Question of Identity
"But functionally, if we use the example of two people that have exactly the same ball, if there are no distinguishing characteristics that actually make the object 'unique', would it really matter whether I got my ball 'Bob' back or if I actually got 'John' instead? "We were going to monitor the situation but it was in the wrong aspect ratio."
| |
" it's impossible for two objects to have no distinguishing characteristics, because location is a characteristic that distinguishes the objects... - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - < <739610877-3104-376.101077-1106.75103739110792103.108-5'92.9410776.> - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - < Last edited by bwam on Mar 7, 2018, 3:05:40 PM
| |
" So no, garrot is correct. Because location is a functionality for spatial awareness. Either ball you receive if they are identical, in your hands will have it's name with which it started. The "location" in as you explain it, would indicate the ball is in either persons A or persons B's hand. Thus it's identity would be derived from the context.(spatial awareness) Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
" That's like saying: Hey, these two balls aren't different, except for one's orange and the other's blue -- but that requires "color awareness." - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - <
<739610877-3104-376.101077-1106.75103739110792103.108-5'92.9410776.> - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - < | |
|
(Two oranges are identical, except one is hovering in geosynchronous orbit, and the other is in your hand.
Of course the location of the orange is relevant: it makes it your orange, and there's no confusion that the orange up in the sky isn't yours, even if they are otherwise indistinguishable.) - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - <
<739610877-3104-376.101077-1106.75103739110792103.108-5'92.9410776.> - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - < | |
" It's the aim that justifies the truth. This is the reality we live in, if the truth aims towards survival, we generally incorporate it in our structure. So define what your truth is aiming at. What would either answer reveal that is worth something for me? Is wisdom useful when it doesn't apply to reality or holds "meaning" to us? Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
The takeaway, as I mentioned, is that identity is continuous. How is that useful? I suppose the answer to that depends on you.
Another example:
Spoiler
A group calls itself "Alphabet Kids," comprised of person A, person B, and person C. They incorporate.
Person A leaves "Alphabet Kids" and is replaced by person D. Person B leaves "Alphabet Kids" and is replaced by person E. Person C leaves "Alphabet Kids" and is replaced by person F. Suppose person A and person D are essentially indistinguishable; so are person B and person E, and so are person C and person F -- except for the fact that persons A, B, C are not in "Alphabet Kids," while persons D, E, F are in "Alphabet Kids." Then person A, person B, and person C all decide for form a new group, calling it "Alphabet Kids," and incorporate. They claim it is the original, bona fide group. "Alphabet Kids" (DEF) files a class-action lawsuit against "Alphabet Kids" (ABC), disputing its claim to be the original, with some associated claims of damages. - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - <
<739610877-3104-376.101077-1106.75103739110792103.108-5'92.9410776.> - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - < | |
" This sounds exactly like the problem Vince McMahon had when he was forced to change the WWF to the WWE. I think that the WWF is the World Wrestling Federation, and refuse to accept any alternative outcome. Last edited by Khoranth on Mar 8, 2018, 1:57:54 PM
| |
|
@Khoranth: not familiar. Spare me some Google-fu?
- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - <
<739610877-3104-376.101077-1106.75103739110792103.108-5'92.9410776.> - 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0 -- 0 * - < _ > - * 0- 0 * - < | |
" WWF stands for World Wrestling Federation. Some garbage animal rights (World Wildlife Fund) group claimed Vince McMahon stole their letters, apparently it is against the law to have a 3 word title with the same 3 letters as another group. So WWF change to World Wrestling Entertainment: WWE SO if you started a company named "Wesley Waldo's Forks" that would be against the law. Last edited by Khoranth on Mar 8, 2018, 2:06:14 PM
|
