[ExI] Time and Personal Identity

[BillK]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 15:56, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Bill (and Gemini) for creating and sharing this review. I have
only a few comments below:
> <snip>
> -------------------------------------


Gemini 2.5 Pro AI has just released the Deep Research version, so I
repeated the same question.
It took a while and looked at over 170 websites to generate a report.
Impressive, but the question remains undecided.   :)
BillK

Question -
Which of the three alternative types of Individualism is likely to be more
correct? Empty Individualism Closed Individualism Open Individualism


Gemini 2.5 Pro AI Deep Research -

An Analysis of Empty, Closed, and Open Individualism

The question of personal identity, concerning what constitutes the self and
how it endures over time, has remained a central inquiry in philosophy for
centuries. Various theoretical frameworks have been proposed to address
this complex issue, and among them are three distinct perspectives on
individualism: Empty Individualism, Closed Individualism, and Open
Individualism. These views offer contrasting accounts of the nature of the
self and its relation to time and other beings. This report aims to analyze
these three perspectives, explore the philosophical arguments that support
them, examine the criticisms they face, and assess their relative
plausibility within contemporary philosophical thought. Understanding these
different conceptions of the self holds significant implications for
various fields, including ethics, metaphysics, and the study of
consciousness, as our definition of "self" fundamentally shapes our
understanding of moral responsibility, the nature of death, and our
connections to others. The continued philosophical debate surrounding these
forms of individualism underscores the inherent difficulty in definitively
answering the fundamental question of selfhood.1

Closed Individualism represents the most prevalent and intuitively
appealing view of personal identity. It posits that each individual is a
distinct and numerically identical entity that persists throughout their
lifespan, commencing at birth and concluding at death.4 This perspective
asserts that clear boundaries exist, delineating one person from another in
both spatial and temporal dimensions.8 Its alignment with everyday
experience and our immediate sense of self contributes significantly to its
widespread acceptance.4 Furthermore, Closed Individualism can accommodate
beliefs in a soul or other forms of enduring personal essence that underpin
this continuous identity.6 However, the reliance of Closed Individualism on
intuition, while providing an initial sense of clarity, might be considered
a potential limitation in the context of rigorous philosophical analysis.
Intuitive beliefs can sometimes be misleading or heavily influenced by
cultural norms and individual biases.4 Moreover, the very notion of a
"discrete being" raises fundamental questions about the nature of these
boundaries – whether they are purely physical, psychological, or a
combination thereof – and how this distinctness is maintained over time
despite the continuous changes that occur within an individual's physical
and mental constitution.8

In stark contrast to Closed Individualism, Empty Individualism proposes a
far more radical conception of the self. According to this view, a person
exists merely as a transient "time-slice" or "moment of experience".2 Each
fleeting moment of consciousness is considered to constitute a separate and
distinct individual, with no enduring self that persists from one moment to
the next.4 In essence, with each passing instant, a new "self" is brought
into existence and immediately ceases to be.4 The feeling of continuity
that we typically experience is, from this perspective, regarded as an
illusion, possibly generated by the mechanisms of memory that create a
sense of a connected past.5 This viewpoint has been associated with
thinkers such as Buddha, David Hume, and Derek Parfit, who have, in
different ways, questioned the existence of a substantial and enduring
self.3 Empty Individualism presents a significant departure from our
intuitive understanding of self and consequently raises profound questions
concerning personal responsibility, the motivation for future-oriented
actions, and the fundamental nature of our experiences.14 The connection of
Empty Individualism to philosophical traditions like Buddhism and Hume's
skepticism, which emphasize the impermanence of all phenomena and the
absence of a fixed, underlying self, provides crucial context for
understanding its core tenets.11

Open Individualism offers yet another distinct perspective, proposing that
there is only one numerically identical subject of experience, encompassing
everyone across all of time – past, present, and future.2 The feeling of
separate and distinct individual identities is considered to be an
illusion, a product of our limited perspective.2 This view suggests the
existence of a single, universal consciousness or an "omni-person" that
manifests in various individual "physiological-psychological bundles".2
Open Individualism finds resonance with philosophical traditions such as
Advaita Vedanta, which emphasizes the ultimate unity of all reality.2 The
term "Open Individualism" was coined by philosopher Daniel Kolak.2 This
perspective carries significant ethical weight, potentially fostering
greater empathy and compassion by blurring the perceived boundaries between
oneself and others.2 The connection to Eastern spiritual thought suggests a
potential intersection between philosophical inquiry and certain forms of
contemplative or mystical experiences, as exemplified by the phrase "Tat
tvam asi" meaning "You are that".2 A recurring analogy used to illustrate
Open Individualism is that of a single actor embodying numerous characters,
each deeply immersed in their role yet fundamentally the same underlying
individual.8

Each of these three views on individualism is supported by various
philosophical arguments. Empty Individualism finds support in the
observation of the constant flux and change inherent in our physical and
mental states, which challenges the notion of a stable, enduring self.4 The
difficulty in identifying a permanent "core" of personal identity further
bolsters this perspective.16 It aligns with the idea that our sense of self
might be a constructed narrative or an illusion created by the brain's
processes.13 The "pigeon hole theory" proposed by Fred Hoyle offers an
intriguing analogy, suggesting that each moment in time is a pre-existing
slot occupied by a transient consciousness.2 Intuitively, an understanding
of the impermanent nature of all things, without necessarily grasping the
concept of "no-self," can lead one to favor Empty Individualism.4 This view
can also provide an explanation for the feeling of detachment or
unfamiliarity we sometimes experience towards our past selves.14
Furthermore, analogies drawn from technological advancements and the
discrete nature of mathematics can be seen as supporting the idea of
reality being composed of momentary, distinct units.14

Closed Individualism, despite facing philosophical challenges, is supported
by the strong intuitive feeling of being a single, continuous individual
throughout our lives.4 This view also appears pragmatically necessary for
the functioning of social structures, including our systems of moral
responsibility and law, which rely on the concept of enduring
individuals.36 The subjective experience of distinctness and separation
from other individuals provides a powerful argument in its favor.10 The
close correlation between brain activity and conscious experience suggests
a strong link between personal identity and a specific physical organism.36
Our natural language and conceptual frameworks for understanding "subject"
and "individual" are deeply embedded with the assumption of separate,
enduring selves.36 From an evolutionary perspective, Closed Individualism
might have offered a selective advantage by fostering a balance between
cooperation within a defined group and competition with others.5

Open Individualism is argued for on several grounds. It potentially offers
a solution to the hard problem of consciousness by proposing a single,
fundamental reality of experience that underlies all seemingly separate
conscious beings.5 This view aligns with interpretations of ancient wisdom
traditions like Advaita Vedanta and certain Buddhist concepts that
emphasize unity and the illusory nature of the individual self.2 It
provides a framework for understanding the deep interconnectedness of all
conscious life and carries significant implications for the development of
a universal ethic grounded in compassion.2 The idea that the universe
functions as a unified system where identity arises from relational context
also lends support to this view.35 Some proponents suggest that a
physicalist understanding of the universe might even imply the continuity
of experience beyond individual death, as there is ultimately no separate
entity to cease existing.2 Open Individualism directly challenges the
seemingly arbitrary nature of the boundaries we typically perceive between
individuals.2 From this perspective, concepts like injustice and inequality
can be re-evaluated as ultimately forms of self-harm within a unified
consciousness.11

Despite the arguments in their favor, each of these views also faces
significant philosophical criticisms. Empty Individualism struggles with
the counter-intuitive nature of denying the strong subjective feeling of
personal continuity over time.4 If each moment constitutes a new
individual, it becomes difficult to explain our experience of change and
the sense of a unified narrative.13 The implications for moral
responsibility and our concern for the future become problematic if there
is no enduring self to be held accountable or to benefit from our current
actions.14 The meaningfulness of long-term personal projects and
relationships that extend beyond the present moment is also called into
question.17 Some critics argue that Empty Individualism leads to a
pessimistic view of survival, suggesting that we effectively cease to exist
from one moment to the next 38, and that it fails to account for meaningful
connections beyond the individual moment.35 Furthermore, from an
evolutionary standpoint, the lack of stable individual entities might
hinder the development of complex coordination and cooperation.5

Closed Individualism, while aligning with our immediate intuitions,
encounters difficulties in providing a clear and consistent metaphysical
foundation for personal identity that extends beyond this intuitive
appeal.5 Thought experiments involving identity transfer, duplication, or
the splitting of consciousness raise significant challenges to the notion
of a singular, continuous self.5 The persistent philosophical problem of
change – how an individual can remain the "same" despite undergoing
constant physical and psychological transformations – remains a key point
of contention.12 Some argue that advancements in modern physics and
neuroscience suggest that the idea of truly discrete and independent
individuals might be an oversimplification of a more interconnected
reality.35 Defining the precise boundaries of what constitutes an
"individual" also presents a challenge, particularly when considering the
continuous exchange of matter and energy between an organism and its
environment.16

Open Individualism, perhaps the most radical of the three views, faces the
significant hurdle of being highly counter-intuitive, directly
contradicting our deeply ingrained subjective experience of being a
distinct and separate individual.5 The "vertiginous question" of why we
experience the world from this particular perspective and not another
remains a profound mystery for this view.2 Critics often argue that Open
Individualism necessitates the adoption of additional metaphysical
assumptions, such as the existence of a universal consciousness, which may
lack independent support.27 Reconciling the concept of a single, shared
subject with our everyday interactions and our strong sense of personal
agency also presents practical difficulties.5 The idea of a unified
consciousness might also lead to logical paradoxes or contradictions,
particularly when considering conflicting desires or beliefs across
different individuals.36 From an evolutionary perspective, a natural
inclination to cooperate with absolutely everything might be
disadvantageous in a world where defection is possible.5 Finally, some
critics view Open Individualism as leaning towards spiritualism rather than
being grounded in scientific evidence.24

To better understand the relative standing of these three views, it is
helpful to compare their core tenets. Closed Individualism posits a
distinct, enduring self that persists continuously throughout a single
lifespan, with clear boundaries separating individuals, aligning strongly
with common sense. Empty Individualism, conversely, proposes a momentary
existence as a "time-slice," with identity lasting only for the present
moment and illusory boundaries across time, making it counter-intuitive.
Open Individualism suggests one universal consciousness experiencing all of
time, with illusory boundaries between individuals and persistence that is
eternal and encompassing, which is highly counter-intuitive.

Feature           Closed Individualism                                Empty
Individualism                               Open Individualism
Core Idea    Distinct, enduring self from birth to death.   Momentary
existence as a "time-slice."  One universal consciousness experiencing all.
Persistence Continuous throughout lifespan.                 Only for the
present moment.                  Eternal and encompassing all time.
Boundaries  Clear and distinct between individuals.      No enduring
identity across moments.    Illusory boundaries between individuals.
Common Sense   Aligns strongly.
Counter-intuitive.                                     Highly
counter-intuitive.


While Closed Individualism remains the most widely held view, primarily due
to its intuitive appeal, there is a growing trend within philosophy to
explore Empty Individualism and Open Individualism as responses to the
perceived limitations of the traditional view.10 Currently, there is no
broad philosophical consensus on which of these perspectives is most likely
to be correct, and the debate continues to evolve.14 Open Individualism,
despite its intriguing implications, especially in the realm of ethics,
faces significant skepticism due to its highly counter-intuitive nature and
its reliance on substantial metaphysical commitments.36 Empty
Individualism, while also challenging common sense, has gained considerable
traction as a serious alternative, drawing support from philosophical
traditions that emphasize impermanence and the critique of a substantial
self.3 It is important to note that the value of these frameworks might not
solely lie in their absolute "correctness" but also in their usefulness for
addressing specific philosophical problems and expanding our understanding
of consciousness and identity.5

In conclusion, Empty Individualism, Closed Individualism, and Open
Individualism offer distinct and contrasting perspectives on the enduring
philosophical problem of personal identity. While Closed Individualism
aligns with our everyday intuitions and remains the most widely accepted
view, it faces significant challenges from philosophical thought
experiments and ongoing debates about the nature of consciousness and
persistence. Both Empty Individualism and Open Individualism present
compelling alternative frameworks that challenge the traditional view.
Empty Individualism, with its emphasis on impermanence and the lack of a
substantial self, appears to have garnered increasing attention and
acceptance within the philosophical community as a viable alternative to
Closed Individualism.11 Open Individualism, while facing greater hurdles in
terms of intuitive plausibility, remains a significant and
thought-provoking perspective, particularly for its implications in ethics
and its potential connection to broader understandings of consciousness.11
The ongoing philosophical discourse reflects the complex and evolving
nature of our understanding of the self, with no single view currently
holding definitive sway.
---------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250409/94448bd9/attachment-0001.htm>