[ExI] Open Individualism

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:58 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 3:30 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> If borders are total then any deviation (i.e. any form of non-equality)
> constitutes a separate person. Which means even the changes of a person
> from second to second would constitute separate persons. I am sorry this
> was not clear to you and led you to accuse me of arguing in bad faith.
> Perhaps you should be more generous in your assumptions when interacting
> with others online.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
I have made a diagram which should help communicate what I meant regarding
personal borders:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UvJ5X8ovzz6ZrJJWKDoiUvj2g6p6H6p-nUz1XdDt6aU/edit?usp=sharing

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240105/9e43c588/attachment.htm>