[ExI] Time and Personal Identity

[efc at disroot.org]

You're welcome Bill and thank you! =)

Best regards,
Daniel


On Sun, 6 Apr 2025, BillK via extropy-chat wrote:

> 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":
>
>          o 
>
>             Intuitive Appeal: It aligns perfectly with our everyday experience. We feel like distinct individuals with private
>             thoughts, unique memories, and a personal history.
>
>          o 
>
>             Biological Basis: Our bodies are physically separate and genetically unique (mostly). Brain processes underpinning
>             consciousness occur within individual skulls.
>
>          o 
>
>             Practicality: Legal, ethical, and social systems are overwhelmingly based on this view (individual rights,
>             responsibilities, punishments).
>
>      + 
>
>         Arguments Against/Challenges:
>
>          o 
>
>             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).
>
>          o 
>
>             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?
>
>          o 
>
>             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":
>
>          o 
>
>             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.
>
>          o 
>
>             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.
>
>          o 
>
>             Addresses Fission/Fusion: In fission cases (like splitting a brain), Open Individualism might suggest the single subject
>             simply experiences branching perspectives.
>
>          o 
>
>             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:
>
>          o 
>
>             Highly Counter-Intuitive: Clashes strongly with our feeling of separateness and individuality.
>
>          o 
>
>             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.
>
>          o 
>
>             Biological Individuation: How does this align with clearly separate biological organisms and brains?
>
>          o 
>
>             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":
>
>          o 
>
>             Consistency with Neuroscience/Psychology: Observation shows the brain and mind are constantly changing. No single,
>             unchanging 'core' or 'self' has been scientifically located.
>
>          o 
>
>             Introspective Insight (Meditation): Practitioners of certain meditative traditions report experientially realizing the
>             lack of a solid, unchanging self.
>
>          o 
>
>             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'.
>
>          o 
>
>             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:
>
>          o 
>
>             Counter-Intuitive: Like Open Individualism, it challenges our deep-seated feeling of being a continuous self.
>
>          o 
>
>             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.
>
>          o 
>
>             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).
>
>          o 
>
>             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.
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>