5 ms·

> If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has changed

> If you dissolve the ink from a dollar bill such that it's just a piece of paper, would you still say it's a dollar bill? I would say no. Its state has changed and, thus, has its identity (i.e. how we identify it). That's not what he means by identity; it's still the same piece of paper and thus it's identity has not changed, even though it's state has. That it's a dollar bill has nothing to do with its identity because he's not using the term in that way; he's literally using a programmers definitions of those words. The Mississippi river is still the Mississippi regardless of the fact that the water it's completely different water each day. Identity is independent from state. Two dollar bills have equal state but independent identity. You are still you even though the cells in your body are not the same cells you were born with. Your identity is the pattern of electricity that make up your personality and consciousness, not the cells you are built from. The cells are state, not identity.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
Consciousness is more ethereal and harder to quantify, so I would probably carve that out. But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. Can there be some variance in state, while the identity remains unchanged? Sure. But, it appears to be a question of degree, in both quantity and quality. A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place. EDIT: Wait, maybe I am getting your point. Are you saying that a thing may cease to exist, but its identity doesn't? That, if the Mississippi is filled with cement such that it is no longer a river, we would still use its identity as a pointer to something which was, but no longer exists?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. I gave you an example, two dollar bills have equal state but completely different identity. The identity obviously has nothing at all to do with state. It's clear you're not a programmer or you wouldn't be having the issues you're having understanding this distinction. Programming 101, state and identity are different things. > A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? That depends on how you define thing, and that question has nothing to do with the issue at hand, state vs identity. > If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? That's a bad example that mixes in unrelated issues, flip it around. Can it maintain its state yet lose its identity, and the answer is yes it can, by being copied. A copy of a thing has all the same state as the original thing but has a different identity. If I clone you, the clone is not you, you and the clone have distinct identities but equal state. Therefore identity and state are clearly distinct, QED. > So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. True, but irrelevant and merely coincidental. > But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place. No I'm not. Get off the cease to exist point, it's confusing you; look at the copy angle, copies make it clear that state and identity are not the same thing and are completely independent of each other. Yes, it's possible to think of state changes that affect identity by killing a thing, but that's coincidental and tangential, it doesn't mean state and identity are the same thing, only that they both rely on existence of a thing. Things can and do have equal state and distinct identity, money is a prime example; state and identity are distinct, accept it.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    1. I am a programmer. 2. I was making a different point. Your example that references programming 101 is unrelated. 3. State and identity are distinct from one point of view (yours, here), but not all possible points of view. Perhaps because you are a programmer, you are having difficulty seeing alternative interpretations. 4. I acknowledged my understanding of your point of view in my EDIT at least a day before you posted. However, you seemed to have overlooked that even while meticulously quoting my other statements and re-making your point with added snarkiness and pseudo-programmer elitism. I get it. We all need a win sometimes. So, let's just say you've won and call it a day.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      No, you don't get it, wasn't about winning, but whatever.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - unclebucknasty 11y ago
        Just read some of your other comments and found a very clear pattern. You have a strong tendency to put words in people's mouths, insist they mean one thing when they clearly state they mean another, omit their key points to make your own, and generally browbeat them over often narrow sub-points that you refuse to release. You appear to enjoy envisioning yourself to be superior, yet you seem to operate largely in a binary mode, and have great difficulty seeing shades of gray. So, the other person must be approached as a zero to your one (or vice-versa). I still enjoyed some of your comments, but that style makes it really tough to have a real discussion, as evidenced on this thread and many others where bewilderment and frustration are expressed over your "style". I hope you'll consider allowing others ownership of their own thoughts, opinions, and ideas, and trust that same actually are as expressed by them.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

Consciousness is more ethereal and harder to quantify, so I would probably carve that out. But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. Can there be some variance in state, while the identity remains unchanged? Sure. But, it appears to be a question of degree, in both quantity and quality. A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place. EDIT: Wait, maybe I am getting your point. Are you saying that a thing may cease to exist, but its identity doesn't? That, if the Mississippi is filled with cement such that it is no longer a river, we would still use its identity as a pointer to something which was, but no longer exists?

gnaritas 11y ago
> But, looking at the more quantifiable world, I don't see how state is completely independent of identity. I gave you an example, two dollar bills have equal state but completely different identity. The identity obviously has nothing at all to do with state. It's clear you're not a programmer or you wouldn't be having the issues you're having understanding this distinction. Programming 101, state and identity are different things. > A fundamental question is, can a thing ever cease to exist? That depends on how you define thing, and that question has nothing to do with the issue at hand, state vs identity. > If so, then can a change in state precipitate its demise? Or said another way, can it cease to exist, yet retain its state? That's a bad example that mixes in unrelated issues, flip it around. Can it maintain its state yet lose its identity, and the answer is yes it can, by being copied. A copy of a thing has all the same state as the original thing but has a different identity. If I clone you, the clone is not you, you and the clone have distinct identities but equal state. Therefore identity and state are clearly distinct, QED. > So, I would say that there are state changes which can alter or completely destroy identity. True, but irrelevant and merely coincidental. > But, if you say that a thing cannot cease to exist, then you are effectively saying that there is not such a thing as identity in the first place. No I'm not. Get off the cease to exist point, it's confusing you; look at the copy angle, copies make it clear that state and identity are not the same thing and are completely independent of each other. Yes, it's possible to think of state changes that affect identity by killing a thing, but that's coincidental and tangential, it doesn't mean state and identity are the same thing, only that they both rely on existence of a thing. Things can and do have equal state and distinct identity, money is a prime example; state and identity are distinct, accept it.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  1. I am a programmer. 2. I was making a different point. Your example that references programming 101 is unrelated. 3. State and identity are distinct from one point of view (yours, here), but not all possible points of view. Perhaps because you are a programmer, you are having difficulty seeing alternative interpretations. 4. I acknowledged my understanding of your point of view in my EDIT at least a day before you posted. However, you seemed to have overlooked that even while meticulously quoting my other statements and re-making your point with added snarkiness and pseudo-programmer elitism. I get it. We all need a win sometimes. So, let's just say you've won and call it a day.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    No, you don't get it, wasn't about winning, but whatever.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      Just read some of your other comments and found a very clear pattern. You have a strong tendency to put words in people's mouths, insist they mean one thing when they clearly state they mean another, omit their key points to make your own, and generally browbeat them over often narrow sub-points that you refuse to release. You appear to enjoy envisioning yourself to be superior, yet you seem to operate largely in a binary mode, and have great difficulty seeing shades of gray. So, the other person must be approached as a zero to your one (or vice-versa). I still enjoyed some of your comments, but that style makes it really tough to have a real discussion, as evidenced on this thread and many others where bewilderment and frustration are expressed over your "style". I hope you'll consider allowing others ownership of their own thoughts, opinions, and ideas, and trust that same actually are as expressed by them.