Question of Identity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlYJtRrQNcU

Baltass performances rely on the 'identity' of the ball being consistent in physical relation to the table and artist in order for the illusion to create the 'magical' experience of the act.

Those that understand the mechanics behind the performance know with certainty that the ball that is on the table at the start of the act is very likely only one of three (or more) balls that are used throughout the duration of the show. If the ball at the start is named 'Joe', does it really matter that the ball on the table at the end of the show is actually 'Peter'?

Three missiles appear to be identical.

All three appear on USA [radar/misc]; the missiles are tracked.

Then, to the great surprise of the USA, two of the missiles disappear from [radar/etc].

One missile reappears. It is unclear which missile it is.

Missile 3 is tipped with a nuclear bomb. Missile 2 is not. But USA does not know anything of the sort, and can't distinguish 2 from 3 from 1.

USA assumes both remaining missiles are nuclear-tipped missiles.

Ballistic counter-measures fail. You are in the American city below the reappeared missile.

Does it matter if it's missile 2 or missile 3 or missile 1?

To the USA, it appears not to matter before impact. But after impact, it certainly matters.

Just because two objects appear to be identical doesn't mean they are.

"

bwam wrote:

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.

I think your simply i'll defining things.

I think your aiming to describe consciousness or "potential", but attributing it to a layer of communication, which identity is.

Consciousness aims, quite literally, it propels.

And when talking about humans, identity is the framework formed to reach that aim.

When does the color of the ball become relevant, when it interferes or helps our aim.
We act out and attribute identity either to facilitate or obstruct our aim.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Garr0t wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlYJtRrQNcU

Baltass performances rely on the 'identity' of the ball being consistent in physical relation to the table and artist in order for the illusion to create the 'magical' experience of the act.

Those that understand the mechanics behind the performance know with certainty that the ball that is on the table at the start of the act is very likely only one of three (or more) balls that are used throughout the duration of the show. If the ball at the start is named 'Joe', does it really matter that the ball on the table at the end of the show is actually 'Peter'?

Yes.

"

Boem wrote:

I think your simply i'll defining things.

I think your aiming to describe consciousness or "potential", but attributing it to a layer of communication, which identity is.

Consciousness aims, quite literally, it propels.

And when talking about humans, identity is the framework formed to reach that aim.

When does the color of the ball become relevant, when it interferes or helps our aim.
We act out and attribute identity either to facilitate or obstruct our aim.

Peace,

-Boem-

The concept of identity is not a construct used to achieve goals; it is a concept reflective of the properties inherent to an object or person. This concept can be used to achieve goals, sure. But that doesn't make goal-actualization the defining characteristic or raison d'etre of identity as a concept.

"

bwam wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I think your simply i'll defining things.

I think your aiming to describe consciousness or "potential", but attributing it to a layer of communication, which identity is.

Consciousness aims, quite literally, it propels.

And when talking about humans, identity is the framework formed to reach that aim.

When does the color of the ball become relevant, when it interferes or helps our aim.
We act out and attribute identity either to facilitate or obstruct our aim.

Peace,

-Boem-

The concept of identity is not a construct used to achieve goals; it is a concept reflective of the properties inherent to an object or person. This concept can be used to achieve goals, sure. But that doesn't make goal-actualization the defining characteristic or raison d'etre of identity as a concept.

So the identity bwam was not created for a goal? The person you are does not "aim" at something and try's to move towards that?

What happens to bwam once it's goal is achieved?
What happens to you when you achieve your objective?

Why do you think they say to children "try to find your identity and advance your character".
At least that's what people should do if they want healthy children/adults.

Ask those questions to yourself, reflect on them a bit and see where they take you.

Peace,

-Boem-

Quantum mechanics might say that they are both the original Mutiny until an outside observer takes notice of them. Therefore, whichever ship I've visualized as being the original has become the original provided that my senses are reliable. If they are not reliable then we need to find a reliable instrument for observing the Mutiny before time/space is going to begin to differentiate between which is the original and which is not.

Dayum, i'm so genius!

"

Boem wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I think your simply i'll defining things.

I think your aiming to describe consciousness or "potential", but attributing it to a layer of communication, which identity is.

Consciousness aims, quite literally, it propels.

And when talking about humans, identity is the framework formed to reach that aim.

When does the color of the ball become relevant, when it interferes or helps our aim.
We act out and attribute identity either to facilitate or obstruct our aim.

Peace,

-Boem-

The concept of identity is not a construct used to achieve goals; it is a concept reflective of the properties inherent to an object or person. This concept can be used to achieve goals, sure. But that doesn't make goal-actualization the defining characteristic or raison d'etre of identity as a concept.

So the identity bwam was not created for a goal? The person you are does not "aim" at something and try's to move towards that?

What happens to bwam once it's goal is achieved?
What happens to you when you achieve your objective?

Why do you think they say to children "try to find your identity and advance your character".
At least that's what people should do if they want healthy children/adults.

Ask those questions to yourself, reflect on them a bit and see where they take you.

Peace,

-Boem-

Not sure if it's your intention to be patronizing, but you're coming off that way.

Also: The existance of an identity permits an identifier (such as a name) to refer to the identity; the identifier does not dictate the identity, and declaring an identifier is discrete from forming an identity.

"

bwam wrote:

Not sure if it's your intention to be patronizing, but you're coming off that way.

Also: The existance of an identity permits an identifier (such as a name) to refer to the identity; the identifier does not dictate the identity, and declaring an identifier is discrete from forming an identity.

Maybe it's because i am using your handle, though it's not my intent it's just to direct some contemplation on the notion.

Your saying we don't all agree to name a cat a cat?

And to agree on fundamental attributes we can all agree on a cat exist's?

For all we know a cat is actually a blur beyond our perception range, but the identity we all agreed on seems to work in a way that we can co-exist with it and it provides us information necessary for our aims.

I don't understand on what basis your saying that the identified doesn't dictate the information that resides in the identity we attribute to it.

That's exactly what science tries to objectively do.

We find something without identity, we look at it and we attempt to form an identity as many people as possible can agree on with trial and error.

An identity is a tool utilized to store immensely complex data in a very simplistic form in my opinion which provides us the option to interact with it if required or ignore if desired.

I identify you as bwam, and i put some attributes within that "identity" and i act on those notions, but i don't presume you are as simple as the attributes i lump in that identity, it wouldn't even scratch the surface.
But it does allow me to interact with you without being in perpetual anxiety of what might happen.
As long as that "identity" holds, i will not experience anxiety and interaction will be possible.

Your free to disagree, but you haven't really laid out your thought pattern to me yet.

Give me some examples of how you would utilize the concept of "identity" in the way you describe that is beneficial to me, or other people?

Peace,

-Boem-