1

# Defining the self

Electra phil

1
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 10:19 am
@Refus,
Refus wrote:
Thank you for sharing this view.

Thanks for this discussion. I am still thinking about it.

XX
Electra phil

1
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 06:46 pm
@Electra phil,
Refus--

Hmm well, I don't know anything about the formalities of a study like this:

Metaphysicians, and sometimes philosophers of language and mind, ask other questions:
• What does it mean for an object to be the same as itself?
• If x and y are identical (are the same thing), must they always be identical? Are they necessarily identical?
• What does it mean for an object to be the same, if it changes over time? (Is applet the same as applet+1?)
• If an object's parts are entirely replaced over time, as in the Ship of Theseus example, in what way is it the same?
A traditional view is that of Gottfried Leibniz, who held that x is the same as y if and only if every predicate true of x is true of y as well.
Leibniz's ideas have taken root in the philosophy of mathematics, where they have influenced the development of the predicate calculus as Leibniz's law. Mathematicians sometimes distinguish identity from equality. More mundanely, an identity in mathematics may be an equation that holds true for all values of a variable.
Hegel argued that things are inherently self-contradictory and that the notion of something being self-identical only made sense if it were not also not-identical or different from itself and did not also imply the latter. In Hegel's words, "Identity is the identity of identity and non-identity."
More recent metaphysicians have discussed trans-world identity -- the notion that there can be the same object in different possible worlds.

Identity (philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

It is interesting to me. I am not sure how to transfer these thoughts into mathematical equations as my studies have always been rather mystical kinds of teachings. Maybe you can back up and tell me more about this sometime...it is very very interesting to me somehow. I don't know how to make applicable with it. The same as I understand intuitive cosmology very well, but cannot do the math associated with physics.
0 Replies

Electra phil

1
Fri 15 Dec, 2006 07:37 pm
@Refus,
Refus wrote:
Math Is Fun Forum / The self defined as a property of existing stuff.

In this thread i discuss the definition of the self, D, as something that oftenly or atleast sometimes remains over time, ie:

D(p1,x1,t1,q1,m1,Im1)) ~ D(p2,x2,t2,q2,m2,Im2)

If the matrix D, varies over time, then the self is a matrix that can vary atleast slightly without dissapearing.

Here is the problem. Imagine that your boat is repaired over and over again until it has none of the original pieces left. It seems that the old boat is not the new boat, that looks exactly the same. Now imagine that you had a boat but it broke so you bought a new one. Surely, in none of the cases the first boat is the second boat. Unless the identity of m1 has a part in m2, in for instance the first example. In the first example it is given that none of the original parts remains, but they have been exchanged in a small rate, just like braincells. Given that the exchange where made while identity in some degree was preserved through force, this entail that the force is proportional to the identity. Given that we are just as sharp over time and have the same amount of identity, we get that the identity is the force that a particle is effected of. The identity is a matrix factor to the matrix D. Let me put it like this p1 !== p2, x1 !== x2, t1 !== t2, q1!==q2, m1!==m2, Im1=Im2

In other words anyone (any self) D(variables) with the identity from m1, ie. has been effected by F1 has a part self F1(s) that has the procentual part of the other self as 100*F1(s)/Fs(s).

And everything else that can be derived from this.

Refus,

Oh, didn't see the link. lol, sorry. This is really cool! I never enjoyed math, but now I see something different. I guess the website is right in its 'idenity', Math IS Fun.

It seems lately like everything is interesting AND possible. That is something new for me, so there is a lot of exuberance involved. :p

See you later.
0 Replies

Refus

1
Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:21 pm
@Refus,
Ship of theseus is so coooool!

I hope I contributed to the question "do I remain after I have been teleported?" The answer is yes, but you don't necessarily have to become the person on the other side!
0 Replies

Refus

1
Mon 18 Dec, 2006 04:54 am
@Refus,
Refus wrote:
Math Is Fun Forum / The self defined as a property of existing stuff.

In this thread i discuss the definition of the self, D, as something that oftenly or atleast sometimes remains over time, ie:

D(p1,x1,t1,q1,m1,Im1)) ~ D(p2,x2,t2,q2,m2,Im2)

If the matrix D, varies over time, then the self is a matrix that can vary atleast slightly without dissapearing.

Here is the problem. Imagine that your boat is repaired over and over again until it has none of the original pieces left. It seems that the old boat is not the new boat, that looks exactly the same. Now imagine that you had a boat but it broke so you bought a new one. Surely, in none of the cases the first boat is the second boat. Unless the identity of m1 has a part in m2, in for instance the first example. In the first example it is given that none of the original parts remains, but they have been exchanged in a small rate, just like braincells. Given that the exchange where made while identity in some degree was preserved through force, this entail that the force is proportional to the identity. Given that we are just as sharp over time and have the same amount of identity, we get that the identity is the force that a particle is effected of. The identity is a matrix factor to the matrix D. Let me put it like this p1 !== p2, x1 !== x2, t1 !== t2, q1!==q2, m1!==m2, Im1=Im2

In other words anyone (any self) D(variables) with the identity from m1, ie. has been effected by F1 has a part self F1(s) that has the procentual part of the other self as 100*F1(s)/Fs(s).

And everything else that can be derived from this.

Further examples:

Let's say you have a gold piece, it has the identity Ig, if you split the gold in to, you make the conclusion that both the resulting gold pieces each has an identity Ig1,Ig2. But if you put them together again you make the conclusion that the resulting gold piece has an incommon identity similar if not equal to that of the first gold piece. The only thing that can make this possible is if the force connection is the identity.

Electra, would you comment this?
Electra phil

1
Mon 18 Dec, 2006 05:31 am
@Refus,
Refus wrote:
Further examples:

Let's say you have a gold piece, it has the identity Ig, if you split the gold in to, you make the conclusion that both the resulting gold pieces each has an identity Ig1,Ig2. But if you put them together again you make the conclusion that the resulting gold piece has an incommon identity similar if not equal to that of the first gold piece. The only thing that can make this possible is if the force connection is the identity.

Electra, would you comment this?

Hi Refus,

I am taking a little break from thinking, but did not want to 'not answer' you...

Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think on my answer, you will see we are both approaching the exact same 'concept' from two very different perspectives and means to get there.

Much of what you discuss mirrors my own understanding of alchemy as well.

It is not good for me to keep going with intellect without taking breaks. If I don't do this, I burn myself out and begin feeling lost and confused. Hope you understand.

I will be back after the holidays...

Merry Winter Solstice to you -- :cool:
0 Replies

Refus

1
Mon 18 Dec, 2006 12:31 pm
@Refus,
I hope the alchemical fumes do not confuse you. But yes, hinduism do presume that you live more then one life, i think. I'm sorry if I am not correct now, by the looks of it, your religion is hinduism. But I'm just saying that it might be possible that the answer to "is life eternal and if so will all get an equal share of the cake?" is more easily found in attempt of understanding and not religion. The answer is probably "YES" so the universe is infact communistic in nature. It would be simpler to answer if the self was simple. If the self indeed existed in everything, you could not escape your share of the cake. Even though you should be nice anyway, social, happy. Else you wouldn't be natural.
Electra phil

1
Mon 18 Dec, 2006 01:34 pm
@Refus,
Refus wrote:
I hope the alchemical fumes do not confuse you. But yes, hinduism do presume that you live more then one life, i think. I'm sorry if I am not correct now, by the looks of it, your religion is hinduism. But I'm just saying that it might be possible that the answer to "is life eternal and if so will all get an equal share of the cake?" And the answer is probably "YES" so the universe is infact communistic in nature. It would be simpler to answer if the self was simple. If the self indeed existed in everything, you could not escape your share of the cake. Even though you should be nice anyway, social, happy. Else you wouldn't be natural.

Hi Refus,

No my religion is not Hinduism. I don't "have a religion." Thought I better clear that up. These kinds of perceptions of "having a religion" are designed for people who cannot walk or fly. They become crutches and labels that separate and destroy...unless you are very wise and careful.

What I showed you in my answer to your gold question is what can be found in all religions, but said much more clearly in notes about Hinduism.

If a person (metaphorically) climbs the steps of a pyramid and there discovers a intimate union with God, does the person "have a step", does the person "have a pyramid?" The person only used the pyramid as it was designed to be used. The person has nothing - but that intimacy with the Beloved that has awakened him or her from an eternal slumber.

The person still must walk back down from the pyramid and bring this intimate connection into real life. The person cannot live on top of the pyramid.

The real answer to your real question in my experience is if you feel you are not "there" to keep dying while living. Never give up looking. Ask and it shall be given, knock and the door will be opened to you. It requires everything within to be able to do this and not go crazy, lose balance and have a complete wipeout. This is true because of societal brainwashing through a variety of ways that are not based in TRUTH.

If you can "die to the I" you can experience oceanic consciousness, which allows you to have a sense of the eternal, silent stillness. It moves and seems to create all of these manifestations, this seemingly infinite and profound universe...but in another sense -- it is nothing. It is a mirage, inherently empty, in the most true sense of what is real, is not very real at all--but just a copy of a copy of a copy of it. Fractalized thoughtmemes reflecting and reverberating throughout the worlds within worlds, underscored by a delicious love that is the primacy of all creations.

What man does on top of all of this can become a nightmare within a Great Dream if he does not know himself. If he does not develop this keen sense of right seeing - he is lost in a world that confronts him at every turn. He lives in fear, separated from the majestical unity of it All. He hides in a cave and longs to sleep to escape the mean and narrow cruelty of the harsh world. Simply because he does not understand his own consciousness.
0 Replies

Refus

1
Mon 18 Dec, 2006 01:59 pm
@Refus,

--editing--

Anyway, as long as the world remains, justice will exist. Even though the world is only the world, and the structure is simple. It is not like you can break the system. And even if you could. I must ask you, if you could break it, would you? Is there any reason for doing that?

But really, you can't.

Honestly...
Electra phil

1
Mon 18 Dec, 2006 03:07 pm
@Refus,
Tatvam Asi

XX
0 Replies

Refus

1
Tue 19 Dec, 2006 02:20 am
@Refus,
Yeah, sooner or later one will get a share of everything. To see yourself in others etc. We are all pieces of the same gold. Eventually we come down to an edge where the self is mixed in a way that we did not expect. Don't be surprised if you end up in the worst possible way or the best. Just because you have more self in somebody, does not imply that you can choose him as your next self. He is just likely to be that.

Hope I do not silence the rest of you readers. I know alot of people watched this thread.
Refus

1
Tue 19 Dec, 2006 03:26 pm
@Refus,
Thank you for everything, electra, readers. Thanks!

And RemberingIAM, everyone!
0 Replies

Refus

1
Thu 21 Dec, 2006 01:58 pm
@Refus,
Im = identity of mass
Electra phil

1
Fri 22 Dec, 2006 02:19 pm
@Refus,
Refus wrote:
Im = identity of mass

Im that Im
0 Replies

Refus

1
Fri 22 Dec, 2006 02:44 pm
@Refus,
Well spoken.

I didn't clear up what "Im" was in the first post.
0 Replies

Refus

1
Tue 9 Jan, 2007 10:20 am
@Refus,
Also, I would like you all (viewers) to cast a vote as to how good this thread actually is. In stars. You can vote by clicking on rating and choosing.
0 Replies

Kalashnikov

1
Wed 10 Jan, 2007 12:24 am
@Refus,
I could never believe how over my head something could be.
0 Replies

Refus

1
Wed 10 Jan, 2007 04:47 am
@Refus,
Honestly, I don't get what part that is hard to understand :confused:

Something I said?

Thank you for the appreciation Kalashnikov, and for reading. Nice!
Justin

1
Wed 10 Jan, 2007 07:33 am
@Refus,
Kalashnikov wrote:
I could never believe how over my head something could be.
I'm sure being 14 has something to do with it. I remember when I was 14, I thought I knew everything there was to know.

The positive thing is that you are here and you have a desire to be here. The knowledge of the Universe will unfold to you when you are ready.

Refus

1
Wed 10 Jan, 2007 08:26 am
@Justin,
Yeah, I really tried to make a good thread here. Sure, I could have choosen a thread name that was a bit more popular, but then again, sooner or later, all will watch the top five viewed subjects, so there is no need to get best. There is also really no need to stray to far of topic. In my oppinion, it does not need to get any better. Though the question is, should I give the topic grade five, or does grade 4 attract more visitors? :p
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

1. Forums
2. » Defining the self
3. » Page 2