Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

Originally posted by NorEaster
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".

It appears my example is not clear as to what I am trying to say. Any i exist has property or properties. The observation of property or properties of i may distinguish various i, but observation is not required of i.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

edit on 22-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

It's possible that I didn't completely agree with him, but that the way it was worded allowed me to sympathize with an aspect of what was stated. Identity itself is clearly undefinable, and that seems to be what I agreed with. It's not something that the perceiver/observer "owns", and it's not subjectively imposed by observation. Identity is a default ramification of any suite of contributing factors that combines to create the specific contextual balance that results in the inimitable "slot" where an existent "something" fits to complete the emergent aggregate that is a specific reality whole.

Hmmmm

Maybe that's as good a definition of Identity as I'm going to find. Thanks for pushing me to sweat out that statement. I may just end up being the breakthrough I needed.

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by NorEaster
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".

It appears my example is not clear as to what I am trying to say. Any i exist has property or properties. The observation of property or properties of i may distinguish various i, but observation is not required of i.

The "i" must achieve existence. The only way that can happen is by ramification. It can't simply be the result of human imagination. Human imagination is a dynamic information set, and that means that the dynamic information set itself is existent - not the topic of that information set. The topic - in that case, the "i" - would then be part of the information set's own internal contextual properties suite. It would not have inimitable identity of its own.

Reality is not at all structured like human imagination. The confines of the human mind are each unique unto themselves, and each are contextually isolated from all other confines that exist. The properties that each mind allows exist only within the barrier that contains it, and isolates it from all else that exists. That very specific and inimitable "i" exists only within the confines of your mind. My interpretation of that "i" is not that "i". It is my own self-generated "i". Neither has any connection - contextually or otherwise - within the confine of objective reality, with one another, since neither has achieved physical existence within that confine. The residual information set that represents the fact that you imagined such an "i" does exist, but the "i" itself doesn't exist.

This is a very important distinction that cannot be dismissed, since it is the determining factor that prevents wishes from coming true as a direct result of their having been wished by those who wish for what they wish for. Yes, there is a logical, physics reason behind the truth that "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride." And beggars walk.

Originally posted by NorEaster
It would not have inimitable identity of its own.

With this understanding everything following in your discussion I agree. Do you offer a definition?

This is a very interesting topic - thank you!

Well, here goes - my first post on this website...

From the standpoint of conditional reality, a sense of identity continuously arises based in the point-of-view processing of the body-mind that we associate with attention. Every conditional sense of identity is bound to whatever point-of-view we are dramatizing in any given moment. We observe a room from a particular point-of-view and feel our identity within it. But what is that identity? What is the room? What do either actually look like? The room looks different from each and every possible point of view, but how does it actually appear in reality? It is unknowable, indefinable ultimately, just like identity - it cannot truly be known from any conditional point-of-view because every point-of-view of the room (or identity) would have to be taken into account simultaneously.

However, we could also define identity as Consciousness or Awareness - the reality beyond all points-of-view, beyond the attention associated with the body-mind. But in this case, identity is not limited, and thus not definable over against any object, and so not as you suggest "an objective aspect of reality".

In a further attempt to consider your questions then, identity is awareness or consciousness - prior to the body-mind, prior to all arising conditionality, beyond the self-sense, beyond the ego-I, utterly beyond all form.

It therefore appears that what you are trying to define in terms of identity is the same as trying to define Reality, the Unconditional - and it simply cannot be done in any kind of absolute way, only pointed to at best, as this thread and your own findings (or lack of findings of an absolute definition of identity) are also indicating.

Originally posted by bb23108
From the standpoint of conditional reality, a sense of identity continuously arises based in the point-of-view processing of the body-mind that we associate with attention. Every conditional sense of identity is bound to whatever point-of-view we are dramatizing in any given moment. We observe a room from a particular point-of-view and feel our identity within it. But what is that identity? What is the room? What do either actually look like? The room looks different from each and every possible point of view, but how does it actually appear in reality? It is unknowable, indefinable ultimately, just like identity - it cannot truly be known from any conditional point-of-view because every point-of-view of the room (or identity) would have to be taken into account simultaneously....

...It therefore appears that what you are trying to define in terms of identity is the same as trying to define Reality, the Unconditional - and it simply cannot be done in any kind of absolute way, only pointed to at best, as this thread and your own findings (or lack of findings of an absolute definition of identity) are also indicating.

edit on 23-2-2013 by bb23108 because: Further elaboration

I believe this is where the discussion progressed. In the OP I understood the search was for a definition of Identity. My mistake, as I was considering the abstract and philosophical meaning of identity. From what I am reading, the discussion is restricted to the construct of social identity.

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by NorEaster
It would not have inimitable identity of its own.

With this understanding everything following in your discussion I agree. Do you offer a definition?

Let me grab this one from a few posts just above here.

Identity is a default ramification of any suite of contributing factors that combines to create the specific contextual balance that results in the inimitable "slot" where an existent "something" fits to complete the emergent aggregate that is a specific reality whole.

I think that this is as good as I can do.

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by bb23108
From the standpoint of conditional reality, a sense of identity continuously arises based in the point-of-view processing of the body-mind that we associate with attention. Every conditional sense of identity is bound to whatever point-of-view we are dramatizing in any given moment. We observe a room from a particular point-of-view and feel our identity within it. But what is that identity? What is the room? What do either actually look like? The room looks different from each and every possible point of view, but how does it actually appear in reality? It is unknowable, indefinable ultimately, just like identity - it cannot truly be known from any conditional point-of-view because every point-of-view of the room (or identity) would have to be taken into account simultaneously....

...It therefore appears that what you are trying to define in terms of identity is the same as trying to define Reality, the Unconditional - and it simply cannot be done in any kind of absolute way, only pointed to at best, as this thread and your own findings (or lack of findings of an absolute definition of identity) are also indicating.

edit on 23-2-2013 by bb23108 because: Further elaboration

I believe this is where the discussion progressed. In the OP I understood the search was for a definition of Identity. My mistake, as I was considering the abstract and philosophical meaning of identity. From what I am reading, the discussion is restricted to the construct of social identity.

Yeah, I don't know what happened to this thread, but it has taken an odd turn. It did start out in search of an "official" definition of the general term Identity. It left the rails a bit back there somewhere. No big deal. I think I got what I came for anyway.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Yeah, I don't know what happened to this thread, but it has taken an odd turn. It did start out in search of an "official" definition of the general term Identity. It left the rails a bit back there somewhere. No big deal. I think I got what I came for anyway.

I think you came with what you needed - very nice Thank you.

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by NorEaster

Yeah, I don't know what happened to this thread, but it has taken an odd turn. It did start out in search of an "official" definition of the general term Identity. It left the rails a bit back there somewhere. No big deal. I think I got what I came for anyway.

I think you came with what you needed

Maybe so, but this thread did help me straighten out a very critical relational aspect between residual information and contextual precedence, and I have to be grateful for that. I hadn't sufficiently detailed that somewhat complex relationship in my own work until this morning. It's been a good day as a result of having that realization. This one thread had a major impact on how that played out. This place does do a lot for my ability to gel my ideas, and while I don't know why, it does seem to work out well in that regard. Maybe it's the effort to explain these things in writing? Hard to know.

Originally posted by straddlebug
I believe this is where the discussion progressed. In the OP I understood the search was for a definition of Identity. My mistake, as I was considering the abstract and philosophical meaning of identity. From what I am reading, the discussion is restricted to the construct of social identity.

You quoted my post when you wrote this, and I don't understand why you state that "the discussion is restricted to the construct of social identity". Social identity is an ever-changing "identity" based on whatever one's egoic patterns, current point of view, etc., are - whereas the most basic unchanging identity is consciousness or awareness itself. It is the case that one's awareness never changes regardless of one's age. My awareness as a teen is the same as my awareness as an ever-aging adult. In other words, my actual identity as awareness never ages. Given the unchanging nature of awareness, it is really the only reliable identity - everything else changes.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Yeah, I don't know what happened to this thread, but it has taken an odd turn. It did start out in search of an "official" definition of the general term Identity. It left the rails a bit back there somewhere. No big deal. I think I got what I came for anyway.

I am not sure what you mean by the discussion leaving the rails, as the thread title specifically asks what is identity, and as I state above, I don't understand what is more about identity than awareness itself. Further elaboration would be appreciated, if you care to. (I assume your reply was also directed towards my post given you quoted it.)

Regardless, I am glad you were able to further define your work.

reply to post by NorEaster

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.

Not sure if you're looking for this answer, but it's all I've got. I believe identity is a natural process that all living things needed to learn, and very quickly. Predators needed to learn what to munch on, and what not to munch on. Of course, prey animals needed to identify those creatures that were dangerous to them from the ones that were safe to be around.

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by straddlebug
I believe this is where the discussion progressed. In the OP I understood the search was for a definition of Identity. My mistake, as I was considering the abstract and philosophical meaning of identity. From what I am reading, the discussion is restricted to the construct of social identity.

You quoted my post when you wrote this, and I don't understand why you state that "the discussion is restricted to the construct of social identity".

Originally posted by NorEaster
Yeah, I don't know what happened to this thread, but it has taken an odd turn. .

I was thinking about identity in a similar manner as you, and letting you know that I think the thread was of a different study. NorEaster seems to have confirmed.

This thread is so deep I can not reach the bottom

Can someone please explain me this thread ?

A mental construct of like and dislike and a not yet judged neutral. 100's if not 1000's of these little filings take place everyday in an individual; this is identity or who we take to be the self.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
A mental construct of like and dislike and a not yet judged neutral. 100's if not 1000's of these little filings take place everyday in an individual; this is identity or who we take to be the self.

OP I totally apologize for derailing your thread. At this point it is all too funny.

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
A mental construct of like and dislike and a not yet judged neutral. 100's if not 1000's of these little filings take place everyday in an individual; this is identity or who we take to be the self.

OP I totally apologize for derailing your thread. At this point it is all too funny.

Then what are you? If not millions of choices; from your millions of like and dislike judgement's as stated?

Identity exists whenever something is distinguishable from anything else. Its hard to imagine any scenario where more than one thing can share all the same properties. How do you even tell there is more than one thing there?

A personal sense of identity is a totally different matter, and I think that has to do with memory.

Originally posted by Tearman
Its hard to imagine any scenario where more than one thing can share all the same properties.

It is even more difficult to imagine a single "thing". Or for that matter, to imagine or consider a set of "thing" that includes NULL, Absolute, and Infinite.