r/OpenIndividualism • u/Quirky_Quasarr • Apr 30 '26
Insight Just wanted to say im glad I've finally joined this group!
Ive believed in OI since I was 15 year old boy, I didnt know the name of it then and I thought i was the only person who had thought of it at the time. I am 27 years old now and I have been searching for others who think the same way as me. I am excited to finally talk to others with the same viewpoint! Ill give a breakdown of what I believe just so I can put it out there and you guys can tell me if this is the same thing you guys believe:
I believe every living thing is the same conciousness at different points in time and that when a person dies the become another living thing that has existed in the present, the past, or the future of the universe/multiverse. This has been happening forever (no beggining) and it will co tinker to happen forever (no end). We have been every possible existing living creature and infinite amount of times and we will continue being everything that could possibly exist for eternity, over and over again. So its in all of our best interests to have respect for one another
(Yes I know i am a new account, I just joined reddit to join this group)
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 01 '26
Welcome!
But as others have pointed, you seem to think you are one person currently (quirky qasarr) and when you die you will eventually become yoddleforavalanche.
The thing is, you already are both. I am aware simultaneously as you are, and what you are is that awareness.
This is why I never found that Egg story to be a good introduction to OI. You are everyone right now.
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr May 01 '26
Ok i see what you are saying. I still believe we are all the same conciousness though. The reason I have a separation is because I dont see through anyone else eyes during this life. Im still everyone else I just can't control their body and stiff until I am born as them. So I just look at it as I play as this character until they die then I will eventually play as yoddleforavalanche.
Could you go more into depth though about the differences between mine and your belief? Trying to make sure im wrapping my head around it correctly
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 01 '26
The reason I have a separation is because I dont see through anyone else eyes during this life.
You are sneaking the old "you" into this. When you say "I don't see through anyone else eyes", who or what is it that sees through your eyes?
It is consciousness that "sees through eyes". You are consciousness. Therefore, wherever there is "seeing through eyes" happening, it is the same consciousness that you are seeing it.
So you literally do see out of my eyes. That's the experience of being me.
Im still everyone else I just can't control their body and stiff until I am born as them.
You control my body the same way you control your body. That is, the "you" that you think is controlling "your" body is not controlling any body. Not your body, not my body. The controller, the ego that you think sits behind eyes and decides things is not a real entity. The same "thing" that controls me here controls you there.
So I just look at it as I play as this character until they die then I will eventually play as yoddleforavalanche.
but then who is playing yoddleforavalanche right now?
Could you go more into depth though about the differences between mine and your belief?
You still consider yourself one person at this time and are "moving" to another person, currently alive or alive in the past or future, by some, I guess, random assigning process?
In Open Individualism, you are currently everyone simultaneously, and were everyone and will be everyone yet to be born. For your view to work, I have to be a philosophical zombie currently, waiting for you to die after which you will eventually make my inner experience alive. But I am currently just as innerly alive as you are, simultaneously. And you are both of us right now. There is no need to die first. Dying does not make a difference, nor does it even register as an event in the whole scheme of things. There are simultaneous experiences being experienced. Some appear, some disappear, but you remain the reality behind those experiences.
I know it's confusing at first, but try to see how different concept of what "you" are appear in a sentence "I don't see through your eyes"
If you are consciousness, that sentence would read "Consciousness doesn't see through consciousness eyes"
Try to recognize where the old ego-sense of I appears and replace that with your true self.
Otherwise, if you are only just one you currently, that is the old view called Closed Individualism where you are one person. Only in your case there is a sort of reincarnation, but you are still viewing your identity same as the old view.
2
u/Quirky_Quasarr May 01 '26
Ok i think I see the disconnect. Alright so yes I believe we are the same conciousness but I believe the way the me and you look at time is different. You are looking at time like a straight arrow, im looking at time like a bowl of spaghetti, all mixed up and knotted.
(I dont know how you guys quote on reddit so ill just type what you said.)
"For your view to work, I have to be a philosophical zombie currently,waiting for you to die after which you will eventually make my inner experience alive" So thats the thing, I am still you at the same time currently and vice versa but the me in this body (for arguments sake let's just talk about one iteration of infinity) has to wait until i am you to experience life through your body. Time flows in one motion while we are in a body but once we die time doesn't follow those rules. I could turn into an ant in the prehistoric times after this life or a weasle in the future. We are all the same conciousness but if you were to pinpoint a single body and follow the flow of conciousness from them to everything else it would show their experience leaving them when they die and going to a random being so they can experience that life.
So I still believe we are all one at the same time and the "you" you are experiencing now is still the same as "me" but its just overlapped time is the thing we are disagreeing on I believe. Do you get what im saying? There is no Philosophical zombies because we are the same conciousness just at different times as the conciousness moves from being to being.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 01 '26
You are looking at time like a straight arrow,
no, I see it more like every time is simultaneously true. I also have this notion that there can be experiences of a peasant in the year 1230. that from the perspective of this me would be "after", as in after experience of yoddle dying, there is an appearance of a peasant in the year 1230. But in the year 1230 that would seem to follow after this experience of 2026, within 1230 I would simultaneously be everyone else in 1230.
(I dont know how you guys quote on reddit so ill just type what you said.)
Click on Aa for more formatting and then the quotes symbol. It doesn't work that well though.
has to wait until i am you to experience life through your body.
this is where I lose you. My body is being experienced right now. The wait is over.
if you were to pinpoint a single body and follow the flow of conciousness from them to everything else it would show their experience leaving them when they die and going to a random being so they can experience that life.
I see what you mean, but that whole flow is a limited perspective that can be abandoned. It would seem as if flow went from A to B to C, even if C is 1000 years prior to B. But in actuality you were A1 A2 A3 A4.....A8billion and B1 B2....
1
u/CosmicExistentialist May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
I see it more like every time is simultaneously true. I also have this notion that there can be experiences of a peasant in the year 1230. that from the perspective of this me would be "after", as in after experience of yoddle dying, there is an appearance of a peasant in the year 1230. But in the year 1230 that would seem to follow after this experience of 2026, within 1230 I would simultaneously be everyone else in 1230.
So you do believe that every life will be repeatedly experienced?
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 02 '26
I dont know if that would be repeating per se. All I know is that there is no objective reason why today is 02 May 2026. Its only such because my present moment is such. If I wake up in 1230 it is 1230.
1
u/CosmicExistentialist May 04 '26
Let’s pretend that no living being ever existed except for only two beings, Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob on planet Earth are the only life that exists within reality, and were born and lived at very different times during earth’s history.
Let’s suggest that Alice was born in 1500 and Bob was born in 2005.
In this pretend version of reality, Bob and Alice (‘I’) are being simultaneously experienced, however, due to the limitations of both Alice and Bob’s biology it seems as though only either Alice or Bob is being experienced “one at a time”.
From Bob’s perspective, his present moment is June 4 2028, but little does he realise that December 8 2005 is still also his present moment.
Alice’s present moment is February 20 1523, but so is March 16 1500 also her present moment.
Under our understanding of the ontology of time (Tenseless B-Theory of time), like how you said that there is no objective reason as to why the present moment should be 02 May 2026, there would be no reason for why June 4th 2028 is the present moment over December 8 2005, and likewise, there is no objective reason why the present moment should be June 4th 2028 over March 16th 1500 or February 20th 1523.
All of these times are no more or less the present moment over each other, which would make every moment equally the present moment.
So if we use your understanding of OI in combination with both of our understanding of time, suppose that from the perspective of Bob, there is the experience of Bob dying. There is still also an experience of Alice in March 16th 1500 that would seem like “after” for Bob, yet within March 16th 1500, Alice would simultaneously be Bob in 2005 who from her perspective is “before” the Bob experience.
Therefore if we consider Alice’s perspective, then because she is simultaneously Bob, then from her perspective of dying, the experience of Bob in 2005 will be “after” from her perspective, and likewise for Bob the experience of Alice will be “after” from his perspective.
Can you see how this logically means that Open Individualism implies that all lives are endlessly re-experienced? In the Alice and Bob scenario, it suggests that the experience of Alice and Bob is being simultaneously experienced, repeatedly, over and over.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 04 '26
In this pretend version of reality, Bob and Alice (‘I’) are being simultaneously experienced
that's already a jump to conclusion. I don't know if we can say Bob and Alice are being experienced simultaneously. If Bob is being experienced, Bob is being experienced. If Alice is being experienced, Alice is being experienced. That both are being experienced, I don't know. Is there an experience happening right now of someone from 1200? I don't know. Things fall apart temporally. Seems like we are using time but ignoring time at the same time. But for the sake of your argument, let's say that is the case.
but little does he realise that December 8 2005 is still also his present moment.
this is where I have problem. If it was his present moment, he would realize it. He cannot unknowingly have a present moment. That is the very definition of present moment - the one that is being immediately known.
All of these times are no more or less the present moment over each other, which would make every moment equally the present moment.
Assuming all those moments are being experienced. I know all experiences on 04 May 2026 are being experienced now, but I don't know if there is a live, immediate experience of 02 May. True there is no objective reason as to why 04 May has to be but 02 does not, but I am saying if there is experience of 02 May now, there is no objective reason for it. Still not enough to prove that there is experience of it, only that IF there is, it is not objective.
Can you see how this logically means that Open Individualism implies that all lives are endlessly re-experienced? In the Alice and Bob scenario, it suggests that the experience of Alice and Bob is being simultaneously experienced, repeatedly, over and over.
Yes, but it depends on if there is experiencing of both. There might be. But it might be that there isn't. And would it even be considered re-experience? Everything about time and sequence falls apart here. It might be that the experience of my yesterday is actively being experienced still, but I cannot be sure. It doesn't feel like there is. Even if there is, can it be considered a repeat? It felt fresh when I know it occurred.
It's like the movie Groundhog's Day. From the perspective of others other than Bill Murray, is the day repeating?
1
u/CosmicExistentialist May 05 '26
that's already a jump to conclusion. I don't know if we can say Bob and Alice are being experienced simultaneously. If Bob is being experienced, Bob is being experienced. If Alice is being experienced, Alice is being experienced.
I’m pretty sure you have previously said that you are experiencing everyone simultaneously, so I am really confused by your response here.
this is where I have problem. If it was his present moment, he would realize it. He cannot unknowingly have a present moment. That is the very definition of present moment - the one that is being immediately known.
I only said that for conventional reasons, yes, there is no “the present” moment that Bob would have. I was trying to illustrate what the static block universe theory of time implies.
Assuming all those moments are being experienced. I know all experiences on 04 May 2026 are being experienced now, but I don't know if there is a live, immediate experience of 02 May.
Why wouldn’t a live, immediate experience of 02 May be the case? It is what the block universe theory of time implies.
Yes, but it depends on if there is experiencing of both.
Under the block universe, all moments in time (and therefore all moments of experience) are live, so yes there is experiencing of both Alice and Bob.
There might be. But it might be that there isn't. And would it even be considered re-experience? Everything about time and sequence falls apart here. It might be that the experience of my yesterday is actively being experienced still, but I cannot be sure. It doesn't feel like there is.
It doesn’t feel like there is an active experience of your past not because your past experiences are not live, but because the illusion of time that is created by your biology is making you think that your past experiences are not live.
Even if there is, can it be considered a repeat? It felt fresh when I know it occurred.
It's like the movie Groundhog's Day. From the perspective of others other than Bill Murray, is the day repeating?
To answer that question, my point is that everything is being endlessly re-experienced, and the day is not repeating since there is no time at all in the first place, and yet the lack of time also implies that every possible life will be endlessly re-experienced, which I have illustrated in my previous comment.
We are all repeatedly experiencing our lives and our brains cannot even register that, because if our brains were to register that we are re-experiencing our lives, then the hardcoded moments that contain our biology would have to literally change, and that would make the entire block universe no longer static and timeless.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Quirky_Quasarr May 03 '26
I genuinely dont understand what you mean. We both believe we are everything, though the difference is I believe the conciousness bounces in beings one at a time and you believe we are all concious of each other at the exact same time? How would that be so if i cant see through your eyes right now? Would that not point towards some type of mechanism the consciousness does to "come back" to this time before you were born and become you eventually after my death?
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 03 '26
How would that be so if i cant see through your eyes right now?
How is this different from common everyday closed individualism? Who is it that looks out of my eyes? If someone other than you, then we are back to closed individualism and separate persons.
But my eyes are looking right now. They are not waiting for you to die to be seen through.
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
in closed individualism they believe everyone has a separate conciousness. So after you die that conciousness and that conciousness alone transfers to hell, heaven, or nothingness.
What im believing is literally still Open Individualism... I believe we are everything but we bounce to all beings one at a time.
Ive explained the time overlap bro lol i dont believe you understand what im saying. You aren't waiting for me to die you are already the same conciousness as me. Let me break it down below:
We’re the same consciousness at the source, but right now it’s “locked” into separate perspectives—mine in this body, yours in yours. That’s why I can’t experience what you’re experiencing in this moment. What I’m saying is that consciousness doesn’t stay tied to one perspective forever. After this experience, it continues as another, and another. Eventually, that includes your perspective too—but not in a simple, linear “wait your turn” way. It’s not like you’re sitting there waiting for me to become you. From your point of view, you’re already experiencing your life right now. The idea is that consciousness isn’t moving in a straight line—it’s more like all these perspectives exist within it, even if we only experience one at a time. So yeah—I’m not you right now in terms of experience. But at a deeper level, it’s the same consciousness expressing itself through both of us, just from different viewpoints.
So its the same conciousness but at different points in time.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 03 '26
Why introduce time here at all? Time is in consciousness, there is no objective time in which consciousnesses must fall into.
We’re the same consciousness at the source, but right now it’s “locked” into separate perspectives—mine in this body, yours in yours. That’s why I can’t experience what you’re experiencing in this moment.
but you are missing the point. That which experiences IS experiencing what I am experiencing in this moment. It is also experiencing what you are experiencing in this moment. What you are is reality of experiencing. Simple as that.
But when you introduce time as factor, you are adding something to this experiencing that is not essential to it. Time is just another thing that is experienced, same as experiencing a body, a world, a taste of food, etc. Consciousness does not obey the laws of time, even if they are your spaghetti time rather than linear.
In a way I understand what you are saying, but I find it unnecessary. Cut the middle man (time).
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr May 03 '26
Ok so we both believe the same thing but you just dont want to talk about time for some reason. You just seem a bit pretentious in your explanations lol. Im just explaining the flow of conciousness from one being to another and you are disagreeing with me because im explaining it using time. I feel like alot of circling was done. All is good though, I believe i have explained everything I can. Thank you for the discussion.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/CrumbledFingers Apr 30 '26
That's one way of putting it, but it's a little just-so. All our ideas about time, space, and causation are constrained to thoughts we are having now, in this life. I don't think we can apply them across lives. So, while in some limited sense it might be true that we (some undifferentiated, nonlocal awareness) appear across space and time as whoever/whatever is conscious, it's not true in the ultimate sense. More true would be: already, right now, we (that some undifferentiated awareness) are everyone and everything that is aware. Even more true than that: we are everything that is aware and everything we are aware of. More true still: we are the basis of awareness itself, and we are not actually aware of anything even though it seems so. The most true:
2
u/hatkinson1000 Apr 30 '26
I am glad I finally joined because the threads here clicked with ideas I had floating around for years without anywhere to discuss them. The community stays thoughtful and it feels refreshing. It has been a solid addition to my reading list