Indeed, this is true in the sense that it's most likely that this is the case based on the available evidence.

I'm glad that you're aligned with reality on this certain point, there's not many that are, but I wonder, why do you claim that helping others is not helping yourself, excluding practicality of semantics? It seemed as you were very new to the concept of non-emotional attachment to identity/I because you argued my semantics.

But, you claimed earlier that none of this is actually factual would you like to elaborate on that? That these are my interpretations of vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas.

The reason why I push this is because you contradict yourself and you very much seemed to have an opinion on this specific matter.

I feel it might help you to know that none of this is actually factual. These are your interpretations of really vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas, ideas about which very smart and well-read people can and do disagree. For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses. The same could be said for the idea that helping another is helping yourself. That's not true if the other I'm helping is trying to murder me -- and if I can refute the generality with one example that I came up with in half a second of thought, it's not a very useful generality.

So... "none of this is actually factual", it's philosophical ideas, but later on you agree that "you and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true" by saying "Indeed, that was what I said. It is still true." Which you did but it was "...in some narrow technical sense..." and "...but it is also very much false ... relevant ..." now it's "It's true" "factual"? Is it also a "philosophical idea" and a part of the ideas that "none of this is actually factual"?

Your statements in order:

• not actually factual.
• really vague philosophical ideas
• may be true in some narrow technical sense
• but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses
• indeed, that what was I said
• it is still true

It's fine to be wrong and correct yourself :)

The activity of that atom is not relevant to my decision making process. That's it. What part of this is supposed to be in error?

Yeah, it isn't, but the example you gave of you and environment, is relevant to your decision-making process, as evident by your claim (outside of practicality) and of semantics that "helping others is not helping yourself" for example. So using an analogy which is not relevant to your decision-making process in contrary to your example where it is, is incorrect. That's why I say use the example which you used before. Instead of making an analogy that I don't disagree with.