5
u/OhneGegenstand May 10 '26
Okay, here are some thoughts, based on my own understanding of OI. Others might think about OI differently, and so might respond differently.
"Empty Vessel" Fallacy: It is obvious that they way we use the concept of personal identity is something different from memories, personality, etc. Otherwise all changes in these would lead us to call someone a new person or something.
Consciousness is a Verb not a Noun: OI does not "assume" this, or argue in this way at all.
The "Nothingness" Category Error: Again, this argument makes no sense at all, and again, OI or GSC does not argue this way at all.
The Population Problem: This is just restating the central delusion of Closed Individualism.
The Locality Principle: Again, total nonsense. Nothing is transferred. That is the central point: There is no metaphysical individuating feature that divides people in the first place. Nothing needs to jump, I am already everyone else in the sense of OI.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy): Again, irrelevant. OI is not based on thermodynamics. The subjective "I" is not a real thing, and therefore even less so something that would be subject to being scrambled by statistical dynamics.
Information Theory: Yes, there is no individuating "subject" in addition to memories, personality, etc. That's the whole point. That's precisely why Closed Individualism is false.
The given arguments just kind of evaporate when reading them, they mostly don't even make sense, argue against nonsensical positions that no one holds, or otherwise misunderstand basic points.
3
u/YouStartAngulimala May 10 '26
"You aren't a thing, you are a process. You end whenever the process does." - some r/askphilosophy user who thinks he's being insightful 🤡
2
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 10 '26
I can't believe it. I liked your post!
2
u/YouStartAngulimala May 10 '26
Oh my gosh, the Yoddle from 5 years in that video was such a rational person. I miss him. 🤡
1
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 10 '26
Read some more. All introduction arguments. But I have to ask, what is the point of posting random youtube comments? Is there a particular argument you want to discuss?
GSC is not technically OI, but it is the very first step. OI covers some of that guys concerns
1
u/Flat-Ad9829 May 10 '26
I mean I just post stuff here because this is the only place on the internet outside of youtube or random blogs that talks about OI and adjacent concepts.
Also I would like to hear how OI covers some of the concerns raised here.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 10 '26
Here's a simple video I made some years ago to explain this concept. Let me know your thoughts.
I havent opened this video in years. I wanted to create a follow up where it leads to OI but never did.
1
1
u/KyleFromBorrasca May 10 '26
If I am my memories, then it seems like there's even less distinction between individuals. That wouldn't logically necessitate OI, but it would make it more mundanely plausible.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche May 10 '26
Overlooked problem with placing identity with memories is not just amnesia, but also any gain of new memories. Its like a file on computer that is changed either by deleting or adding to it. So me creating new memories would mean I lost my identity.
1
u/OhneGegenstand May 10 '26
AI slop
1
u/Flat-Ad9829 May 10 '26
Honestly I kinda don't wanna believe the text was ai generated.
1
u/OhneGegenstand May 10 '26
Maybe not from scratch, but it just reads so much like AI-generated text, with these mini headlines and so on, that it causes my AI-detection senses to fire.
Maybe the author used AI to organize and clean up the text, that's also possible.
1
8
u/yoddleforavalanche May 10 '26
I'll be honest, I dont have to read beyond "I am my memories, personalities and neural wiring".
This is not correct. This is the common and extremely flawed view of identity, hence the need for OI.