The following are hypotheses generated by the identification [§8.5](<8.5 Identity.md>) advances: identity is modeled as a construction that emerges when recursive activity represents the self within its field. They are not straightforward empirical consequences, and evidence from psychedelics, meditation, pathology, comparative cognition, and neuroscience admits competing interpretations. [§8.5.4](<8.5.4 What is Confirmed.md>) reviews relevant evidence; [§8.5.5](<8.5.5 What is Concluded.md>) develops the dialectical case.

*The narrative self is a construction, not a substance.* The framework predicts that the *self* — the integrated, persistent autobiographical identity — is one specific recursive construction, dissolvable while the underlying recursion continues. Interventions that disrupt the integrative recursion responsible for the self-model should produce phenomenology in which the narrative self thins out or dissolves while bare awareness continues. Targeted suppression of the default mode network (psychedelics) should produce ego death. Deep meditative practice should produce similar dissolutions over longer timeframes. Certain pathological states (depersonalization, dissociation) should produce partial dissolutions.

In all such cases, the prediction is that awareness continues; the self does not. The being is still registering, just no longer constructing itself as a unified narrative subject.

*Identity can be biased without being transferred.* The framework predicts that external interventions can alter what identity registers and how that registration is biased — chemistry, neural states, motivational landscape — without transferring the locus of identity to the intervention. The cricket whose hairworm drives it to seek water still has cricket-presence; the rodent whose Toxoplasma reduces fear still has rodent-presence. Two recursions remain throughout. The host's vantage continues; what changes is its contents and biases.

The same pattern is predicted for less dramatic cases: drugs alter identity contents without transferring the identity; brain damage alters identity contents without transferring the identity; social pressure alters identity contents without transferring the identity. The locus of selfhood is the recursion; external factors operate on the substrate the recursion runs on.

*Reflexive identity emerges at sufficient depth.* The framework predicts that with sufficient recursive depth, the recursion folds back to register the I as one of the things it registers. Identity is not an additional property; it is what awareness becomes when the recursion's own activity is deep enough to model itself modeling. Empirically, this should manifest as metacognition (knowing that one knows or does not know), theory of mind (modeling other modelers), and self-recognition (modeling oneself as a persistent agent).

The framework predicts that reflexive identity, if it emerges in non-human lineages, will depend on integrative capacities rather than species membership alone. Whether corvids, cephalopods, primates, or humans realize comparable forms of reflexive identity remains an open comparative-cognition question, and neural correlates such as the default mode network should not be treated as a settled measure of a single identity depth.

*Substrate of deep identity.* The framework predicts that, in any given lineage, deep identity will be implemented by integrative structures that take other neural processing as their input — the prefrontal cortex, default mode network, anterior cingulate, and temporoparietal junction in humans; analogous integrative regions in other lineages. Targeted intervention on these structures (anesthetics, lesions, electrical stimulation, psychedelics) should produce predictable, dose-dependent changes in the depth and content of identity.

The structural claim does not depend on any specific neural architecture being the only substrate. Other architectures (corvid pallium, cephalopod distributed network, conceivably non-biological systems realizing the same recursion) could realize the same activity.

*Identity is relational from the start.* The framework predicts that the I-construction is co-constructed with the field it identifies itself within. Empirically, this should show as identity development tracking relational development — children's self-concepts forming alongside theory-of-mind milestones, identity disruption following social rupture (bereavement, exile, role-loss), and the cross-cultural variation in self-concept tracking the relational fields different cultures construct (Markus and Kitayama 1991 on independent vs. interdependent self-construals).

*Identity persists through content change.* The framework predicts that identity over time consists in continuity of the recursive activity, not in preservation of content. A person should remain the same person despite turnover of memories, beliefs, and body cells, because identity is what the recursion *does*, not what the recursion *carries*. Cases of severe amnesia, profound personality change, or radical life rupture should still leave the recursion's locus intact even when the content it carries is largely replaced.


---

← [8.5.2 What is Required](<8.5.2 What is Required.md>) | [8.5.4 What is Confirmed](<8.5.4 What is Confirmed.md>) →
