Ansii:
Quote:
|
(Just food for thought; Can you suppose there is any ontological validity to the idea of "identity" of anything at all?)
|
of course, I have to latch onto this one thing to respond to. Why did it speak lounder to me than the rest of it? Maybe because I'm still struggling with the idea of ontological.
Here's my definition of 'identity': a re-cognized pattern. Existence doesn't have cognition so there isn't anything behind the concept of identity except when you come at it from the point of view of a conscious entitiy. Existence doesn't have a point of view (well, it does, in the sense that it 'has' conscious entities).
On the other hand, there are long duration structures that we could assume have been around 'forever' unchanged through the continuum of nows. That hints at 'stable' as opposed to unstable and implies a fundamental building block.
Perhaps it would be safer to assume the fundamental building blocks have been around 'forever'. Perhaps not. If the identity of the fundamental building block 'kicked in' and then the universe, as we know it today started forming, maybe we could assume that since that moment, the structures we see and identify now were able to exist. i.e. no 'big bang'. just something that signalled everything to start working the way it does now. the 'Big Bang' should be renamed to 'Ta Dah!'.
And it's impossible to consider that without using the idea of time to do it. So, 'time' becomes part of a reference that we use to create identity. It's a way of tagging patterns that enables us to detect change.
Without memory, we couldn't tag the patterns. We probably wouldn't even be able to see them either. Short term, long term, very short term memory. Hmmm.
Our pattern recognition subsystem probably uses a different kind of memory during its processes. Or the memory it is using lasts long enough for the pattern to form. The pattern might be fed to another subsystem which attempts to integrate it into consciousness and hold on to it. That 'holding on to it' function includes revitalizing the pattern or 'moving' it to the kind of memory that is automatically revitalized. Different kinds of brain tissue.
If I take another step down this path, I'll be babbling like an even bigger idiot than I am now. Time to let it settle down. If I don't, I'll start regurgitating this 'food for thought'.
By searching for a pattern, we are condensing the experience of the filtering subsystem (direct perception) and it is probably the patterns that are being kept in longer term memory as opposed to all of the triggers responsible for forming the direct perception. I'm thinking zip file here.
