[ExI] Time and Personal Identity

Sun Apr 6 22:14:17 UTC 2025

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 at 04:40, Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> <snip>
>

> Thanks so much Daniel. This was a long one! Finally made it to the end. ��
> Have a good night.
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
>

I thought it might be useful to get a short summary, so I asked Gemini 2.5
Pro which of the three alternative types of Individualism was likely to be
more correct. Gemini explained that it depends on your POV. Choose the one
you like best.  :)
BillK

Gemini 2.5 Pro -

Okay, let's break down these three fascinating philosophical views on
personal identity: Closed Individualism, Open Individualism, and Empty
Individualism.

It's crucial to state upfront that determining which is "more correct" is
inherently difficult, perhaps impossible, using purely empirical methods.
These are philosophical frameworks attempting to understand the nature of
the self and consciousness. Their "correctness" is often judged based on
explanatory power, logical consistency, intuitive appeal, and how well they
address certain paradoxes, rather than on direct proof.

Here's a discussion of each and arguments regarding their potential
correctness:

   1.

   *Closed Individualism:*
   -

      *The View:* This is the common-sense, default view for most people.
      It holds that each conscious being is a distinct, separate
individual. Your
      consciousness is uniquely yours, tied to your specific
body/brain, starting
      sometime around birth and ceasing at death. You are one person, I am
      another, and we can never truly be each other. Personal identity is
      closed off within the boundaries of the individual organism.
      -

      *Arguments for its "Correctness":*
      -

         *Intuitive Appeal:* It aligns perfectly with our everyday
         experience. We feel like distinct individuals with private
thoughts, unique
         memories, and a personal history.
         -

         *Biological Basis:* Our bodies are physically separate and
         genetically unique (mostly). Brain processes underpinning
consciousness
         occur within individual skulls.
         -

         *Practicality:* Legal, ethical, and social systems are
         overwhelmingly based on this view (individual rights,
responsibilities,
         punishments).
         -

      *Arguments Against/Challenges:*
      -

         *Problem of Identity Over Time:* What makes you the same person as
         you were yesterday, given constant physical and mental
change? (Ship of
         Theseus problem).
         -

         *Fission/Fusion Problems:* Thought experiments like
         teletransportation (destroying you here, replicating you elsewhere) or
         brain hemisphere transplants challenge the idea of a single,
continuous,
         unique self tied to one body. Where does the 'I' go?
         -

         *The "Hard Problem" of Consciousness:* Why does this specific
         collection of physical matter give rise to my particular
         subjective experience, rather than none, or someone else's? Closed
         Individualism often just takes this as a brute fact.
         2.

   *Open Individualism:*
   -

      *The View:* Proposed by philosophers like Daniel Kolak, this view
      argues that logically, there is only one subject of experience – one
      "I" – that is numerically identical across all conscious beings, past,
      present, and future. Differences in personality, memory, and body are
      characteristics experienced by this one subject, not markers of
      different subjects. Think of it as one screen (the subject)
      displaying many different movies (individual lives).
      -

      *Arguments for its "Correctness":*
      -

         *Logical Parsimony?:* Proponents argue it solves the puzzle of why
         you are you and not someone else. If there's only one "I", the
         question becomes meaningless – you are everyone, experiencing
         different perspectives.
         -

         *Shared Structure of Subjectivity:* All conscious experiences
         share the fundamental quality of "what it's like to be." Open
Individualism
         suggests this shared quality points to a shared subject.
         -

         *Addresses Fission/Fusion:* In fission cases (like splitting a
         brain), Open Individualism might suggest the single subject simply
         experiences branching perspectives.
         -

         *Potential Links to Mystical Experience:* Some interpret certain
         mystical or transcendental experiences (feelings of unity,
oneness with the
         universe) as experiential evidence for this view.
         -

      *Arguments Against/Challenges:*
      -

         *Highly Counter-Intuitive:* Clashes strongly with our feeling of
         separateness and individuality.
         -

         *Explaining Differences:* How does the single subject maintain
         such distinct and separate streams of consciousness, memories, and
         personalities without them bleeding into each other? This remains a
         significant hurdle.
         -

         *Biological Individuation:* How does this align with clearly
         separate biological organisms and brains?
         -

         *Lack of Direct Proof:* Relies heavily on logical argument and
         interpretation rather than empirical evidence.
         3.

   *Empty Individualism (No-Self / Anatta):*
   -

      *The View:* Often associated with Buddhism and philosophers like
      David Hume and Derek Parfit (in certain interpretations). This
view denies
      the existence of any enduring, substantial, independent "self" or "I"
      altogether. What we call the self is merely a temporary collection or
      bundle of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena (sensations,
      perceptions, thoughts, feelings, consciousness itself). There isn't
      one enduring subject (like Open Individualism) nor many enduring
      subjects (like Closed Individualism); there are just interconnected
      processes arising and ceasing.
      -

      *Arguments for its "Correctness":*
      -

         *Consistency with Neuroscience/Psychology:* Observation shows the
         brain and mind are constantly changing. No single, unchanging
'core' or
         'self' has been scientifically located.
         -

         *Introspective Insight (Meditation):* Practitioners of certain
         meditative traditions report experientially realizing the
lack of a solid,
         unchanging self.
         -

         *Resolves Identity Paradoxes:* Problems like the Ship of Theseus
         or fission are dissolved because there's no persistent
'thing' that needs
         to remain identical. Identity becomes a matter of continuity and
         connectedness of psychological states, not a strict numerical
identity of a
         'self'.
         -

         *Avoids the Hard Problem (in a way):* By denying a persistent
         subject, it reframes the question. Consciousness arises with certain
         processes, but there's no enduring entity having the experience.
         -

      *Arguments Against/Challenges:*
      -

         *Counter-Intuitive:* Like Open Individualism, it challenges our
         deep-seated feeling of being a continuous self.
         -

         *Explaining Subjectivity:* Even if there's no enduring subject,
         there is still subjectivity – the "what it's like" quality.
         Explaining how impersonal processes generate this
first-person perspective
         remains challenging.
         -

         *Moral Responsibility:* If there's no enduring self, how do we
         ground concepts like moral responsibility, praise, or blame over time?
         (Though proponents argue this can be based on psychological
continuity).
         -

         *Agency and Free Will:* Can impersonal processes account for our
         sense of agency and making choices?

*Conclusion - Which is "More Correct"?*

   -

   *Closed Individualism* is the most intuitively correct and practically
   useful framework for everyday life and social structures. However, it faces
   significant philosophical challenges, especially concerning identity over
   time and the fundamental nature of subjectivity.
   -

   *Open Individualism* offers a radical and elegant solution to some deep
   philosophical puzzles (like why this self?), but it is highly
   counter-intuitive and struggles to explain the apparent separateness of
   minds. It remains largely speculative.
   -

   *Empty Individualism (No-Self)* arguably aligns better with observations
   from neuroscience (constant change, no central 'self' found) and certain
   introspective practices. It elegantly dissolves paradoxes of identity.
   However, it is also counter-intuitive and must provide convincing accounts
   for the feeling of subjectivity and continuity, as well as moral
   responsibility.

*Likely More Correct?*

Many contemporary philosophers, especially those influenced by neuroscience
and Eastern philosophy (like Buddhism), lean towards *Empty Individualism*
or related views (like Psychological Criterion views championed by Parfit,
which emphasize continuity rather than a strict 'self'). They see it as
better equipped to handle the philosophical problems and more consistent
with a scientific worldview that finds processes rather than unchanging
essences.

However, it's far from a settled matter. Closed Individualism remains the
default for good reason due to its intuitive power. Open Individualism,
while less mainstream, continues to attract interest for its radical
unification.

Ultimately, the "more correct" view depends on the criteria you prioritize:
everyday intuition, logical consistency, explanatory power for paradoxes,
compatibility with science, or insights from introspection/mysticism. There
is no definitive answer agreed upon by all.

------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250406/c5aaef96/attachment.htm>