Right, but the proof at which it says x = x I'm unsure with.

I would agree with that. Does this remain true in the instance my identity is not being observed by myself retrospectively, but by another? Would one need to have knowledge of my suppressions to acknowledge my true self, or does it not matter?

OK. While I do find your statement intriguing, from a mathematical standpoint I'm not sure I fully understand.

In the invent that Sr = So + Ss is true, then it follows that So = Sr - Ss. Where my understanding falters is that this would imply an identity given by others is discovered by the subtraction of my own display, which feels a little contradictory.

Well the way I see it, as one delves deeper into oneself more primitive wants or needs become the motivations for various things we hold true to our identity. For example: I go to the gym to workout, which follows that I do so because I want to be revered, which follows that I do so because I want women to want me, Which follows that I just want sex.

Now obviously this isn't true of everyone, some people do just have good intentions not muddled by any innate senses of perversion. However, perhaps there is some truth to the illustration that certain actions we perform are funded by wants, desires we contain deep down.

That's an interesting concept. Does it give any detail on how one might go about visiting each room? I think a major query I had that I didn't intially state in the OP is that, supposing a real identity isn't an illusion after all, what method could i use to display my real self on a day to day basis?

Hm. I find your statement compelling since you dictate true identity as an additive substance, where here I thought "real" identity layed in the subtraction of one's more, uh, useless layers for lack of a better term.

I'd also be interested to hear your opinion on whether identity is linked with perversion, or vice versa.

Here's a page I found that I think is relevant to the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

If, a big if, there did exist a finite number Nmax that could stand in for, salva veritate, ∞∞, we could prove/disprove all mathematical conjectures via proof by exhaustion (brute search) with the help of existing supercomputers — Agent Smith

Some mathematical systems require an infinite set to function. I think it's just a question of where your looking at; assuming infinity isn't intrinsically false, or bad, it's just another way to look at something, which happens to have some pretty interesting conclusions.

Why? First Cause?

d; consider the process of constructing a chair. It begins (wood, nails, glue, etc.) and ends (a chair). If one is unable to complete the task, we have a potential chair and not an actual one. — Agent Smith

What about a cyclical process?

If there were an instrument that meausred infinity, then the actuality would immediately show through. — god must be atheist

I think this is a good point. It would be harmful to assume that infinities don't exist in the real world simply because we can't process them in a tangible manner.

Which means ∞∞ is impossible, squaring with Aristotle's decision to make the distinction potential vs. actual (infinity). — Agent Smith

Can infinity even be considered as possible or impossible? it's a concept. If an axiom calls it to be true/in need then I see no reason to assume otherwise.

Perhaps I should have pointed that out. — god must be atheist

Damn.

The Second Cold War is a reality. No "resets" happening anymore. People will start thinking about nuclear weapons again. — ssu

It's only a reality in so far as we let it happen. I think that's the point of what's going on right now.

Any thoughts? Have you read other PKD? — Noble Dust

I haven't finished it yet, but his writing style is interesting, to say the least.

yet the final result (if such a thing exists... "final") or the intended final result is the most precisely and accurately formed best way to achieve with a seemingly unreasonable act. — god must be atheist

Sure. In the grand calculus of the universe, I suppose all acts are ethical, or are necessary in some shape or form.

It made perfect sense in the context. But I still had to make it sure. — god must be atheist

Measure twice lift once, as they say.

Ethics, on the other hand, seems to involve taking the concerns of others into account. — Banno

Hm, I think I get the gist of it.

So, I am an ethical agent in so far as I am rational, and it is rationality out of which ethics comes into existence.
Something like that? — Astrophel

Oh no, actually it was the opposite haha. I meant that ethical behaviour has a tend to not follow rationality.

You mean like a boxing ring? A fighting arena? — god must be atheist

Yeah, that was the intention. Seems my joke wasn't a KO...

I'll have to come back tomorrow to check. I got a plane to catch, and I need my beauty sleep.

Good luck in the ring.

I think Apostrophel talks about logic and truth; how logical speech does not ALWAYS concern itself with ethics, so restricting ethics as a subset of reason is a bit of a useless exercise, is what I think he is saying. If he says that, I agree. — god must be atheist

Ohh. I would agree as well if that's the case.

But then, it is certainly a different matter using a conditional logical form to talk about the weather, on the one hand, and talking about assaulting Mrs. Griswald for her cookies. — Astrophel

Sorry, I couldn't make sense of this.

The root of identity crisis. Who am I? What's ego? The body. All problems solved. So no illusion at all. — Raymond

Isn't this more or less susceptible to ship of Theseus?

Reason could be here substituted for ethics and it would still be true. — Astrophel

Meh. Ethical actions tend to betray rationality more often then not, I'd think.

Is it? How odd. — Banno

Er, is what odd? Sorry, I just didn't know which part of what I said you were referring to.

Can you explain this? — Banno

If good is not known to be a universal, then how one acts "good" is relegated to subjective standards, which kind of defeats the point of making a list on "how" to do things.

No. — Banno

Well in any case, it would seem that "how" needs a "what". (i.e What is the plan, how are we going to execute it). Unless good and evil is universal amongst mankind.

ethics is not about what is the case but what to do. — Banno

How can you lift an arm without knowing what an arm is?

↪john27 An implied or can do just as much work as an express one. Be careful that they understand that discussing evidence of G is separate from discussing evidence of ~G. If they understand from go that any question about G supports your claim of ~G, you won’t get far.

Here is a related type argument: Russell’s tea pot. Notice the contrast of agnosticism as to a particular belief in or belief in not. We can functionally act as if not in the absence of compelling evidence for, but that doesn’t mean we have to actively believe not. Why commit to a position for which you have no evidence and which, in principle, you cannot have such evidence. — Ennui Elucidator

I'll be honest, I haven't a clue about what you just said. Care to tone it down?

Is that what you had in mind? — Jon Sendama

Yeah pretty much.

"When did you stop hitting your wife?". I don't see how it's an unjustified presupposition to assume someone believes something is more likely, less likely, or equally likely. — Jon Sendama

Well in the event where your opponent is being deliberately dense, I think it would be called an appeal to ignorance.

A portion of grant money does go to basic sciences and the exploration of "science" in it's more pure form, but yeah, they have a tendency to reinvest in things that work, or things that we know that work.

f a person argues that there seems to be just to options to pick from, ie heavier than or lighter than or more likely or less likely, and invites his opponent to pick one, and the opponent says "i don't need to pick one because you have not proven there are only these options", what is that fallacy? — Jon Sendama

In the instance where you relegate your opponent to only two choices, that would be considered a logical fallacy called a loaded question. It's not necessarily a logical fallacy to not entertain a misinterpreted or a biased hypothetical. At least, not when you're trying to win an argument.

It's also 4 am in the morning, and I've had 7 glasses of red wine.

Edit: ok, maybe a little bit more than 7.

"Mind" is nonmind-dependent (just as "walks" is legs-dependent); "ideas", of course, are mind-dependent but "mind" presupposes other/more-than-mind (i.e. substrate, embodiment, environment) – unless, even more than the incoherence of "idealism", one proposes (despite being a performative contradiction) "solipsism". Just my 2 bit(coin)s. — 180 Proof

Mind is only nonmind dependent insofar as we don't know what mind is. However, it is intriguingly becoming more and more plausible that the essence of mind generates from a parental view of "mind", i.e father and son, (higher and lower mind). This is mostly backed by near death experiences where people undergone brain death achieve in fact a higher understanding of reality, a sacrifice of low mind for high mind so to speak.

Why would that be a problem? — Raymond

It would lack certainty, I'd say.

How does an Oediipus complex relate to a community? Does this vision imply a community in which it's normal, or not, to make love with the mother? — Raymond

It's to imply I would assume, that the majority of people in a community feels at some time in their infancy a want to make love to their mother. Weird, I know.

Self reflection would more mean independent reflection than ego reflection in this case. The question is rather whether we can use an individuals assessment to find out how a group feels.

In a culturally homogeneous setting, psychological analysis poses as the mode of self reflection. — baker

Hah! Interesting. While definitely we are relying more and more on psychological assessment for us to find our footing, I don't think we have reached that point (as an extreme) yet.