[ExI] Open Individualism

[William Flynn Wallace]

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.

This 100% completely and utterly false. Personality and intelligence remain
fairly constant if we ignore superficial factors such as preferences in
food, books , etc.

The one in 200 million probability is a priori.   Some form of me would
have resulted with a probability of 1 if any of the sperm won out.

I found no facts in the article pdf Jason sent.  As far as I am concerned
all of this is far outside of science.  bill w

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 12:52 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:26 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 12:10 PM Tara Maya via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So it's like a "people's republic" where the combination of words
>>> actually reverses the meaning of both. Open Individualism" is a philosophy
>>> that is the inverse of the Enlightenment's ideal of individualism; in fact,
>>> it's quite fine to sacrifice millions of so-called "open individuals" if
>>> they are but clonal cells sacrificed by the One Body for the Greater Good.
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure how you get from "all experiences belong to one universal
>> person" to justifying the sacrifice of millions. Can you explain what steps
>> you took to get there?
>>
>
> It's quite simple, with ample historical documentation.  Whenever
> individual human beings become seen as not distinct persons, but just
> assets belonging to someone else - much like your skin cells are your
> assets, not individual people - then they can and will be sacrificed en
> masse if and when convenient for the "real" people.
>
> In this case, if everyone is the same person, then everyone is me.  I own
> myself and everything that is me.  If both of these are true, I therefore
> own everyone else (again: because everyone else is me and I own all parts
> of myself).
>
> If I own everyone else, then they are assets of mine that I do not need to
> treat as distinct human beings.  I know that I am a person, so if there is
> only one universal person, then I am that person.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240104/e3188bf4/attachment.htm>