[ExI] Open Individualism

[Adrian Tymes]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 12:14 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 2:29 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Just because someone has won the lottery does not mean it was likely that
> they would have won it.
>

You are inherently talking about those who have won the lottery (of
existence), and is making decisions based on having done so.

Consider the analogous situation of the fine tuning of the universe to
> support life. Despite that the anthropic principle guarantees we can only
> think about this from a life friendly universe, we can still marvel at the
> improbability that any given universe would have all the right properties
> to allow life.
>

And yet, that improbability does not mean that we have to or should act as
if our near future existence is anywhere near as unlikely as our origin was.


> This is another logical fallacy.  There exist more than two options.
>>
>
> There are three, and together they are comprehensive (at least one must be
> true):
>
> 1. Empty individualism: individuating borders are total
> 2. Closed individualism: there are individuating borders, but they are not
> total
> 3. Open individualism: there are no individuating borders
>

You have just redefined "empty individualism" to try to get around
the objections raised.

Your earlier definition was, "we are each only and ever a single thought
moment".  In contrast, this definition says nothing about moments, but
instead says that anything where individuating borders are total is empty
individualism.  My objection to your earlier definition was about limiting
what a person is to a single moment, so this change is quite significant.

This makes it appear as if you are arguing in bad faith, perhaps because
you do not have a firm grasp of what you are trying to debate - which
reduces everything you are saying to the ill-considered sayings of the
confused, which means that we should ignore you and we can not help you
until you help yourself.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240104/a88f7c5f/attachment.htm>