[ExI] Time and Personal Identity
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Tue Apr 8 14:56:34 UTC 2025
Thank you Bill (and Grok) for creating and sharing this review. I have only
a few comments below:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 6:16 PM BillK via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 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":*
> -
>
> *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.
>
>
I find this a strange way of stating the hard problem of consciousness.
Chalmers, who defined the problem, says the hard problem is to answer why a
particular brain state should have an associated conscious state at all. It
is unrelated (generally speaking) to the question of why it gives rise to
my consciousness vs. someone elses.
>
> 1.
>
> *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.
>
>
I don't see this as a hurdle at all. It is explained simply by the fact
that we have separate brains. That fact alone explains why I can't remember
having your experiences, and you can't remember having mine.
>
> 1.
> -
> -
>
> *Biological Individuation:* How does this align with clearly
> separate biological organisms and brains?
>
>
The motivation for open individualism isn't apparent when dealing only with
clearly separated biological organisms and brains. The trouble comes in
when we deal with not so clear cases of not so clearly separated organisms
and brains. This is where closed individualism becomes unworkable and
either empty or open individualism are required to maintain a logically
coherent theory.
>
> 1.
> -
> -
>
> *Lack of Direct Proof:* Relies heavily on logical argument and
> interpretation rather than empirical evidence.
>
> The lack of empirical evidence exists equally for all theories of personal
identity, given that you would not feel any different in this moment
regardless of which theory was correct. Thus it can be said any argument
for any theory of personal identity rests entirely on logical or
probabilistic arguments.
>
> 1.
>
> *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.
>
That's for sure. :-)
Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250408/29e71ffa/attachment.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list