[ExI] Fwd: Open Individualism

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 16/01/2024 21:31, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 2:23 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat 
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>     On 15/01/2024 04:40, Jason Resch wrote:
>>     Open Individualism argues that, at a fundamental level, all conscious
>>
>>     beings share a common underlying consciousness or personhood.
>     A common underlying conscousness or personhood that each person is
>     nevertheless completely unaware of, except via theoretical
>     discussions like this. No, I don't buy it. If I'm part of an
>     underlying consciousness, but am somehow not actually conscious of
>     it, then for all practical purposes it might as well not be so (if
>     you're part of a consciousness, but not conscious of it, what does
>     that mean? -  nothing, as far as I can see. Certainly nothing
>     useful). 
>
> It means you can/will become those mother conscious perspectives.
> This provides a justification for faith in surviving mind uploading or 
> brain surgery.
> It means you will survive so long as life survives.
> It compelled us to not burden future generations with degraded 
> environments or large debts as we will experience those perspectives too.
> It means we should be compassionate to others for their mistakes for 
> if you were in their shoes (and you are under open individualism), you 
> would (and do) make the same mistakes.
> It motivates helping others, for their pain is (or will be) your pain.
> It provides a rational justification for justice, karma, and loving 
> one's neighbor.
>
>     I see no practical application of this idea, and no actual
>     evidence that it's true, so feel quite justified in concluding
>     that it's not, or at least that there's no actual downside to
>     assuming that it's not true. 
>
> The evidence it is true is the same as your belief that you will wake 
> up in your bed the next morning. There your consciousness survives a 
> discontinuous jump through time, space, and loss of some neurons.
>
>     Again, a bit like the idea of the simulation argument and the
>     many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Theoretically
>     interesting, to some people, but of no actual use. We're no worse
>     off, in real terms, than if we had never heard of it. 
>
> It might be useful to someone some day when they are planning to 
> upload, but find some of their family members are hesitant and say 
> that "it won't really be them, it will be a copy."
> How would you counter such reasoning?

The whole concept of uploading is based on the understanding that minds 
are dynamic information patterns, and dualism is not true. That's the 
central thing for people to realise (also, it seems, a very difficult 
thing). Once that is done, the objections disappear, and statements such 
as "it won't be them, it will be a copy" can be seen to have no meaning 
("this is not my email, this is just a copy!").

 From what I can see, none of what you claim about Open Individualism is 
based on scientific principles, corresponds to the laws of physics or is 
explainable in terms of mechanisms. It seems to be supernatural 
thinking, bearing a lot of similarity to ideas such as 'god', 'heaven' 
and so-on. I'd class it as mysticism.

In keeping with that, I'm tempted to ask some questions inspired by the 
stereotypical 'sunday-school' kids questions: What about my dog? Is that 
included in Open Individualism? What about my stick insects? What about 
aliens? Trees? Bacteria? Or is it just biological humans? or things with 
nervous systems? Based on the same physical principles as ours? or any 
information processing systems? Or just certain classes of them? Will 
AGIs be included? What about a mind running on a beer-cans-and-string 
brain? What about John Conway's Game of Life?

And what basis is there for answering any of these questions?

Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240118/f8304484/attachment.htm>