Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

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.

reply to post by NorEaster


It is 35.

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

It is 35.

If so, then what is 42?

reply to post by NorEaster


Not 35.

Sorry for being a bit flippant. If you need to ask what is 42, then you did not understand 35. I suggest you contemplate 35. The answer to your question is there.

reply to post by NorEaster

If so, then what is 42?

The answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Identity - It obviously exists, but what is it?

Gosh, man, I don't know, especially on half a cup of coffee. But I get what you are saying,I think, at least I think that I see what you would like to wrestle with.

Today I am going to say that 'identity', the one we point to, not the one that points, is, in our case, the vehicle of our furthering concrescence in to matter. Which I imagine that we must be crushed by before returning to maybe spirit.

Now, very soon, it will be impossible to use the web for anything if you have no 'credentials'. In fact no one will want to, because the risks to one's 'identity' will be too great.

There will be some digital way to provide these credentials (your personal data + passwords and possibly biometrics) Google is working on a ring.

Then we are all going to know what identity means.

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Not 35.

And therein lies the mystery.

reply to post by NorEaster


Identity is a state of observation. If it's observed, the observation is its identity. If it's observing, the observations are its identity. Whatever perception is taking place defines the identity.

This, I think, includes but is not restricted to, the human mentality you're trying to avoid. If it's observed or observing, those observations are the guidelines and foundations for identity.

reply to post by NorEaster


No mystery. I suggest you contemplate 35. The answer to your question is there.

The ability to see your reflection and realize you're looking at yourself.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Identity is a state of observation. If it's observed, the observation is its identity. If it's observing, the observations are its identity. Whatever perception is taking place defines the identity.

This, I think, includes but is not restricted to, the human mentality you're trying to avoid. If it's observed or observing, those observations are the guidelines and foundations for identity.

That can't be true, since observation requires sentience, at the very least. You're putting the caboose before the engine in that train of thought.

reply to post by NorEaster

That can't be true, since observation requires sentience, at the very least. You're putting the caboose before the engine in that train of thought.

If it's not sentient, is it observing? My use of the word "observation" was done with the assumption that observation requires requires enough sentience to remember ideas and make connections with them.

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

No mystery. I suggest you contemplate 35. The answer to your question is there.

How about specifying a little...

35 is the sum of the first five triangular numbers, making it a tetrahedral number.

35 is the number of ways that three things can be selected from a set of seven unique things also known as the "combination of seven things taken three at a time".

35 is a centered cube number, a pentagonal number and a pentatope number.

35 is a highly cototient number, since there are more solutions to the equation x - φ(x) = 35 than there are for any other integers below it except 1.

There are 35 free hexominoes, the polyominoes made from six squares.

Since the greatest prime factor of 352 + 1 = 1226 is 613, which is obviously more than 35 twice, 35 is a Størmer number.

35 is a discrete semiprime (or biprime) (5 × 7); the tenth, and the first with 5 as the lowest non-unitary factor. The aliquot sum of 35 is 13 this being the second composite number with such an aliquot sum; the first being the cube 27. 35 is the last member of the first triple cluster of semiprimes 33,34,35. 85,86,87 is the second such triple discrete semiprime cluster.

35 is the highest number one can count to on one's fingers using base 6.

source

Not that it actually matters to me, but go ahead. Dazzle me.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NorEaster

 

That can't be true, since observation requires sentience, at the very least. You're putting the caboose before the engine in that train of thought.

If it's not sentient, is it observing? My use of the word "observation" was done with the assumption that observation requires requires enough sentience to remember ideas and make connections with them.

Sentience is not primordial. Note the quoted section in the OP.

Besides, observation is an active interpretation of identity. It's not identity. 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. 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.

Thanks anyway.

reply to post by NorEaster


Nice. You are almost there.

You are thinking about it too much. 35 is less tangent.

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Nice. You are almost there.

You are thinking about it too much. 35 is less tangent.

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

So....you have no idea what this thread is about, then.

reply to post by NorEaster


Yes, I do. However, It does not appear I can help - you are totally missing my point and your answer.

Perhaps in addition to 35 you should consider your statement:

"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. "

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Yes, I do. However, It does not appear I can help - you are totally missing my point and your answer.

Perhaps in addition to 35 you should consider your statement:

"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. "

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

I'm looking for a fish. I don't need to learn how to fish. I already know how to fish. The fish I'm looking for is located in a very specific part of the stream and I'm not in need of someone to tell me "look for the fishing hole where your fish is located", since I already know that this is what I am doing. Riddles are a waste of my time, but thanks for bumping the thread anyway.

reply to post by NorEaster


Good luck in your quest. I hope you have a pleasant afternoon

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Good luck in your quest. I hope you have a pleasant afternoon

Oh...and I'm going to assume that this isn't you. Have a good afternoon yourself.

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. ou have to exist to have an identity. At that point, you are able to be observed with the right tools. Those tools are used to observe you, and those observations are used to define you.

Thus, observation forms your identity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks anyway.

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