[ExI] Fwd: Open Individualism

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 6:46 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> 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,
>

It corresponds to thought experiments (i.e., logic and rationality better
than the alternatives). It corresponds to Occam's razor better than the
alternatives, as it makes fewer assumptions, it corresponds to laws of
probability better than the alternatives, which are exceedingly improbable
compared to it. You can keep repeating to yourself that it's not
scientific, and continue to ignore the thought experiments I've provided
which demonstrate it's truth, however, if that makes you feel better.


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.
>

There's nothing mystical about it.


> 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?
>

It's all conscious beings.


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

The idea that there is no metaphysical soul (your pattern of information
notion of consciousness) together with the idea that you will experience
more than one moment in your life, leads to open individualism. You will
experience all patterns of information from all perspectives. This follows
because there is no "soul" that pins you down to only experiencing the
experiences of a single body.

So it is the converse: it is the conventional view of personal identity
that is the closest to this metaphysical/religious assumptions.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240118/c4729bd5/attachment.htm>