank you. That made my entire day.

Originally posted by straddlebug
" I want to find out how to accurately describe Identity. I don't care about whether things can be identical or not." - NorEaster

Questions:

Consider i, any i. For conversation, use i = 35. However, i could be 42 or Taygeta - it does not matter, you have i.

Consider only i = 35 where there are no other i. Does i have properties, exist, not exist - What is i?

You have created an intellect burst that refers to an idea involving i and 35. That doesn't create "i" as a context-possessing "something". That intellect burst exists, but its contextual composition is much too dense for that "i" or that "35" to be definitive in any sense of what identity requires of anything that exists.

Consider i1 = 35, i2 = 35 or 2i and i1 = i2. There are only 2i and no other i. Is i changed?

Consider i1 = 35, i2 = 42, or i1 != i2. There are only 2i and no other i. Is i changed?

Consider u is i. There is no other i, there is no other u. Does u have properties, does u exist, not exist - What is u?

Consider u1 and u2 or 2u where u1 = i and u2 = i. u1 = u2. Is i changed?

Consider u1 and u2 or 2u where u1 = i1 and u2 = i2. u1 != u2. Is i changed?

Consider U and I where U = (u1, u2, u3...ux) and (i1, i2, i3...ix). Infinite u and/or infinite i. Is i changed?

Can anything be said of i in the context of Identity?

The rest of this is meaningless, since "i" doesn't actually exist.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by tetra50
I found this to be a superb answer to things I previously wrote and questioned in this thread, and wanted to thank you for it.

Thank you. That made my entire day.

and you just made mine, that this carried such weight for you.....thanks. And very much enjoyed the OP, btw.... even though i believe identity is much more than an algebraic equation, and think we have been sold short by that view...
but your humanity in your answers to me in a time of need reaffirm, indeed, my belief in the above....

Originally posted by samaka
I'm going try and chime here, hopefully I understood your OP

In graphics programming the way I distinguish Identities is the history of Identity occupant.

Lets say I have 50 particles that all the properties are identical (name, mass, velocity, ect) and then we let these particle loose and let them roam around and interact with each other. The particles have no way of distinguishing from one another but what does make them different is the interaction footprints they accumulate over time which is the history of the particle by where they've been, which particles they've interacted with would be unique and different from one another thus giving identity.

So in a sense, what gives identity to the observer is the history of the observer. I hope I got that right.

The observer has no power to assign identity to the existent "something". All the observer can do is observe and interpret that observation. Nothing that physically exists "gives" anything identity. That word "noumenon" probably works best to refer to the sort of "things" that assign and define Identity. At least until a better term shows up.

Originally posted by tetra50
i believe identity is much more than an algebraic equation, and think we have been sold short by that view...

Identity is way beyond any algebraic equation, and I hope that I didn't infer that it isn't. It's the fundamental requirement of all that exists. In fact, nothing can exist unless it has Identity. No equation can fully define the nature of Identity and certainly not the primordial importance of Identity. Algebra is just playing with Set Logic.

reply to post by NorEaster

so right you are. and as to your replies to me previously and specifically (and I always so enjoy the facility and intelligence behind your writing), I am definitely taking that placenta with me as well. LOL

Apply this to abortion. They call it a fetus. No it isn't because a fetus is essentially a human.

They kill humans not fetuses.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Apply this to abortion. They call it a fetus. No it isn't because a fetus is essentially a human.

They kill humans not fetuses.

They kill us all, fetuses or not, and you would show up just to intellectually kill this discussion.....


Give me this, and no more: for if we are living in a prescribed hell, who am I to have disregarded life, as you so describe......would the fetus I held in my womb benefitted from the hell we are all currently living through, and very few would be so brave as to say this to you......

who are you to judge, in this discussion....
There is no simplicity possible, for we are in a reality that dismisses some and regards others.....and with that said, and identity encapsulated with that in mind, you seek to judge all women and their ability and biological identity to produce or not, life....

With every thread in the quilt that this site suggests, how dare you judge?


Perhaps, looking at what we have all lived through, why would I or any woman, introduce a new life to this. And I personally struggle with this every single day....for this is my bent, as a woman, simply with a uterus and ovaries, no specialty involved, just biology and no one chose that for those of us with that set of physical circumstances: ie. a uterus.....


and there you are, judging us, in the present climate, where who would ask of us such, given the circumstances.....have you thought of that, lately, and what that means. Shame upon you for judging......when you haven't clearly thought out wjhat it may mean to give or take life.....or what the identity implied attenuates thereof.....

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Apply this to abortion. They call it a fetus. No it isn't because a fetus is essentially a human.

They kill humans not fetuses.

This discussion can't be applied to abortion. That's just trolling, so go to the crazy political threads with your obsession.