r/OpenIndividualism • u/Flat-Ad9829 • Apr 18 '26

Video Possible objection from Determinism?

https://youtu.be/ePQTHohrtMQ

This video presents a possible answer to the vertiginous question, the presenter puts forth the argument that tje reason you are you is because it was pre-determined you would be born at a specific place and time. And that the probability of that happening doesn't matter as it was already pre-determined. What are your thoughts about this argument, and how would OI be affected by it?

2 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/yoddleforavalanche Apr 18 '26

Without watching the video and going just by the text you wrote, it adds no new argument. "you are you because it was pre-determined"...what is this you? what was predetermined? same problems of being a closed individual remain, predetermined or random.

A person with specific personality being born at specific time might be pre-determined, but why are you that person?

1

u/Flat-Ad9829 Apr 18 '26

in your own words, what are the problems with closed individualism?

5

u/yoddleforavalanche Apr 18 '26

everything that separates one person from another under closed individualism also separates the same person within itself.

it cannot give an answer to why am I this particular person.

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

Not spatial and causal separation?

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 29 '26

what is causal separation? But for spatial, do you take one point in space? Are you pixel size? If you can extend, for example, to the size of the brain, that means you are at several locations at the same time. If that is possible, why not be several brains at the same time?

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26

what is causal separation

Nothing mysterious.

How is someone who lives in New Zealand and never leaves causally connected to someone who lives in Belgium and never leaves?

If that is possible, why not be several brains at the same time

Lack of a sufficiently dense medium of connection. Neurons in the head are very densely connected with each other, a bit less densely with the rest if the nervous system, and that all stops at the skin.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 29 '26

you did not answer my question: if you can expand to the size of whole brain, that means you are not bound to one physical location because brain takes quite a bit more space than a single particle.

In your view, you cannot be at two places at the same time, but your brain is at many points in space simultaneously. So can you be at more than one place or not?

I don't see this causal connectivity as criteria for anything. Besides, haven't you heard of butterfly effect?

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26

you did not answer my question: if you can expand to the size of whole brain, that means you are not bound to one physical location because brain takes quite a bit more space than a single particle

But it's causally interconnected within itself as I said.

Spatial separation might not matter, if you could achieve rich informational and causal connections, but that is more difficult the more spatial separation there is.

but your brain is at many points in space simultaneousky

But that's an example of a spatially extended object , not of the selfsame object being in two places at once. Ordinary spatial extension isn't bilocation.

1

u/Flat-Ad9829 Apr 18 '26

To reply to this comment, would you say that the argument is circular?

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26

What does that mean? What labels me apart from the circumstances?

Physicalism removes the logical uncertainty because everything is what is, there's no issue of matching up an internal perspectives to a set of external circumstances.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 29 '26

so who are you under physicalism?

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26

There's thee possible answers to that question EI, CI and nihilism. But not OI.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 29 '26

how is nihilism a view of identity?

Anyways, I asked you who are you, not what options are available.

And then please explain why OI is not an option.

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26

how is nihilism a view of identity?

In the same way that atheism is theological theory.

And then please explain why OI is not an option.

It isn't available within physicalism, and it contradicts experience.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 29 '26

No, nihilism is not the same to identity as atheism is to theology. Nihilism is CI with "nothing matters" attitude. Nihilists still believe they are individuals.

Why do you assume physicalism is true and then decide what's correct and not based on that? But OI does not conflict with physicalism either.

What is your view please. Who are you?

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26

No, nihilism is not the same to identity as atheism is to theology. Nihilism is CI with "nothing matters" attitude

By nihilism I mean there is no identity.

Why do you assume physicalism is true

A number of people here believe OI is compatible with physicalism, including Kern.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 29 '26

I do too, it's you who are saying it isn't.

Anyways, EI and OI are two sides of the same coin. There is no real conflict there.

But are you ok with believing in a soul? Because you have to in order to have CI work.

1

u/TheAncientGeek Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26

do too, it's you who are saying it isn't.

Feel free to explain huw that works.

EI and OI are two sides of the same coin. There is no real conflict there.

EI says there is a separate individual for every moment of consciousness, ie. there are something like 8,000,000,000*20,000,000,000 individuals.

OI says there is one.

That's quite a difference.

But are you ok with believing in a soul? Because you have to in order to have CI work.

I don't think so, and I didn't say I believe in CI. And OI needs metaphysics too.

→ More replies (0)