[ExI] Open Individualism

[Jason Resch]

Thanks Bill. The AI's responses are mostly good, but I think it makes some
statements that as re apt for misinterpretation.

Some comments below:


On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 4:26 PM BillK via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 21:11, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > I've no argument with the idea that two humans, no matter how different,
> have lots in common. Just because two things have lots in common, doesn't
> mean they are the same thing, though. Two grains of sand have much more in
> common with each other than I do with some New Zealander 200 years ago, but
> they still aren't the same grain of sand. Nobody claims "there is only one
> grain of sand".
> >
> > I can't make any sense of this 'one person' thing at all.
> >
> > Ben
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
> Ask an AI -
> In Open Individualism, what does it mean to say "There is only one person"?
>
> Answer-
> In Open Individualism, the statement "There is only one person" is a
> philosophical proposition that challenges the conventional notion of
> personal identity and individuality.


I would say it only challenges the conventional notion of personal
identity, but that it has no bearing on individuality.


Open Individualism is a
> metaphysical view


I don't think it's metaphysical. It is in theory verifiable with the right
experiments (transporters, mind uploading, mind linking technology, etc.)
and personally verifying (for yourself) that your consciousness survives
and continues in new substrates or forms, even if the original body does
not, and even if some memories are lost.


 that suggests that all conscious beings, throughout
> all of time and space, are fundamentally the same single universal
> consciousness or person.
>


This is good.


> According to Open Individualism, individual identities are illusory
> and arise from the limitations of our subjective experience, rather
> than being inherent to the nature of consciousness itself.


Yes.


It posits
> that the boundaries we perceive between separate individuals are
> ultimately illusory, and that there is a deep underlying unity to all
> conscious experience.
>

The unity mentioned here is conceptual, not something any perspective can
perceive.



> In this view, each person's subjective experience is a unique
> perspective or "slice" of the same underlying consciousness.


It might be clearer to say some experience of the same underlying
experiencer.


>From this
> perspective, the statement "There is only one person" is a way of
> expressing the idea that all individual consciousnesses are ultimately
> interconnected and part of a single universal consciousness.
>

I think the world interconnected isn't correct to use here. It makes has
too many connotations of a hive mind, which isn't what open individualism
proposes.



> Open Individualism has roots in various philosophical and mystical
> traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and certain strands of
> Western philosophy.


I wouldn't call those roots, since opens individualism does not arise from
them. It would be more correct to say there are parallels between open
individualism and some aspects or ideas expressed in these religions.


It is a provocative idea that challenges our
> ordinary intuitions about personal identity and has implications for
> topics such as ethics,


It can.


the nature of consciousness,


I would say, on the nature of observers. Open individualism is more or less
independent from any particular philosophy of mind.

and the
> relationship between individuals and the universe as a whole.
>

In a very loose sense. Not so much the universe, but rather the collection
of all conscious beings.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240113/a65c3d0e/attachment.htm>