Identity and Individuation

>>3001522
>Now, these objects share an identity, or they wouldn't be identical.
I want Plato to leave.

Does the rock cease to exist, even though all its components exist? If one have the rock, and one half not? Both halves cannot be the rock, as they can be thought of as distinct, and can individuated from each other. What if keep taking flakes off the whole rock? At some point of smallness, the rock being chipped from seems to be distinct from the original rock, somehow, even though a rock could not be individuated, it seems, from one chip to the next. What is the rock? What makes the rock itself, and mot something else?

>>3001522
- Stop blurring limits of perception. You see two rocks because your cognitive apparatus has been conditioned as to identify them separately.
- Stop equating human conscientiousness to rocks. You will go mad if you do.
- all cognitive barriers are hold upon a knife's edge. If you fall the wrong way, you do it because you chosed to at some point.
- also, stop equating the Mind with the Self. They are separate; both aware of each other. The Self / Mask is a sub-set of You. Control it; do not let it to consume you in it's quest to feel complete. "You" are what is. Nothing more can be said of this.

Basically, what you are obsessed by seems to be "what makes something itself but not something else?

Nothing. When you look into it; it's all a sea of interdependent, cognitive biases and conventions. Life is a movie.

Have faith not in some particular promises, but at least in the fact that there is a hole in the story. That means something.

>>3001522
Both rocks can look identical, but they occupy a different place in space/time.
If they share the same space/time we're talking about the same rock.

By responding to this thread, don't you accept that your senses, and your mind's interpretation of your senses represent reality, in some basic sense, even if not perfectly? If not, how do you know this thread exists to be replied to, and that you know what it says, in order to be able to?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by different parts of, "You"? As I understand it, I'm am not my personality, my personality is how I relate to myself and understand myself, my mind is the whole psychological system, that is a self interpretation of all the chemical reactions in my brain, by my brain. I am that interpretation, or, that is how I understand it.

Again, I understand that our minds can be biased, but how can we interact with reality and not accept its general ability to interpret reality, even if not perfectly so?

The last block of text intrigues me, what do you mean?

The rocks position does not seem to be a trait, changing where or when it is does not seem to, actually, chamge the rock.

>>3001564
>>3001568

Anon, we cannot actually define "reality" outside of relative terms. The fact that a general relativity has solidified in time into conventions and "hard facts" which define "reality" is another story.

It's known that humans, as everything else, are limited in perception. We see what we can see. This is the condition of a limited being.

I believe that humans may have epistemological functions much greater than their cognitive apparatus. So you can see this as "divine", or as "out of tune/desync".

I personally see everything as an illusion - even greater planes of understanding. However, the paradox is that is can not get any more real than this. So that's how it is: your will is the only thread which keeps things on track.

But you need to see more than your will. Your body and mind have limits and habits - programs if you wish. Some of them you make yourself, some of them are "inherent" and are hard/dangerous to override. Take care when working on such a deep level because when you insert new variables at the bottom of the machine, you can end up with some fucked up results (life in general).

>I am that interpretation, or, that is how I understand it.
And I think you are correct. Now apply the same logic to the rocks.

You are. that is all. you cannot prove or disprove it. you cannot understand a system when you are the system. it is a given fact - like a hard variable.

Now try to see things from outside - if you want to undercover what are YOU and the things around you - then you have to not be them. So this is why you get centuries of mystics talking about the deconstruction and obliteration of the Self.

You have to basically undo yourself. But if there is no self left to study the self; then it's a vicious circle. That circle may be what brings you back.

>>3001684
>>3001564
Sorry, I read mistakenly.

I read
>I am not my interpretation, or, that is how I understand it.

when you actually said
>I am that interpretation, or, that is how I understand it.

No, then I do not agree.
Your interpretation is what happens by interacting continuously with the physical level. You can say imagination and things like intuition are byproducts / statistical games of the mind's interaction with the surrounding environment.

Then how are things discovered in the background of our perceptions? When we see new levels of matter (such as subatomic, quantum phenomena), did they not exist when they were being witnessed?

In a sens - yes - they did not - for human understanding.
But physically - they always were. Such is with many other things which exist but are "unmanifested" - they are not yet perceived.

You have to understand that there are two ways of looking at things:

1) Empiricist - you seems to be your conflictual standpoint - that all that is is a product of interpretation of the senses.
2) Rationalist - that everything is in your mind actually, and you super-impose your psychological categories on outside objects.

But now try to think of both. Don't think in dillemas' but in tetralemas : Yes and/or No.
So either way you put it, always both sides of a problem are both true or both false. Then what difference does it make between true or false? When everything is false, all is true - and viceversa.

So what you experience is what you are; but what you are also forms /models what you experience. What started first is not relevant. There is only continuous feedback.