[atomicnature]

> Those may be too complex to invent from scratch in a few decades. Long intellectual collaborations are a common good.

Yes, that is the source for my assertion that culture/collective thought/pre-computed results is of primary importance ("essential"). You need way more than mere primitives to get upto any useful level of knowledge in a given lifetime.

> By virtue of emotional audit, knowledge I accept is assimilated by me, becomes mine. It was made by my allies, essentially by past instances of myself - nothing external here.

In other words, you are "sampling" something from the common culture based on an "emotional audit", and then tweaking the sample to suit your "preferences"? In other words:

P = Bundle of preferences (sampling biases that an emotional audit will check for)

I_1 = State of Identity

T = Transformation function that converts a sample of common good to suit the bundle of preferences

I_2 = State of Identity after integrating the result of transformation

I_1 + T(P(CG)) => I_2 (your formula)

i.e previous_identity_state + transform(select(common_good)) = new_identity_state

You argue that if, transform(select1(common_good)) = select2(common_good), then select1 = select2 i.e preference1 = preference2 [1]

The problem with this model is that it is dualistic; you envision immutable (?) preferences and mutable identity states (and obviously mutable common good which is a super set of identity states and 'other stuff'). The common good is getting manipulated in a distributed and concurrent way all the time, so even if the preferences remain immutable, the common good keeps changing, and therefore [1] wouldn't work out (the actual equation will have common_good1 and common_good2)... I think all dualistic ideas of defining the mind tend to get into this sort of trap.

That is, the following will not remain true ("create functionally similar designs") due to changes/updates in the common good (especially across time):

> So if we have same preferences, we are one. And it seems obvious that people with similar preferences will create functionally similar designs.)

I think a better model is to consider all localized preferences as part of the larger common good. There is just one common good (due to "dependency" of thoughts), across time and space, out of which everything emerges ("collective thought"). Such a model wouldn't admit any sort of immutable identity within the realm of thought.

[chromoblob]

> You need way more than mere primitives to get upto any useful level of knowledge in a given lifetime.

That is just because "useful level of knowledge" is required to participate in society as I want to - most low-hanging fruit has already been collected. If you're at the frontier, you're immediately productive.

> In other words:

Sorry, I phrased a little incorrectly. It's more like Filter(Mutate(AmbientCulture)), that is, I selectively copy or mutate everything I see into stuff that gets accepted by the audit, after which it is my knowledge. (Mutate creates some modifications of memes as I am able, and Filter removes unsuitable ones; but computationally it is probably a one-stage directed process.) I would call it knowledge state, not "identity state", my identity is immutable too. Yes, preferences are immutable; preferences = identity.

> You argue that if ...

If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment.

> the following will not remain true ("create functionally similar designs") due to changes/updates in the common good

Culture changes continuously. A given distributed identity would create a needed design over time, at each moment relying only on the current state of its own work. (It follows that identities can be nested: an identity may create a meme that will be owned by any identities that contain that identity.) If the work is not synchronized across space, work may fork and diverge, but the differences would not be functionally significant in the end.

If something suppresses your work, you should defend against this, or you will be screwed too.

[atomicnature]

> If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment.

Yes. Also, from a philosophical angle, consider this:

It is possible to get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance; the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff. Therefore, I still think it is more sensible to avoid the idea of "immutable" preferences. What looks "immutable" (identity) may just be a short-lived illusion (or maybe a long-lived illusion - depending on the perspective; either way an illusion).

The sense of self could be seen as a temporary, mutable "clustering" of pieces of thought within the larger system of thought. I like the idea of "nesting" you mentioned though. However, I'd still bet on "mutable preferences" over "immutable preferences" -- that "I" is a temporary illusion. Accepting this would remove the problematic dualism...

The buddhist texts present the idea of a solid-looking rainbow; go inspect it, and poof, it really wasn't there in the first place.

[chromoblob]

I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself. Identity is simply a preferences code that is implemented by every one of a set of possible physical agents, one of which is my body. An executable identity is maintained as the code of the physical system as long as it can as that. This seems to me only a matter of engineering or biology (based on physics) and the minimal influx of free energy to store the code without errors, as well as resource expenditure for my actions that you need to see if you want to register / keep registering me. (That is, if you disregard the astronomically unlikely quantum events.) The preceding applies to any kind of identity, human or otherwise.

> get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance

That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics (more directly, emergence of life, evolution, human biology and any natural laws that technology depends on). That's how I feel that this immutability is valid.

If you want, you can regard my identity as a little "physical/natural law" generated around my body. So the law will be there as long as the body works. And, I think, in principle any body housing any identity can be maintained indefinitely given minimal free energy and mass influx (this requires technologies not yet available today) if you again set a target probability of random quantum changes. This applies to "distributed" identities equally.

> the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff

If one depends on arbitrary data from environment and there is not enough experimentation done by either one or the producers of the data, one becomes mutable. Mutate or be mutated.

[atomicnature]

> I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself...

You are explaining potential implementation methods, but I think implementation method is a secondary consideration. The more interesting question is what is the simpler and more likely explanation. I think envisoning thought as a sprawling system (through space/time), creating temporary localized identities, through clustering & evolving preferences is simpler than the one with non-mutating preferences. It is non-dualistic, doesn't require multiple layers, etc.

> That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics

You are mixing layers - substance & laws it seems to be governed by (law is a "meta" substance if you will, or properties derived from a given set of observations). To create immutability out of mutability, you need to build sophisticated layers... That makes it a more complex explanation (and less likely explanation).

Moreover, having a mutable/evolving identity doesn't preclude it from being governed by immutable laws.

Just a matter of applying occam's razor.

[chromoblob]

Am I right that you want to apply certain apriori ideas, like preference of simpler models, in order to build semantic interpretation of reality? I don't believe that any set of such apriori ideas should be universal for all minds. As for me, I built my framework because I seek to define meaning of activity. This framework is the result of my preconception of meaning together with some other relevant philosophy. I want to tell about it to any people who have same objectives and prelimimaries and anyone else interested and learn criticism.

My model requires immutable identities: without them, there is no temporally consistent individual meaning. As I know that time is always passing, temporal consistency is required. Although my body may disappear without a trace of its contents, my identity is recorded in history/spacetime.

I also know that people can disagree on politics, from which follows that there can be multiple different non-nested identities. If you want, you may still combine conflicting identities into a "conflicting superidentity" to achieve an algebraic style. At the boundary of conflict, though, communication is unlike that inside the volume of agreeing or orthogonal agents. Cooperation is replaced by either trade or fight.

> less likely explanation

It is less likely for you only because you prefer simpler ones. My evaluation of ideas, for example, is not so straightforward.

[atomicnature]

> Am I right that you want to apply certain apriori ideas, like preference of simpler models, in order to build semantic interpretation of reality? I don't believe that any set of such apriori ideas should be universal for all minds.

Your first question about my views was - whether it could be scientific or not. If you subscribe to the scientific method in any serious manner, then you must by necessity subscribe to preferring simpler models in describing phenomena. If two models can produce identical results given a particular purpose, the one with lesser number of components, lesser relations among components, the one easier to comprehend must be considered superior/preferred. Preference for the simpler explanation is a cardinal doctrine within the scientific method.

Rest of your comments - I have further thoughts/comments about them but this thread has already gone too deep, and HN is not the right forum for it. So I let it be. Thanks :)

[chromoblob]

But "semantic interpretation of reality", or meaning, is in the domain of philosophy. In this case, models are used not to just predict independent real events, but to generate opinion on meaning and create a framework on which the whole of understanding will be built and whole of activity will depend. Two models not only don't have similar results, but your model is unusable for me at all. My framework is not an empirical science to which scientific method could apply. This part of philosophy consists of definitions and opinion, what the content of the system of concepts in question should be, backed at most by non-rigorous arguments and considerations. Doesn't look like science for me. Scientificness does not apply to one's philosophical base; even to use logic, you first have to decide to accept it.

> HN is not the right forum for it

why :o HN is literally a website for intellectual curiosities... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html