[ExI] Fwd: Open Individualism

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 2:23 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> On 15/01/2024 04:40, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Open Individualism argues that, at a fundamental level, all conscious
>
> beings share a common underlying consciousness or personhood.
>
>
> 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).
>

It means you can/will become those mother conscious perspectives.

This provides a justification for faith in surviving mind uploading or
brain surgery.

It means you will survive so long as life survives.

It compelled us to not burden future generations with degraded environments
or large debts as we will experience those perspectives too.

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.

It motivates helping others, for their pain is (or will be) your pain.

It provides a rational justification for justice, karma, and loving one's
neighbor.



> 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.
>

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.


> 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.
>

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."

How would you counter such reasoning?

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240116/a64c727a/attachment.htm>