An Alternative to John Perry's Theory of Identity

Staticity

Identity is static. An object that constantly changes or shifts form cannot be correctly identified, since it is erratic and does not have a consistent essence. These objects are dynamic objects, and do not have a defined identity. (ie. the air we breathe)

Identity arises only when one or more characteristics of an entity are unchanging. There might be other characteristics or properties that change, but an identity can exist as long as there are some static elements. Furthermore, the more static the components of an object, the clearer and more detailed the identity becomes. (Under this concept, even a dynamic thing like air can have an identity, but only a general one)

A Perfect or Clear Identity is an identity in which all properties of the entity are unchanging. Ideas have Clear Identities because an idea is absolute and static.

Objects in the world, however, are rarely or never completely unchanging. Thus, they cannot be defined in an absolute way. An identity that contains a few minor dynamic factors, but contains static factors which are more relevant, is called a Rough Identity.

Identity of objects

The identity of objects is based upon, and behaves in the same way as, the matter of which they are made. A clear identity can exist only if all of the atoms in the object are the same. Two atoms are the same if and only if the attributes of one atom match the attributes of the other atom. If not all atoms are the same, the object possesses a Rough Identity that defines it.

How to distinguish between two different objects

Identity allows a sense of distinction to be formed. To distinguish between two objects, I will give the example of a boat. How can we tell where the boat ends and where the water starts? How can we tell where the air starts? Is this not just a sea of atoms, undistinguishable except by the illusions of our human senses?

The answer to this question lies in staticity. The matter that makes up the boat is mostly static (again, not in the absolute sense). It is not shifting position or changing form. However, the water is very dynamic. Thus, it can be concluded that the Static Identity of the boat ends precisely where the Dynamic Matter of the water begins. Insofar as the matter remains static and unmoving, it is part of the boat. This defines physical objects.

The same thing can be applied to air. Air is dynamic, since all the atoms are flying around. Thus, the identity of the boat ends where the dynamicity begins.

Other determining factors for object identity

There are factors which affect and modify the identity of objects. Back to the boat example; Solid things that are in the boat, such as a chair, are not part of the boat identity because they are not fastened to the boat. If they are not fastened, this means they can shift position, which is a dynamic process. However, if the chair does not move from its position, it means that the chair can form part of the boat identity at that time.

If a sofa was embedded or nailed to the boat, it could form part of its timeless identity, because the matter is fastened and will not move, thus remaining static (again, in the general sense. Hence the rough identity).

Yet another scenario is the replacement of parts or if some parts are destroyed. If one half of the boat is cut off and put into another boat, and a half of the other boat is transferred into this boat, then one must look at it from the perspective of this previously stated principle: The identity behaves in the same way as the matter does. Therefore, if half of the matter of one boat is transferred into another, so half of the identity is thus transferred into the other. Consequently, the identity can be cut in half. We can say "It is partially our boat." The identity is hybrid.

The influence of clear identities on rough identities

Sometimes, instead of asking "Is this the same boat?" and analyzing whether its atoms are in the same place and have not shifted position or interchanged with other matter, one could ask "Is this a boat?"

When this question is asked, it no longer matter whether the matter is the same. It does not matter whether it is the same one. What matters, is that the matter in front of you is being compared with an idea called "boat". This idea is absolute, and contains a Clear Identity of what a boat is. Of course, the idea of boat might not be specific, but it is clear.

Note that the idea of "boat" might be different for different cultures. This does not mean that the idea is not absolute. This merely means that there is more than one idea of boat. A viable answer to the question would be "According to the Chinese, it is a boat, but not according to the Egyptians". Each single idea, however, remains absolute.

A clear identity is composed of general attributes or factors. With regards to a boat in the real world, suppose a part of this boat is destroyed. The next question to ask would be "Are these general attributes or factors still constant, or have they changed as a result of this damage?" If any of the factors have changed, it is no longer a boat (unless the idea of "boat" allows exceptions). However, if only a few factors have changed, it is perfectly acceptable to say "It is almost a boat."

It is also important to realize that when dealing with Clear Identities, we are talking about ideas that have different values and worth. In terms of defining what a boat is, there are factors that are more relevant to the concept of "boat" than others. Characteristics such as "can float" and "has some kind of vessel shape" might have different degrees of relevance. These degrees are assigned by human civilization, because it is humans that contribute and form this assortment of Clear Identities.

This shows a contrast between identifying actual objects versus identifying conceptual objects.

The influence of clear and rough identities on the Identity of Consciousness

Consciousness is an interesting factor. Not only is it an existing instantiable entity in the world, but at the same time it is not a physical object. We can say similar things about wind or sunlight. However, both wind and sunlight have been shown to be physical, and consciousness hasn't. Thus, there is no substance that we can observe (at our current technological level) that would determine whether a consciousness or the so-called "soul" is the same or not.

First, when comparing consciousness, we must establish that what we are comparing is consciousness alone, and not matter. For example, when people ask "Is it the same person?" they might be referring to two things at the same time: physical body and psyche. Of course, the idea of "person" might include both things in many circumstances, but the physical body is not the main issue at this time. According to the above theories, our human bodies should never remain as "the same body". However, in Part III I show that the body remains the same, even though it might seem to be dynamic (this might seem to contradict the above theories, but in fact it does not. Read Part III for more details).

The identity of consciousness, as with the identity of matter, lies in the question of whether it is the "actual consciousness". The "actual consciousness" issue can be explained in the same way that objects are explained. This means that in the same way that the matter must be the same matter for objects to be the identical, whatever kind of substance or abstract thing consciousness is made of must be the same abstract thing, meaning that all attributes must be the same. Again, the methods for finding the values of attributes with absolute certainty are still unknown.

If the consciousness of a person is somehow modified or "shuffled" with someone else's, the identity of this consciousness is also shuffled. Identity remains analogous to the "substance", whatever that might be.

Part II: A Cartesian World of Identities

Interpreting the meaning of the human medium

Consciousness also seems to introduce several factors which had not been accounted for in the previous theories. Consciousness, beyond being describable by the "substance of consciousness", can also be described externally by means of behaviors, emotions, actions, and characteristics regarding mood and qualities. Things such as behaviors and emotions are not readily comparable at this point, because they are not made of a particular substance. They must be broken down.

Emotions, and in general, nouns that are not made of any specific material (abstract nouns) can be described with specific characteristics in the same way as physical objects can. Thus, their identities can be compared in a similar way as well.

Events and actions, however, are more complex than them, and represent "verbs", which is a category of identity that has not been considered. To attempt to solve this issue, it is important to recognize certain characteristics of verbs;

From a present perspective, an action appears to be dynamic. However, from a timeless perspective (the perspective of eternity), all events are static. The War of 1812 for example, is dynamic if observed in its context. Yet, when it is observed from an absolute context, it is static. In fact, something as dynamic as the War of 1812 can be thought of as a noun very easily. We can think of verbs in that same way. Playing baseball is a dynamic process when seen in the present. However, the timeless perspective shows that the act of playing baseball is nothing but a baseball game. It is an abstract noun, with properties. The only difference between an event and an object is that an event spreads across time.

If verbs can be reducible to nouns, and all nouns can be reducible to adjectives, then all that exists can be reducible to adjectives.

The essence of any object can be defined by its properties, or the properties of its components. All things can be defined. This new statement encompasses the theory of object identity and also the conceptual identities. An object fits a Clear Identity when the properties of the Clear Identity match the properties of the object. An object is identical to another object when the properties of the identities match one another.

Definition of a Cartesian system

To define an existing entity, many pages can be used. However, there is a way to be able to define an entity without having to describe it in long verbal clauses. The solution is to create a Cartesian system. This Cartesian system will be a virtual world, a kind of Cartesian coordinate plane for which the points are represented as (x, y).

The difference, however, is that x and y will both represent characteristics. For example, suppose the x axis represents contexture, "fat" lying on the positive side of the axis, and "thin" lying on the negative side of the axis.

Then, the y coordinate will represent height. "Tall" will lie at the positive side of the y axis, and "short" will lie at the negative side. The point (0,0) represents the average person. Thus, we have:

Tall

I

I

Thin------------------------Fat

I

I

Short

If height and contexture were the only two possible attributes in existence, this Cartesian coordinate plane would suffice to describe all possible human beings (you graph numbers according to their degree of fatness or their height). However, there are more than two possible attributes. In fact, there might be an infinite number of attributes. Thus, in order to be able to define the world, a Cartesian plane with infinite axes must be used. This means that this Cartesian plane will have infinite dimensions.

The Cartesian system that represents all objects in existence is a Cartesian coordinate plane with infinite dimensions, in which each axis represents a kind of attribute. An object is described in terms of these Cartesian coordinates. When all of the characteristics have been defined, each point on the Cartesian plane corresponds to a single and unique object. If two objects share the same point, it means they share the same attributes and thus are identical.

The Cartesian system we have defined represents all possible objects that can be conceived to exist. It only represents the possibility, not the actual existence. However, the existing world can be adequately graphed by plotting in the points, given that those points (objects) exist in the real world.

PART III: Unraveling John Perry's two misconceptions

Realm of Coordinates

Attributes tend to be different in terms of importance and type. In fact, they fall into different realm. One of the main attributes that define an object is its time-span. An object has duration in time, and this duration can be seen as a kind of length, beginning from its birth/construction and ending at its death/destruction.

There are similar attributes that represent length and width and size in general. Furthermore, there are those attributes that fall in the realm of location. This can be location in either space or time. And there are attributes that determine whether they are even physical.

Then, there are attributes based on its shape, extension, volume, mass. And there are others which become increasingly human, beginning with color and texture, and moving on to the functions, its roles, or the ideas associated with them or their monetary worth.

The relevance of the realm of coordinates is that the identity of the object depends mostly on the attributes that are at higher realms.

Finally, there is a special realm which is the realm of "components". This realm, rather than containing properties, contains other objects. For example, the object "human" has the property "has two legs." However, a leg is also an object, so that also has its own set of coordinates. These components come last, yet they are one of the most fundamental attributes of all existing entities, because it allows them to be connected. Without the realm of components, these associations between objects would not be possible.

The discovery of complex time objects

For the first time, we will define an object across time. Suppose there is an object, named J. In our conceptual world, the only three properties are time span, matter, and horizontal location. Suppose the object J has a time span of 5 seconds, and that each second that passes, the object moves 1 unit of space and modifies its matter (in some way). The initial location of J is 1. Let's now observe the scene as it occurs. At second 1, the object is at 1. At second 2, the object is at 2, and so on. Each second, the object is different in terms of matter and also location.

This is where we begin to reconcile this new Cartesian theory of objects with our initial theory of objects. According to our initial theory, the object J is, in reality, five separate objects. They are five separate objects located in different spots in space and time, with different matter composition. Assuming that the material of the object has been modified, it is safe to say that the object is dynamic and that it is not the same as it used to be.

However, this is where the Realm of Coordinates theory plays a role. We stated that the Time-span coordinate was at a very high realm. This realm is, in fact, higher than both matter and time location. The reason that it is in a higher realm is because all of the other properties of the object depend on time span, including time location. Now, suppose the coordinates are stated in this order (time-span, time location, matter). In this case, the coordinates of object J could be expressed as:

(5, x, x)

The x's are there because the values for time location and matter change. However, this is contradictory because identities are static and do not change. Therefore, the situation must be adapted to the theory of staticity. According to that theory, the object J is five different objects. Let us suppose that this is the case. So, we replace it with the values: (suppose the matter changes from oxygen to hydrogen to helium to carbon to nitrogen. The numbers will be according to the atomic number.)

Object 1: (1, 1, 8)

Object 2: (1, 2, 1)

Object 3: (1, 3, 2)

Object 4: (1, 4, 6)

Object 5: (1, 5, 7)

As we can see, we now have five different objects with their corresponding properties. Each of these objects lasts exactly 1 second. However, one might then ask "which one is object J?" The answer is "None of them are. Object J has a time-span of five, and none of these objects have a time-span of 5."

However, what if all of these objects are component of the object J? What if object J is not an object that can be grasped with the five senses, but is actually a collection of five objects spread across time? What if each J object at each time location is simply a component of the greater Object J, that includes a whole time range? Indeed, this is the case.

This leads to a very important discovery. All objects, beings, or entities that have a time-span, are time objects. And all time objects contain infinite instances of an object but at different time locations. Each of these objects is different from one another, but the whole time object remains the same as a whole.

For this, I have designed an analogy. A time object is like the flag of the United States, but only the stripes. Each stripe is the object at a different time location. Even though the stripes change in color, the flag remains the same. As a matter of fact, at each time location, the object instance is not the same object, but a different one. Even though they are in a kind of succession, all of these stripes are different individual stripes.

Humans are the same way. Our bodies and our minds are different things at each time location. They are literally separate objects. However, since they are both part of the same "flag", or the same time object, all of these bodies and minds form part of the same person, which is a complex being composed of infinite bodies and minds.

Against John Perry's association between memories and identity

To discard the theory that having the same memories means having the same identity, I will use the American flag analogy. First of all, it is clear that change from time is completely illusory, that an object or the parts of an object do not change any more than the stripes of the American flag change from red to white.

In a similar way, someone having memories or "being aware of previous versions of itself" holds no relevance, and is analogous to a stripe on the American flag "being aware of the other stripes."

Furthermore, it is true that a human always changes in someway through time. Thus, it is impossible that a "later version" will be identical to the "previous version". The concept of a human being must be observed from a timeless context, to observe the fact that it is made of several different and static components, and not one component that changes through time.

Against John Perry's association of identity with the physical body

The matter within the human body changes a lot throughout its lifetime. It grows, gains molecules from food, and gets rid of other molecules. Cells are replenished and replaced. The physical body cannot be equated with identity, because the body is absolutely dynamical. Its whole material and molecular makeup changes through time.

The way to be able to conceive as a human body as the same body, is to observe that the body is a time object. The time object contains all of the different instances of the body. The real human body is composed of infinite different bodies spread across time-space.

Thus we conclude our discussion on identity.