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.