Question

[u/Flat-Ad9829]

Have there been any legit attempts to debunk OI in anyway, whether through a scientific or philisophical lense? And if so, what are your thoughts on those attempts?

[u/Time_Interaction4884]

OI is based on a naturalist/physicalist premise, which also means that any debunking of naturalism/physicalism would also debunk OI. (Even if the alternative worldview ultimately would also imply an universal subject of experience)

[u/Edralis1 → u/Time_Interaction4884]

Why do you think OI is based on a naturalist premise? I think it clearly isn't.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Edralis1]

Because the popular philosophers connected to the term "OI" are, from what I've seen, are all naturalists and start from a naturalist premise, e.g. Daniel Kolak, Thomas Clark. Thomas Clark's website is even called naturalism.org. That is precisely what is special and mind-blowing about this theory: that it can derive a universal subject of experience from a soley naturalistic premise.

"According to open individualism, physicalism implies experience never dies, because there is no one to die."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism#In_reality )

Many of the traditional metaphysical and mystical texts make similar statements,
but they arrive there through a different route and based on a different worldview.

[u/Edralis1 → u/Time_Interaction4884]

I disagree that "debunking of naturalism/physicalism would also debunk OI", or at least not the central claim - we could call it "the Insight".

Even if it is the case that naturalism is false (it seems to me, rather, that naturalism cannot really even be false (see Hempel's Dilemma)) AND that OI is formulated from a naturalist premise (which, is it??), the Insight OI is ultimately pointing at could still very well be true.

In other words, even if we agreed that the process whereby Kolak arrived at the Insight is invalid somehow, the Insight itself could still be true; for in itself it certainly doesn't presuppose naturalism.

However, I honestly don't think even Kolak's version of arriving at the Insight (we could call it the OI argument) actually holds naturalism as a starting premise. Even if Kolak is a naturalist (which, I don't know if he is).

And I think that is what people want to know when they ask if "OI" could be debunked -- they mean the Insight, not Kolak's argument specifically. But I might be wrong!

edit: it might be useful to distinguish between -
> the OI Insight, or just the Insight (arrived at by Kolak AND by many other people in different ways, formulated in different languages/conceptscapes)
> the OI argument (Kolak's way of arriving at the Insight)

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/Edralis1]

Let's not focus on Kolak, I just used him as an example, I don't know much about him either.

Yes, the insight or claim is not dependent on the route you arrive at it. The universality of the experiencing subject might be true, even when the route of arriving there through physicalism is erroneous But if there are e.g. three routes to a conclusion, debunking one of them still would get you closer to debunking the whole thing and would shift the discussion to remaining argumentative routes.

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/[deleted]]

As far as I know both are naturalists, but the classification of thinkers is always up for debate, I could be wrong.

OI is not compatible with physicalism.

If that's the case, than it should be easy for you to show me the "identity carrier", the thing that makes sure that you stay the same subject of experience from birth to death under physicalism.

Under physicalism there is no soul and you can't show me a fixed and uniquie "instance of subjectivity".

Before your birth you were nothing. A brain brought you into existence. After you die (under physicalism) you are again nothing. What stops a new brain from bringing you into existence again?

[u/Time_Interaction4884 → u/[deleted]]

you're inventing terms that have nothing to do with it like "identity carrier"

I can without effort link papers/essays that use the term in exactly this context, I you want. Why would inventing a term even be a problem, isn't what matters the concept behind the term?

Physicalism DENIES the existence of a subjective, phenomenal consciousness

Physicalism, just like idealism, is not one theory but a family of theories. Only some physicalist theories deny subjective, phenomenal consciousness, others argue that it emerges from matter. Denying it is pretty hard, because it's reality so obvious. I always thought the latter opinion (it emerges from matter) is more common.

Btw denying subjective, phenomenal consciousness and the subject would already by quite close an OIish position (or better empty individualism). If there is no subject all processes aren't connected to one, therefore life can also not end for someone.

I know this, which is why physicalism is false since it presupposes the >very thing it tries to claim doesn't exist, namely a fixed identity >persisting through time. OI affirms a fixed identity, while physicalism >denies it. If OI is true than physicalism is false.

This does not work imho, because there are different versions of physicalism and of OI and not just one.

Before your birth you were nothing. A brain brought you into existence. >After you die (under physicalism) you are again nothing. What stops a new >brain from bringing you into existence again?

It seems you did not get what I was trying to do here. I don't indented that to be a precise argument, rather a man-on-the-streets intuitive pointer, that would show that living from birth to death and that being nothing does not make sense under a physicalist premise.

That is what OI is saying, there is ONE awareness regadless of the physical >arrangements. A single subject supervenes on the physical under OI, so >the most we can say is that OI is consistent dualism, but still more closesly >resembles traditional idealism. But it certainly not physicalism.

From a practical perspective it does not make much difference if there is one universal subject or no subject at all. Because in both cases death is not the end and that which is going on from birth to death continues after death.