[ExI] Open Individualism

[Adrian Tymes]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:17 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> If open individualism is not true, the chance of you being born and alive
> as you is 1 in 200,000,000,
>

That is a logical fallacy.  You were born and alive as you, therefore, the
chance of you having been born and alive is 1 in 1.

If multi-worlds is true, there may be 199,999,999 other worlds in which you
do not exist for each world in which you do, but those are irrelevant.  We
observe the world that we are in.


> and the same odds must have been win by your parents, your grand parents,
> and so on.
>

Their odds, likewise, are 1 in 1.


> There are massive conceptual problems with the conventional closed
> individualism view. If you investigate these you will see why open
> individualism is the least flawed of all the available options.
>
> Consider that the rational scientist would conclude a person survives a
> star trek style destructive teletransporter, so long as an identical
> version was created on the other side. So then material/bodily continuity
> cannot be essential to survival.
>
> Consider also, that a person changes substantially over time, gaining
> memories here, losing memories there, to the point that a 50 year old
> person has almost nothing in common psychologically with their 3 year old
> self.
>

A person is a process, not a discrete state.  These problems only arise by
confusing a static state of a person for being the complete definition of
that person over time.

You will find, if you pull on these threads, that the conventional view of
> personal identity (what Kolak calls "closed individualism") breaks down,
> leaving two options:
>
> Empty individualism: a.k.a. no-self theory, we are each only and ever a
> single thought moment, like the Buddhist conception of Anatta.
>
> Open individualism: there are no individuating borders.
>

This is another logical fallacy.  There exist more than two options.

What you here call "empty individualism" assumes that what a person is in a
given moment is the only thing a person is.  You have defined "open
individualism" elsewhere.  The truth appears to be neither of these, but
something else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240104/bf706891/attachment.htm>