[ExI] Open Individualism

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 3:30 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 12:14 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 2:29 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:17 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If open individualism is not true, the chance of you being born and
>>>> alive as you is 1 in 200,000,000,
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a logical fallacy.  You were born and alive as you, therefore,
>>> the chance of you having been born and alive is 1 in 1.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just because someone has won the lottery does not mean it was likely that
>> they would have won it.
>>
>
> You are inherently talking about those who have won the lottery (of
> existence), and is making decisions based on having done so.
>
> Consider the analogous situation of the fine tuning of the universe to
>> support life. Despite that the anthropic principle guarantees we can only
>> think about this from a life friendly universe, we can still marvel at the
>> improbability that any given universe would have all the right properties
>> to allow life.
>>
>
> And yet, that improbability does not mean that we have to or should act as
> if our near future existence is anywhere near as unlikely as our origin was.
>
>
>> This is another logical fallacy.  There exist more than two options.
>>>
>>
>> There are three, and together they are comprehensive (at least one must
>> be true):
>>
>> 1. Empty individualism: individuating borders are total
>> 2. Closed individualism: there are individuating borders, but they are
>> not total
>> 3. Open individualism: there are no individuating borders
>>
>
> You have just redefined "empty individualism" to try to get around
> the objections raised.
>
> Your earlier definition was, "we are each only and ever a single thought
> moment".  In contrast, this definition says nothing about moments, but
> instead says that anything where individuating borders are total is empty
> individualism.  My objection to your earlier definition was about limiting
> what a person is to a single moment, so this change is quite significant.
>

If borders are total then any deviation (i.e. any form of non-equality)
constitutes a separate person. Which means even the changes of a person
from second to second would constitute separate persons. I am sorry this
was not clear to you and led you to accuse me of arguing in bad faith.
Perhaps you should be more generous in your assumptions when interacting
with others online.

Jason


> This makes it appear as if you are arguing in bad faith, perhaps because
> you do not have a firm grasp of what you are trying to debate - which
> reduces everything you are saying to the ill-considered sayings of the
> confused, which means that we should ignore you and we can not help you
> until you help yourself.
>



_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240104/578e6c4a/attachment-0001.htm>