I believe that the conscious mind and most self-identity has to do with words translating to reality. The subconscious and unconscious mind are your true identity i.e. your subconscious mind determines your beliefs and reactions as well as your reality depending on what you've been exposed to and how you interpret and understand those patterns, then there's the unconscious mind that everything in the Universe is connected to i.e. the "One", so our true identity is our beliefs in reality and how to react to recognized patterns, but our "true-er" identity is almost complete nothingness, the soul of the Universe and the source of all knowledge.. if you will.

It wer a col nite but we wer warm in that doss bag. Lissening to the dogs howling aftrwds and the wind wuthering and wearying and nattering in the oak leaves. Looking at the moon all col and wite and oansome. Lorna said to me, "You know Riddley theres some thing in us it dont have no name."

I said, "What thing is that?"

She said, "Its some kynd of thing it aint us but yet its in us. Its looking out thru our eye hoals. May be you dont take no noatis of it only some times. Say you get woak up suddn in the middl of the nite. 1 minim youre a sleap and the nex youre on your feet with a spear in your han. Wel it wernt you put that spear in your han it wer that other thing whats looking out thru your eye hoals. It aint you nor it dont even know your name. Its in us lorn and loan and sheltering how it can."

I said, "If its in every 1 of us theres moren 1 of it theres got to be a manying theres got to be a millying and mor."

Lorna said, "Wel there is a millying and mor."

I said, "Wel if theres such a manying of it whys it lorn then whys it loan?"

She said, "Becaws the manying and the millying its all 1 thing it dont have nothing to gether with. You look at lykens on a stoan its all them tiny manyings of it and may be each part of it myt think its sepert only we can see its all 1 thing. Thats how it is with what we are its all 1 girt big thing and divvyt up amongst the many. Its all 1 girt thing bigger nor the won and lorn and loan and oansome. Tremmering it is and feart. It puts us on like we put on our does. Some times we dont fit. Some times it cant fynd the arm hoals and it tears us a part. I dont think I took all that much noatis of it when I ben yung. Now Im old I noatis it mor. It dont realy like to put me on no mor. Every morning I can feal how its tiret of me and readying to throw me a way. Iwl tel you some thing Riddley and keap this in memberment. What ever it is we dont come naturel to it."

I said, "Lorna I dont know what you mean."

She said, "We aint a naturel part of it. We dint begin when it begun we dint begin where it begun. It ben here befor us nor I dont know what we are to it. May be weare jus only sickness and a feaver to it or boyls on the arse of it I dont know. Now lissen what Im going to tel you Riddley. It thinks us but it dont think like us. It dont think the way we think. Plus like I said befor its afeart."

I said, "Whats it afeart of?"

She said, "Its afeart of being beartht."

I said, "How can that be? You said it ben here befor us. If it ben here all this time it musve ben beartht some time."

She said, "No it aint ben beartht it never does get beartht its all ways in the woom of things its all ways on the road."

I said, "All this what you jus ben telling be that a tel for me?"

She larft then she said, "Riddley there aint nothing what aint a tel for you. The wind in the nite the dus on the road even the leases stoan you kick a long in front of you. Even the shadder of that leases stoan roaling on or stanning stil its all telling."

Wel I cant say for cern no mor if I had any of them things in my mynd befor she tol me but ever since then it seams like they all ways ben there. Seams like I ben all ways thinking on that thing in us what thinks us but it dont think like us. Our woal life is a idear we dint think of nor we dont know what it is. What a way to live.

Thats why I finely come to writing all this down. Thinking on what the idear of us myt be. Thinking on that thing whats in us lorn and loan and oansome.

— Russell Hoban: Riddley Walker

So if we take the OP seriously, and think this an interesting question, and we think that I could have been other than bert1, then we must think that "I", even when spoken by bert1 does not entirely mean "bert1". That is, when bert1 is completely specified, there remains some leftovers, like cold Christmas dinner. — bert1

Are you asking if your parents could have given you a different name, or are you asking if you had a different father but the same mother, would you still be you. You wouldn't. YOU wouldn't exist at all, as you are a product of a specific man and a specific woman, even if your mother chose the name "Bert1" for her child independent of which man she chose to mate with.

Are you asking if your parents could have given you a different name, or are you asking if you had a different father but the same mother, would you still be you. — Harry Hindu

Neither of those. Have you watched the video I linked to at the start of the thread?

It's over an hour long. Care to point to the exact location in the video that corresponds to what you are trying to show?

3:15 to 7:05 maybe for an intro to the idea. Continue to 15:00 if you like. Basically the first fifteen minutes gives an overview.

What do "human beings" have to do with being you? How did you come to conceive that things called "human beings" and "you" are related in some way? Why would it appear to be that you are "looking out of the eyes" of a human being if you actually aren't a human being?

What I find strange is that "you" seem to have determined what human beings are, but fail to determine what "you" are. So far it seems that you are a determiner of "human beings".

The asymmetry arises as soon as the banana becomes this banana. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. — SophistiCat

But, once this robot checks the dark corner, it has acquired a (new) piece of information that makes a difference (to this robot), "I'm in room δ", and it can then go on about its business. — jorndoe

That's correct. "this" implies an injection of information into the system, the source of which can be traced back to a separate entity, in this case @SophistiCat or @jorndoe, who made the selection. The information can be traced further by asking these people how they made the selection for "this". Similarly, when I say "mine", information is injected as a selection is made, but I can't trace the source of such information in the universe.

Everything is equal to "mine" - contradiction
"mine" cannot refer to all conscious beings, and the universe, because we still need to account for the information that selects one particular point of view that's mine. So assuming that everybody is somehow part of the same "ONE" is not the answer. This is the case of maximum entropy.

bizso09 is equal to "mine" - possible
The only way it could be the answer is if I, bizso09, assert that the ONE universe is in fact me, bizso09. However, this would lead to a contradiction, when another person makes the same assertion from their point of view, i.e. perterpan is equal to "mine". Of course, I can always discredit any such person's assertion, leading to solipsism. This is the case of minimum entropy.

Nothing is equal to "mine" - contradiction
Finally, if we discard the information content of "mine" selection, then we are left with no selection of identity, and hence non-existence. On the other hand, such a state of the world would be incompatible with the subjective first person view I'm experiencing now where I know that such a selection exists ipso facto. This is the case of no entropy.

As an alternative to resorting to solipsism being necessarily true, I introduce the concept of an external universe here that can specify the source of any such information. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8371/existence-of-an-external-universe-to-the-physical-universe

The question of identity assignment is not possible to answer using a logical framework. The question is that one day I wake up in the world, and I became conscious. There needs to be some information in the world that determines my identity, namely who or what I am. Even if this identity reduces to merely a given first person perspective or point of view, that needs to be determined where or what that point of view is in the world. However, this determination, although exists, it cannot be explained logically.

The problem is there must be a unique information content specifically for me in the world. However, as soon as there’s more options available, i.e. there exists multiple first person perspectives, the assignment problem becomes ambiguous, and hence the information specifying my identity becomes ambiguous too.

One possible resolution is that each conscious being lives in their own unique world that was made just for them. In that case their identity is equal to the universe, i.e. everything that exists, so the mapping is unambiguous. However, as soon as multiple parallel universes can exist with multiple conscious beings, the identity assignment problem resurfaces, but this time across multiple universes.

This problem is not possible to be solved using a logical framework. When I ask, how come I am this particular being, there’s two solutions: Either I am the only being in existence, or that there is no “but”, it’s just how it is.

Although choosing the first option might look attractive, it still doesn’t explain that although it is only me that exists, how come I exist at all? So in fact, this would require another illogical statement, namely everything exists, just because. So in a way, assuming the existence of an external universe that provides the necessary information required to resolve these issues and remain consistent within our universe, is itself unavoidable. This external universe has to give the answers without further question, and asking about a piece of information coming from this external universe as to how come it’s that way and not the other way, would not be sensible.

Question: Would you be able to tell you are a first person perspective if there were no other first person perspectives? — Daniel

Doing so would require a private language.

That's the rub; that being me requires there being you.

bizso09 is equal to "mine" - possible
The only way it could be the answer is if I, bizso09, assert that the ONE universe is in fact me, bizso09. However, this would lead to a contradiction, when another person makes the same assertion from their point of view, i.e. perterpan is equal to "mine". Of course, I can always discredit any such person's assertion, leading to solipsism. This is the case of minimum entropy. — bizso09

Pardon, but where is the contradiction? Go back to the robots for a bit; there's robot X and robot Y. Consider fact Fx: "I", robot X, assert that the one "robot" is in fact "me", robot X. Consider fact Fy: "I", robot Y, assert that the one "robot' is in fact "me", robot Y. It sounds like you're telling me that fact Fx contradicts with fact Fy. But that seems to assume that Fx and Fy are the same fact; if they are two different facts, there's no contradiction.

In a similar fashion, we could consider two potential facts... Fb: the ONE universe is in fact me, bizs09; and Fp: the ONE universe is in fact me, perterpan. So how many universes are there? Under bizs09ian solipsism, Fb is a fact and Fp isn't. So there's one non-contradictory fact. Under perterpanian solipsism, Fp is a fact and Fb is not; so again, one non-contradictory fact. Discard solipsism and Fb and Fp are both facts, but there are two facts about two "universes". And so on. I can see constructing a contradiction, but only artificially; Fb and Fp are both facts and there's only one universe, but b and p are different entities, and so on... that contradiction seems vacuous, because it's only there if you put it there. Is there another you're referring to?