[ExI] Open Individualism

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024, 12:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 8:39 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Do you believe in Occam's razor as a useful tool in deciding what
>> theories are science?
>>
>> If so the. Open individualism is the only scientific theory of personal
>> identity. I will explain why.
>>
>
> Except...
>
>
>> Now I will show the same is true for conventional theories of personal
>> identity, while open individualism makes no such untestable metaphysical
>> assumptions, and therefore is like theory B above.
>>
>> Consider these two theories for why you were born:
>>
>> A) in order for you to be born and experience life, a particular sperm
>> has to reach a particular egg, in a particular time, and at a particular
>> place, in order for this metaphysical "you" (some call it a soul) to meet
>> up, and attach itself to this exact combination of cells and particles.
>>
>> B) in order for you to be born and experience life, a sperm has to reach
>> an egg.
>>
>> Which theory makes the least assumptions and is compatible with all the
>> facts? Which theory is science, which is metaphysics?
>>
>
> ...neither of these theories uniquely map to open individualism.
>

Theory A maps to closed individualism (the conventional view), the idea
that one's experiences are limited to those of a single organism.

Theory B leads to open individualism, if there are no preconditions to your
birth, then you are born as all organisms and experience all their
perspectives.


Also, the distinction here is highly dependent on the definition of "you":
>

The definition of "you" is the entire concern of the philosophy of personal
identity. How do we define "you" which experiences are had by "you", where
does "you" end and someone else begin, what is required for "you" to
survive some ordeal?

This can complicate communication on these issues, but I hope you can see
through the word to understand the larger point I am trying to show.


are we talking about the historical person, the theoretical unique
> individual (which would be A rather than B: to generate this specific
> individual required more than just any random sperm meeting up with any
> random egg), or some other version?  Also there are other versions, for
> instance a more extreme version of A that further adds in some of the
> mother's experiences during pregnancy that influenced the pre-natal
> individual.
>


I am talking about consciousness. Right now you are conscious and
experiencing something. What had to happen for you to be alive and
consciousness right now? Could that process happen again? If not, is the
process somehow  limited to invoking the view point of "Adrian Tymes" or
could it have worked equally well had a different sperm made it? Such that
(you*) would then experience life as a brother or sister, or would (you*)
instead forever remain a never existing, never consciousness, non entity?

* A nuanced definition of you based on having a conscious experience of any
kind.

Jason

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240106/29b5881d/attachment.htm>