<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 6:46 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<br>
<div>On 16/01/2024 21:31, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 2:23 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div> <div>On 15/01/2024 04:40, Jason Resch wrote:
</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>Open Individualism argues that, at a fundamental level, all conscious
beings share a common underlying consciousness or personhood.</pre></blockquote>
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).
</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">It means you can/will become those mother conscious perspectives.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">This provides a justification for faith in surviving mind uploading or brain surgery.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">It means you will survive so long as life survives.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">It compelled us to not burden future generations with degraded
environments or large debts as we will experience those perspectives
too.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">It motivates helping others, for their pain is (or will be) your pain.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">It provides a rational justification for justice, karma, and loving one's neighbor.</div>
<div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
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.
</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
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.
</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">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."</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">How would you counter such reasoning?</div></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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!").<br>
<br>
From what I can see, none of what you claim about Open Individualism
is based on scientific principles, </div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There's nothing mystical about it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
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?<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's all conscious beings.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
And what basis is there for answering any of these questions?</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So it is the converse: it is the conventional view of personal identity that is the closest to this metaphysical/religious assumptions.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason</div><div dir="auto"></div></div>