Narrative Free Will and the Story of Identity

[illativemindindeed]

We experience life through how it makes us feel; in turn, we create a story that actualizes the feelings (through what we term knowing and understanding) towards a utilization or expression of identity (eg. we might create a story that says "I saw a girl so I decided to walk across the street; a more scientifically oriented story or expression might say I perceived or felt a refraction of light that my brain binded into the idea of a woman which in turn activated my biological need for survival and the propagation of my seed where in I began to move across the street towards the woman (the story could be anything really, what is to be noticed is that all of our stories are centered around an identity (whether it be an individual person, or the identity of some thing))) that perpetuates and creates an expressive existence back into the environment. More simply, we experience and feel action upon us which is considered to be outside of ourselves, develop a story about the action which in turn guides or narrates the re-action or response. We are a perpetual feedback system of narrative identity. Our narration provides a sense of choice. We identify or give identity to objects and narrate our experiences and interactions with them. Because the narration is real and taken to be reality (it’s how we make sense of sense), it is literally our experience and explanation of will.

What we term free will exists as the feeling both created by and creating the story we make up about the expression of what we are.
It is the feeling of our actualization interpreted as a story of identity, ie. it is literally our narration of what we are as it relates and pertains to our felt experience (the story is one of “I am…”). A dichotomy surfaces because the actualization and creation of who we are is impressed upon by what we perceive and feel from the story as being outside of us while at the same time we feel and experience the process of creation from within that process as us being that process. Because our stories are ones of identity, the interpretations of experience relate the experiences as orienting from the place of “I”; the point of reference.

Ultimately, the story is just a reference point for what is happening everywhere, experiential life. Because our identities and ultimately what we consider ourselves to be are just a story of reference (real in its own small relative existence), the experience of will is the actualizing of that which is in the process of happening. The actualization, which is an actualization of existence and ultimately identity, is what existence is, the feeling of being and existing as something. This feeling of being and existing as something is what we term will, while the story relates that feeling to an identity or aspect of existence (the point of existential reference). So “we” (the identities) aren’t doing the willing, but what we are or consider ourselves to be is literally the narrative experience of will. Because we experience the story as a reference (referring to the identity or I) to identity as our identity and existence, the story maintains a referential reality in itself where at the level of the story, will can and does exist because it is experienced from that position. We are absolutely dependent upon the rest of the world and the story of the world to assist in the creation of our own experience of will, but we are simultaneously experiencing will and an actualization of what we are as the feeling of will.

So what am I saying overall? First of all, will isn’t free (at least not from the position of the story and referential experience). From the relative/referential position of the story of identity, existence and the actualization of that feeling of being (and the ultimate experience of will) is wholly dependent upon the rest of existence that is perceived and interpreted as being outside that identity. In order to experience the feeling of will (or the actualizing of what we are (our identities)) we must be in our relative position immersed in the feeling of something coming into what we consider ourselves to be. So who we are is willed from outside of ourselves, and from our reference, we are the actualization and experience of that will. Ultimately then, free will doesn’t exist, but rather the experience of being willed into a referential point of identity provides us with the feeling and identification with that feeling through story that what we are or our identity is the starting point (or referential point of reference) of the experience of will.

[PhysBang]

So you are presenting something like Alasdair MacIntyre’s approach?

[LotusTiger]

@illativemindindeed

We experience life through how it makes us feel; in turn, we create a story that actualizes the feelings (through what we term knowing and understanding) towards a utilization or expression of identity (eg. we might create a story that says "I saw a girl so I decided to walk across the street; a more scientifically oriented story or expression might say I perceived or felt a refraction of light that my brain binded into the idea of a woman which in turn activated my biological need for survival and the propagation of my seed where in I began to move across the street towards the woman (the story could be anything really, what is to be noticed is that all of our stories are centered around an identity (whether it be an individual person, or the identity of some thing))) that perpetuates and creates an expressive existence back into the environment. More simply, we experience and feel action upon us which is considered to be outside of ourselves, develop a story about the action which in turn guides or narrates the re-action or response. We are a perpetual feedback system of narrative identity. Our narration provides a sense of choice. We identify or give identity to objects and narrate our experiences and interactions with them. Because the narration is real and taken to be reality (it’s how we make sense of sense), it is literally our experience and explanation of will.

What we term free will exists as the feeling both created by and creating the story we make up about the expression of what we are.
It is the feeling of our actualization interpreted as a story of identity, ie. it is literally our narration of what we are as it relates and pertains to our felt experience (the story is one of “I am…”). A dichotomy surfaces because the actualization and creation of who we are is impressed upon by what we perceive and feel from the story as being outside of us while at the same time we feel and experience the process of creation from within that process as us being that process. Because our stories are ones of identity, the interpretations of experience relate the experiences as orienting from the place of “I”; the point of reference.

Ultimately, the story is just a reference point for what is happening everywhere, experiential life. Because our identities and ultimately what we consider ourselves to be are just a story of reference (real in its own small relative existence), the experience of will is the actualizing of that which is in the process of happening. The actualization, which is an actualization of existence and ultimately identity, is what existence is, the feeling of being and existing as something. This feeling of being and existing as something is what we term will, while the story relates that feeling to an identity or aspect of existence (the point of existential reference). So “we” (the identities) aren’t doing the willing, but what we are or consider ourselves to be is literally the narrative experience of will. Because we experience the story as a reference (referring to the identity or I) to identity as our identity and existence, the story maintains a referential reality in itself where at the level of the story, will can and does exist because it is experienced from that position. We are absolutely dependent upon the rest of the world and the story of the world to assist in the creation of our own experience of will, but we are simultaneously experiencing will and an actualization of what we are as the feeling of will.

So what am I saying overall? First of all, will isn’t free (at least not from the position of the story and referential experience). From the relative/referential position of the story of identity, existence and the actualization of that feeling of being (and the ultimate experience of will) is wholly dependent upon the rest of existence that is perceived and interpreted as being outside that identity. In order to experience the feeling of will (or the actualizing of what we are (our identities)) we must be in our relative position immersed in the feeling of something coming into what we consider ourselves to be. So who we are is willed from outside of ourselves, and from our reference, we are the actualization and experience of that will. Ultimately then, free will doesn’t exist, but rather the experience of being willed into a referential point of identity provides us with the feeling and identification with that feeling through story that what we are or our identity is the starting point (or referential point of reference) of the experience of will.

Well I don’t really understand what your saying as a whole or the essence of what your saying but I will try to make a response to any individual sections of what you have been saying. I’ll be a flying fish that jumps over sections in and out of the deep waters you’ve created.

You say in a section of your post that “who we are is willed from outside of ourselves” and that we are the “actualization and experience of that will”. If you assume we are defined by our experiences or perceptions then what of those experiences of yourself as a person. The experiences “of” you. Are these experiences of what’s outside yourself. If you assume certain experiences are of what’s outside yourself then for there to be an outside there must be an inside of which the things are outside of. If you then assume this when you experience yourself you can only make the conclusion that you are experiencing that which is inside yourself. Further then this if you say your outside experiences “define” you then they are inside you. However this is a contradiction as you have been both saying their inside and outside yourself. So how do we resolve this problem?
The problem lies in defining what’s inside you as what’s “physically out there”. This cant be as their outside you as you say. This is because what’s inside you in not what’s physically out there like the “actual” tree say but the "experience of the tree is the thing that’s inside you. So it is your experiences that are inside you and the “actualities” will call them that are outside you. We’ll call an experience an experience mirror actuality. But if the actualities are outside you what does it in relation to experience mean? As their outside you.
It means to make an “imagined semi-replica” bases on sensory input. All experiences are semi- replicas even what we see. We know this as some animals and insects see in greater detail the same object. So were only seeing a semi- replica of it. Experiences are inside but the actualities are outside so how they relate. They relate as there is a physical “process” which varies on the sensory input that makes you “imagine” something only the individual can do or “translate” the physical process or “part” of it into a semi-replica of the actualities. So the process could be light hitting the eyes and this goes to the brain which then the brain material then translates for you as an imagined semi replica of the actuality. The brain material is both the individual and the part of the process that “translates”. More or less.
So where now am I going with this I would say as you say we are the actualization of our experiences as the experiences are the brain material translating and the individual. Perhaps you could go further in saying the experiences are also the light coming into your eye. However you have to ask when you say who we are is willed from outside ourselves, in what sense, as we know the experiences are only inside ourselves. If who we are is willed from “outside” ourselves then it is in the sense that are experiences are almost the same or “like” the actualities.
Through this we can now interact with the world as if we have consciousness so it’s almost like then who we are is defined by what’s outside of us as that’s the basis of our interaction with the world but it this really true. Is the likeness of the experience and they actuality creating an “illusion” that we are defined by the outside as the outside appears to define. But it is our experience (brain material) inside that truly defines us makes us who we are. The outside is simply the what fundamentally “enables” us to be who we are but it does not “actually” define us.
It’s also possible that the illusion of sameness is not the only cause of the miss-thinking that we are defined by the outside. It may also be a result of the fact the outside is seen as the original source of our experiences that define us. So it could then be said they define us “more” then our experiences “as” they are the original source but this is ridiculous we know that it is truly the experiences themselves (brain material) that defines us.
So these are my two conclusions from what you said here is just like you said we are the “actualization of our experience” but I disagree that we are “defined” by what’s outside as you had said.

[finishedman]

It’s impossible to look at yourself from a point of view where thought is not there all the time. It is thought that defines you. So, how do you define thought? If you dare …

[LotusTiger]

@finishedman

It’s impossible to look at yourself from a point of view where thought is not there all the time. It is thought that defines you. So, how do you define thought? If you dare …

Thought does define you. How do you define thought? Thought is its own definition just as you are the definition of thought- or vice versa. A pear’s definition is a pear. I take the word “definition” as meaning what the thing is. “To define” however is harder to define. As it suggest something is “doing” something other then itself. But I don’t think so. I say something is its own definition.
However can something be and do itself at the same time. If this was the case what would the point be of differentiating the exact same thing through two different words? Maybe the confusion comes from not thinking that definition and to define mean complexly different things. That is apply to completely different things. Perhaps definition means something that is itself.
The definition of the word apple is an apple. However perhaps “to define” means the conscious activity of understanding the things definition. So the two statements to define and definition relate but are not the same. They relate as to define means to define the definition of the thing.

[finishedman]

So … Where do thoughts come from, including the definitions of thought? They come from thought, right? Right!

… and what do you have to do with all this? I propose that there are no thoughts there that originate in you. There are no thoughts there. The translation of a sensory input by means of your experiencing structure is thought and you use those thoughts to achieve something within the realm of where the knowledge behind those thoughts came from. And that realm is outside of you, yet you are encompassed by it and you live in a world of the knowledge you have acquired and are projecting on to the objects outside of you.

You have no relationship with the world at all except that the world you experience is the one that is created by you. You are living in a world of your own. You have created a world of your own experiences and you are trying to project it onto the world. You have no way of experiencing the reality of the world at all. You and I use the same word to describe the objects. So, we have to accept all these things as valid because they are workable. They help us to function in this world, to communicate only on that level intelligently. In that sense society has created us for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo. That is basically the origin of our thinking mechanism.

So, when we consider that the knowledge and its movement, thought, is not generated in you, you then become a squatter that is there watching a sort of video in front of you. You can use it to control something or manipulate something, but only in the realm of that video, that projected ‘reality.’

You are separate from that.

[illativemindindeed]

@LotusTiger

Well I don’t really understand what your saying as a whole or the essence of what your saying but I will try to make a response to any individual sections of what you have been saying. I’ll be a flying fish that jumps over sections in and out of the deep waters you’ve created.

Thanks for jumping in. A lot of this is new to my thinking so it’s a bit difficult to express.

@LotusTiger

You say in a section of your post that “who we are is willed from outside of ourselves” and that we are the “actualization and experience of that will”. If you assume we are defined by our experiences or perceptions then what of those experiences of yourself as a person. The experiences “of” you. Are these experiences of what’s outside yourself. If you assume certain experiences are of what’s outside yourself then for there to be an outside there must be an inside of which the things are outside of. If you then assume this when you experience yourself you can only make the conclusion that you are experiencing that which is inside yourself. Further then this if you say your outside experiences “define” you then they are inside you. However this is a contradiction as you have been both saying their inside and outside yourself. So how do we resolve this problem?
The problem lies in defining what’s inside you as what’s “physically out there”. This cant be as their outside you as you say. This is because what’s inside you in not what’s physically out there like the “actual” tree say but the "experience of the tree is the thing that’s inside you. So it is your experiences that are inside you and the “actualities” will call them that are outside you. We’ll call an experience an experience mirror actuality. But if the actualities are outside you what does it in relation to experience mean? As their outside you.

Thanks for pointing this out. If you go back to my original post, you can see that in my attempts to be accurate I stated at one point that "we experience and feel action upon us which is considered to be to outside ourselves. The consideration is derived from the story of identity (both the inner and outer experiences of existence that I believe you are referring to).

Let’s take mentality and physicality. We think and feel because what we are is communicating both outwardly to what we define as “the world around us” and back inwardly to what we define as “ourselves”. The communication inward is experienced as mentality (subjectivity, thought, abstraction, and reflection, our interpretations and stories about what we are), while the outward communication is considered physicality (the objective, our perceptions, whatever we experience and feel to be communicated from the “outside” can be said to have a physical basis). The two are inseparable, as existence is the simultaneous communication (being what we are outwardly towards what is beyond our bodies) and reception/feeling (being what we are inwardly) of itself as whatever it is. Outwardly that shows up as something perceivable or receivable to others, objective. Inwardly it shows up as something perceivable and receivable to oneself, subjective. The paradox arrives because what we are (our existence) is the simultaneous experiencing of both orientations of communication (inward and outward).

@LotusTiger

It means to make an “imagined semi-replica” bases on sensory input. All experiences are semi- replicas even what we see. We know this as some animals and insects see in greater detail the same object. So were only seeing a semi- replica of it. Experiences are inside but the actualities are outside so how they relate. They relate as there is a physical “process” which varies on the sensory input that makes you “imagine” something only the individual can do or “translate” the physical process or “part” of it into a semi-replica of the actualities. So the process could be light hitting the eyes and this goes to the brain which then the brain material then translates for you as an imagined semi replica of the actuality. The brain material is both the individual and the part of the process that “translates”. More or less.
So where now am I going with this I would say as you say we are the actualization of our experiences as the experiences are the brain material translating and the individual. Perhaps you could go further in saying the experiences are also the light coming into your eye. However you have to ask when you say who we are is willed from outside ourselves, in what sense, as we know the experiences are only inside ourselves. If who we are is willed from “outside” ourselves then it is in the sense that are experiences are almost the same or “like” the actualities.

You’re spot on. What you are calling experience or semi-replica’s, I am simply terming communication. Communication occurs through language which is a representation of what is being communicated. It becomes a language when it is experienced from a point of reference that exists as an actuality in itself different from what is being communicated. In this sense everything we experience is linguistic. Even our identities are something that we are representing to ourselves.

The narrative and story is a complex and evolved form of the communication. It further propels the natural communication of existence inwardly and outwardly. Language as we “know” it (interpretation, narrative, and story), while communicating existence (which is experiencing (at least in human form) itself as being something (mentally an identity and physically a body)), ultimately communicates identity because it is utilized within and oriented from the mental realm of identity. The communication of identity (or what we are, for instance if we “are” hungry, we will communicate hunger) through language is a connection between the inward (subjective) experience of communicative identity (I am or we “are”) and the outer (objective) experience of communicative identity objective realm (what my body feels, eg. the feeling of hunger is physical) through an identification of that realm as the language or communication. All forms of communication embody and include both the inner and outer realms. For example, experiences are communicated both inwardly and outwardly as perceptual data. Both the inner and outer are communicated at every level, so both the physical and mental are representations. The communication of physical experience is oriented outwardly (my interaction and mere existence within the environment, ie. communication and representation for whatever is receptive in that environment) and inwardly (my representative and receptive feelings and perceptions of being within that environment ) while the communication of mental experience is oriented inwardly (as representative images and symbols) and outwardly (the exertion and actualization of being as it relates to the images and symbols of the inward orientation, ie. the experience of will). Communication that is oriented outwardly or from the outside and is perceived by something else is considered the physical, and that same exact communication when oriented inwardly or from the inside and is being received is considered mentality. In essence the perception and reception are identical (as they are occurring simultaneously (one must perceive to receive and one must receive to perceive), and they both produce the experience of existing. But as they are named, the experience is dichotomous. Reception is the communicative feeling of being and existing as something, while the perception is the communicative feeling of connecting to something else outside of the something you are. Both are a communication of identity (an identity is the result of something identified (so in identifying that which is outside of oneself or even oneself, an identity can become known mentally versus just physically), one derived from the inside (sort of an unconscious existing as), the other from the outside (the conscious relationship to something else). So all of this confusing explanation has basically allowed me to arrive at the assumption that the physical and mental are communications of the same thing, existence (the feeling of being existence (identity), and the feeling of connecting to existence (identifying)), just orienting differently. All of our understanding and narrative communication centers around the experiencing subject/object (the point of reference). So most of our conscious experience is happening in between these orientations of communication, or the feeling of being something and the feeling of being connected to something. Life is all about receiving, which is the unconscious experience of just being (communication from the outside coming in) and perceiving, the conscious active experience of being (communicating from the inside going outward). So what we are (the feeling of reception) communicates back outward into the world (the conscious activity of perception). We are the experiencers of this process of inward and outward communication.

@LotusTiger

Through this we can now interact with the world as if we have consciousness so it’s almost like then who we are is defined by what’s outside of us as that’s the basis of our interaction with the world but it this really true. Is the likeness of the experience and they actuality creating an “illusion” that we are defined by the outside as the outside appears to define. But it is our experience (brain material) inside that truly defines us makes us who we are. The outside is simply the what fundamentally “enables” us to be who we are but it does not “actually” define us.
It’s also possible that the illusion of sameness is not the only cause of the miss-thinking that we are defined by the outside. It may also be a result of the fact the outside is seen as the original source of our experiences that define us. So it could then be said they define us “more” then our experiences “as” they are the original source but this is ridiculous we know that it is truly the experiences themselves (brain material) that defines us.
So these are my two conclusions from what you said here is just like you said we are the “actualization of our experience” but I disagree that we are “defined” by what’s outside as you had said.

Again, the outside and inside are the same thing, the communication of identity. One feels referential (and is the feeling of being a limited something in this existence) and our stories pertain to its feeling of being a something, the other feels like a connection and relationship from that referential something to what is experienced as outside that something. The stories about the experience are what make the difference notable and even experiential, because the stories are what make us conscious to the different experiences as being different.

[illativemindindeed]

@LotusTiger

@finishedman

It’s impossible to look at yourself from a point of view where thought is not there all the time. It is thought that defines you. So, how do you define thought? If you dare …

Thought does define you. How do you define thought? Thought is its own definition just as you are the definition of thought- or vice versa. A pear’s definition is a pear. I take the word “definition” as meaning what the thing is. “To define” however is harder to define. As it suggest something is “doing” something other then itself. But I don’t think so. I say something is its own definition.
However can something be and do itself at the same time. If this was the case what would the point be of differentiating the exact same thing through two different words? Maybe the confusion comes from not thinking that definition and to define mean complexly different things. That is apply to completely different things. Perhaps definition means something that is itself.
The definition of the word apple is an apple. However perhaps “to define” means the conscious activity of understanding the things definition. So the two statements to define and definition relate but are not the same. They relate as to define means to define the definition of the thing.

To define is to identify, or create a representation of identity towards oneself. Your definition is accurate, but it lacks the referential element. All things identified, or objects, refer to an experiencer. Every something that is in existence can and are their actualization within that existence, or as you put these somethings “be and do itself at the same time”. The differentiation refers to the referential aspect of all things, as whatever something is and does will be experienced differently from the place of reference.

@LotusTiger

The definition of the word apple is an apple. However perhaps “to define” means the conscious activity of understanding the things definition. So the two statements to define and definition relate but are not the same. They relate as to define means to define the definition of the thing.

Perception or perceiving is identifying and as such deriving identity of what something is. We do this through our language. A definition is the reified form of the language (it is no longer an active defining but a static noun that can then be used to identify and define other objects), to define is the active process of identifying.

[illativemindindeed]

@finishedman

So … Where do thoughts come from, including the definitions of thought? They come from thought, right? Right!

… and what do you have to do with all this? I propose that there are no thoughts there that originate in you. There are no thoughts there. The translation of a sensory input by means of your experiencing structure is thought and you use those thoughts to achieve something within the realm of where the knowledge behind those thoughts came from. And that realm is outside of you, yet you are encompassed by it and you live in a world of the knowledge you have acquired and are projecting on to the objects outside of you.

Well said.

@finishedman

You have no relationship with the world at all except that the world you experience is the one that is created by you. You are living in a world of your own. You have created a world of your own experiences and you are trying to project it onto the world.

This is what I am calling perception. Are we forced into a type of solipsism here?

@finishedman

You have no way of experiencing the reality of the world at all.

But what we experience is the reality of the world. Can anything exist outside of our collective perceptions and projections?

@finishedman

You and I use the same word to describe the objects. So, we have to accept all these things as valid because they are workable. They help us to function in this world, to communicate only on that level intelligently. In that sense society has created us for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo. That is basically the origin of our thinking mechanism.

Thought, language, and story are what allow us to connect our individual perceptions and projections to each other, as those projections and perceptions are each other.

@finishedman

So, when we consider that the knowledge and its movement, thought, is not generated in you, you then become a squatter that is there watching a sort of video in front of you. You can use it to control something or manipulate something, but only in the realm of that video, that projected ‘reality.’

Agreed. We work and interact within that realm; that is where our experience of will exists (in the narration).

[finishedman]

@illativemindindeed

This is what I am calling perception. Are we forced into a type of solipsism here?

I don’t think so. Can the ‘self’ which, imo, is itself a product of thought perceive? Is there a perceiver there? Or is there only thought there …. the thought that there is an entity there that is perceiving? I think it’s just thought playing with itself.

[finishedman]

@illativemindindeed

But what we experience is the reality of the world.

I see what you mean. Yes we directly experience the world as real.

Can anything exist outside of our collective perceptions and projections?

But now your speaking of the instrument we use to know about what we experience. Imo, in order to have this kind of an experience, one needs the help of the knowledge he has been given about the objects.

Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. So, when the thought is not there, is it possible for you to experience anything or relate anything to a non-existing thing here?

[illativemindindeed]

@finishedman

@illativemindindeed

This is what I am calling perception. Are we forced into a type of solipsism here?

I don’t think so. Can the ‘self’ which, imo, is itself a product of thought perceive? Is there a perceiver there? Or is there only thought there …. the thought that there is an entity there that is perceiving? I think it’s just thought playing with itself.

The perception isn’t of the self, but of a particular place or aspect of existence. I ultimately agree with you though, but this is where I derive much of my difficulty. It’s definitely thought playing with itself, but how do we explain that from within the play. It’s tough. As you said, the self is only thought, but perception is an element of existence. Thought is as real as existence itself (they are ultimately the same thing). You and I know that our knowledge is creating our existence, but knowledge that is beyond what we consider ourselves as is also creating our existence. So we have to acknowledge the created reality of thought as something that is real and primal while simultaneously acknowledging its unreality or secondary nature. I think our need to separate and describe these two aspects are what make this so hard to understand. If we were coming from the understanding that thought is reality, it would be easier to discuss these types of topics; but we must first explain how and why thought is reality.

[illativemindindeed]

@finishedman

@illativemindindeed

But what we experience is the reality of the world.

I see what you mean. Yes we directly experience the world as real.

Can anything exist outside of our collective perceptions and projections?

But now your speaking of the instrument we use to know about what we experience. Imo, in order to have this kind of an experience, one needs the help of the knowledge he has been given about the objects.

Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. So, when the thought is not there, is it possible for you to experience anything or relate anything to a non-existing thing here?

“And in reference to that point” and yourself (the experience is one of relationship or connection). When the thought is not there, there is no existence to be experienced. Thought is what is allowing for the experience of existence. Thought is the relation of objects. Feeling is the relation of objects. Both are communication, which is the relation of objects. What we are, or experience ourselves to be, is the connection or relationship between objects. The reference point is like a by product of the felt connection at any particular point. Because by its nature the point feels deep into that point of existence, the feeling of existing as that point is stronger than the feeling of the relationship between that point and other points.

[LotusTiger]

@illativemindindeed

@LotusTiger

@finishedman

It’s impossible to look at yourself from a point of view where thought is not there all the time. It is thought that defines you. So, how do you define thought? If you dare …

Thought does define you. How do you define thought? Thought is its own definition just as you are the definition of thought- or vice versa. A pear’s definition is a pear. I take the word “definition” as meaning what the thing is. “To define” however is harder to define. As it suggest something is “doing” something other then itself. But I don’t think so. I say something is its own definition.
However can something be and do itself at the same time. If this was the case what would the point be of differentiating the exact same thing through two different words? Maybe the confusion comes from not thinking that definition and to define mean complexly different things. That is apply to completely different things. Perhaps definition means something that is itself.
The definition of the word apple is an apple. However perhaps “to define” means the conscious activity of understanding the things definition. So the two statements to define and definition relate but are not the same. They relate as to define means to define the definition of the thing.

To define is to identify, or create a representation of identity towards oneself. Your definition is accurate, but it lacks the referential element. All things identified, or objects, refer to an experiencer. Every something that is in existence can and are their actualization within that existence, or as you put these somethings “be and do itself at the same time”. The differentiation refers to the referential aspect of all things, as whatever something is and does will be experienced differently from the place of reference.

@LotusTiger

The definition of the word apple is an apple. However perhaps “to define” means the conscious activity of understanding the things definition. So the two statements to define and definition relate but are not the same. They relate as to define means to define the definition of the thing.

Perception or perceiving is identifying and as such deriving identity of what something is. We do this through our language. A definition is the reified form of the language (it is no longer an active defining but a static noun that can then be used to identify and define other objects), to define is the active process of identifying.

A definition is a noun but it is more then that. How can a word be a noun if it’s not a type of word? In other words unless it means a specific something such as apple. So the definition of something is not so much the word apple but the cognitive thing apple. The definition is “of” the word. The word is not so much the definition. It only appears to be because that’s how we link.
So the definition of something is really the definition of a word and also not of the thing itself, not of the apple itself. It’s just when were asked what’s the definition of an apple it leads to the confusion that were also talking about what an “actual” apple is. This is because the word means the thing, apple so when asked for the word definition we think were also talking about the definition of the actual thing.
However this is not the case there is no definition of the actual thing only of the word. So I agree with you illativemind to define is a process of identifying but it is not the identification of the actual thing but of the word.
To identify an actual thing is another thing to do. I’d say we do this by matching a sense image or sound to a cognitive image or sound. We might do this if say your vision for some reason blurred and then you were able to identify what you previously so as part of the blur such as a tree.