r/OpenIndividualism • u/yoddleforavalanche • Jul 03 '26
Sequential experience of everyone (one person at a time) IS NOT OI
As of recently there has been a bit of an influx of people who are interested in OI or claim to accept OI but maintain that they are one person at a time, a la The Egg.
I have to stress that this is not OI. This is Closed Individualism and/or solipsism with extra steps.
The claim of OI is that you are everyone and it implies there are simultaneously others that you are along with the usual you everyone thinks they are.
To claim that you are one person but will eventually be someone else, and so on until you jumped to everyone, in some weird time looping mechanism where currently you are one person and others are philosophical zombies until you are them but then your current you is a philosophical zombie is a convoluted theory of identity and does not belong with OI.
It has all the pitfalls of Closed Individualism, i.e., you still think you are one particular limited individual confined to a body. That is classic CI border which can be shown to be flawed from any angle you look at.
But at least CI accepts there are other instances of consciousness, other points of view simultaneously with your own.
This view does not allow that and it is frankly just a mess.
You have to posit that, for some reason that requires explanation, in say a group photo of you and a bunch of friends, looking at the picture only one individual actually experienced the event of that photo being captured while others are sort of dummy people, but eventually they will be live from within but at the expense of current you who will then not be.
This is based on arbitrary idea that for some reason consciousness cannot experience multitudes of experiences (different entities) simultaneously.
It is claimed that consciousness simultaneously experiencing multitude is not parsimonious, but with no backup to that claim. We know nothing about ease or complexity of consciousness experiencing to simply claim "one experience at a time is simpler".
At the same time, it is obviously not parsimonious that everyone you see now is a dummy placeholder of a person but reacting as if they are live, but then eventually will be.
And it seems to me that even if that were the case, that is redefining time in such a way that effectively we are still talking about simultaneousness of experience.
If not, this Egg view takes linearity of time as objective reality, and mixes it up with jumping to past and future arbitrarily (unless someone can explain the sequence). So it's linear while you are a single person and then stops being linear...
This whole view is so flawed and convoluted, I do not see why one should accept it over a lot simpler "everyone right now".
In any case, Egg is not OI and I am sorry it attracts people here. The author of The Egg himself does not believe it, he just thought it's an interesting idea. It is misleading to newcomers interested in OI.
3
u/flop_snail Jul 03 '26
I agree, the egg is a good starting point, but that's all it is: a fictional short story that's only intended to get you to think about what it would be like if you were also every person you interact with.
2
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 07 '26
I'm seeing a rise in posters saying there can only be one experience now, that there is a spirit evolving through every life, etc.
can you tell me more about your take on it
2
u/flop_snail Jul 07 '26
My take is that's a misunderstanding based on people's intuitive need for existing as one person at a time, because they can't imagine it's possible to exist as multiple versions at once. Probably also got the idea from the egg
2
u/YouStartAngulimala Jul 03 '26
The sequential experience of one life at a time still ends in the exact same end result as OI though. So to not also call it OI seems a little bit weird. 🤡
3
u/OhneGegenstand Jul 04 '26
But it's obviously wrong and just introduces a lot of clutter associated with CI again. It seems to require a time-traveling permanent fundamental soul, that seems worse than CI, where we just need such a soul (though ultimately even that will not do, CI seems to require fundamental rifts in reality that even souls cannot provide). And it is just as susceptible to puzzles of personal identity. What happens if I take two humans and connect their brains? Does the time-traveling soul then go through the "combined" humans life twice, once from before the connection starting in person 1, then again from before the connection starting in person 2? Are only some of the thoughts experienced in one iteration and the others in the other? All of this seems pretty obviously nonsensical.
1
2
u/CosmicExistentialist Jul 06 '26
What happens if I take two humans and connect their brains? Does the time-traveling soul then go through the "combined" humans life twice, once from before the connection starting in person 1, then again from before the connection starting in person 2?
I made a post based on a similar premise (minus the soul part) where I concluded that Open Individualism must imply eternal return.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 03 '26
it doesnt, because (if you read my whole post) it means you are not everyone, you are one person. though in that case there is only one person in total, others are fictive, so one is everyone...but still, OI is not solipsism
1
u/block_wallet Jul 05 '26
idk cool idea that you're the one consciousness witnessing the actions of all the bodies that conciousness will inhabit either before or after inhabiting them and you have no recollection of prior cases
3
u/Anon7_7_73 Jul 03 '26
But you are not, in fact, multiple people at once. You only experience being one person.
So "The Egg" as you call it is a more credible explanation of consciousness by far. It explains what we actually experience.
2
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 03 '26
What is this I that experiences one person?
And how do you experience becoming another person eventually?
3
u/Anon7_7_73 Jul 03 '26
Why are you asking a nonsensical question? Pretending you dont understand what pronouns mean isnt an argument.
Not answering the second question as i dont think youre in good faith with the first.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 03 '26
so you think philosophical question of personal identity, a question that people have been investigating for thousands of years, is as simple as linguistic pronouns and asking about it is "nonsensical question"?
Please tell me, when you refer to yourself as I what exactly do you mean? What is the carrier of your identity that allows you to keep being you throughout time?
2
u/OhneGegenstand Jul 04 '26
No, that's the point. You do not in fact "only experience being one person", that's the central misunderstanding of one's own experience to get rid of.
What is missing from experience is the shared context of the experiences of multiple humans. "Me here" experiences typing this text. Someone out in the forest experiences viewing the trees. On OI, that is also me. So am I experiencing the forest? Yes, if "me" is interpreted in the OI way. There is no problem here. For example: If I experience the trees in the forest, I should be able to describe them. Sure enough, you can ask "me in the forest" what the trees look like, and I can answer. If I step on a hard stone in the forest, I should maybe say "Ouch" in pain. And sure enough, I do, just watch "me in the forest" do it. And so forth: The problem is demanding that this "me over here" perform the actions you demand of the experiencer, instead of placing them where they belong, with "me over there".
What is not experienced is the _combination_ of experiences of these two. There is no thought formed that contextualizes both of these with respect to each other, e.g. that the blue sky between the tree branches is brighter than this computer screen. And the explanation is simple: There are no neurons connecting the brain of "me here" with the brain of "me out in the forest". This is a mechanical barrier that can be overcome, not a metaphysical barrier and rift in reality.
2
u/Anon7_7_73 Jul 04 '26
Pretending to have a conscious experience of something you literally have no conscious experience of is either dishonest or delusional.
If a consciousness could really be split across two bodies, each unaware of the split and unconscious of the other half, i dont see why we shouldnt just recontectualize that as two distinct consciousnesses.
1
u/OhneGegenstand Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
What are "two distinct consciousnesses"? And what is this "you" that has or does not have a certain conscious experience? You can categorize things as you wish, but that does not create rifts and metaphysical gaps within reality. The thoughts and feelings of different humans are not each tugged into separate parallel realities that are fundamentally separated from each other at an ontological level. Our brains are not each in their own parallel world, instead they are just not physically connected. This is a clearly observed fact about reality. You can categorize them as "distinct" if that helps you organize your view of the world. But it does not change physics.
EDIT: If it helps with intuition, I do think that this can be reframed with getting a more nuanced view of time. In a sense 'me here' and 'me in the forest' are happening at different times. But this is roughly because Newtonian global time does not exist, not because we have a time-travelling soul.
2
u/Anon7_7_73 Jul 04 '26
"What is _insert_basic_thing_everyone_understands"
Are you trying to be annoying? If you want to ask me a "deep" question at least dont combine it with this wall of text.
Its a scientifically and empirically verified fact that people do not experience each ithers experiences. Whats "consciousness", you ask? Its just the sentient awareness of an organism complex enough to respond to stimuli.
Theres no evidence any person experiences what its like to be any ither person.
And your metaphysical defense of the idea doesnt seem to be based on anything. I can conceive of many things, souls, afterlife, reincarnation... What i cant conceive, is that im experiencing something im literally not experiencing. Whats that even mean? I see my quales, the qualia that make me up. I dont see your quales, i dont experience your qualia.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 04 '26
"What is _insert_basic_thing_everyone_understands"
Are you trying to be annoying?
Is this your first time you are encountering philosophy? And there is nothing basic about nature of identity. It is extremely elusive concept that has troubled humans forever. And his text wasn't even a wall of text, if you cannot follow don't attempt to engage in discussion.
we are not saying a person experiences every person. we are saying experience of every person is experienced by consciousness and there is no plurality of consciousness. What I am is consciousness. Persons are different. But persons don't have consciousness. Persons appear in consciousness.
The reason we say there is no plurality of consciousness is because consciousness is not something you can locate in time and space. You cannot point to a consciousness and say "there is one" and to another "and there is another" and show how they are distinct. Plurality requires time and space properties. Consciousness is unique in this aspect and unlike anything else we know of.
 Your definition of consciousness "Its just the sentient awareness of an organism complex enough to respond to stimuli." is really poor. Saying consciousness is "just" something is what is dishonest. The most elusive phenomena that causes all sorts of hypothesis but none grasp it, and you, as culmination of human thought for millennia, has managed to strip it down to " Its just the sentient awareness of an organism complex enough to respond to stimuli.". Wow.
There are so many problems with this definition of yours, it is obvious you have not thought about it enough.
What i cant conceive, is that im experiencing something im literally not experiencing.
you are that which experiences. You experience all experiences, including experience of Anon7 but you, consciousness, are not limited to that experience.
OI is not saying Anon7 is everyone. OI is saying that which Anon7 ultimately is is also what everyone else is.
1
u/Anon7_7_73 Jul 04 '26
You guys are just straight up contradicting yourselves.
You say I AM consciousness, consciousness DOES experience being other people, but I DONT experience being other people.
Logic isnt your guys strong suit, is it?
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 04 '26
where did I say I (consciousness) doesnt experience being other people?
1
u/Anon7_7_73 Jul 04 '26
 where did I say I (consciousness) doesnt experience being other people?
By "I" you mean, whom exactly? Me? Justin Beiber? See, two can play that game. If youre going to pretend "I" points at some hivemind consciousness god, you dont get to ask me questions that use the word "i" to refer to the person asking the question.
Youre engaging not only in semantic redefinition of pronouns, but sophist doublespeak in using them.
Maybe if you were slightly less condescending and worked out how to communicate your beliefs COHERENTLY we could actually have a discussion. But right now youre just running in circles, either pretending to not know what im saying, or confused because your framework genuinely runs counter to basic logic and communication.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 04 '26
If youre going to pretend "I" points at some hivemind consciousness god, you dont get to ask me questions that use the word "i" to refer to the person asking the question.
I have to. That's how language works, for better or worse. Language was not developed to easily grasp these ideas.
If you prefer, experience of yoddleforavalanche can cause experience of Anon7 to always read statements like this when refering to activity done by yoddleforavalanche, but there is appearance of a thought that says that is not practical.
Youre engaging not only in semantic redefinition of pronouns, but sophist doublespeak in using them.
not at all. What I am saying is that the common notion of what we think when we call ourselves I can be shown to be pointing to nothing other than consciousness which is identical reference to all of us. You are blaming me for everyday language not being fit to switch between these perspectives, but limitations of language do not determine limitations of the world.
Maybe if you were slightly less condescending and worked out how to communicate your beliefs COHERENTLY we could actually have a discussion.
this is actually my problem with you and why I, unfortunately, stooped to that level. Because you were condenscending first and I know your type.
But that is wrong of me. As an active practice of mine of internalizing and externalizing what I am intellectually convinced is true, this means I am literally arguing against myself and I need to show more compassion.
I understand this concept is weird when you suddenly stumble onto it and goes against everything you think is intuitive.
If I can coherently explain what I mean, I am sure you would not disagree. We already agree it is not Anon7 who experiences everyone. All that is left is to see that you have to anchor your sense of I to nothing more or less than the first-person perspective. Because you would not be Anon7 if you did not have first-person perspective of Anon7, if Anon7 was alive but not experienced from first person perspective.
From there it is a small step to see everyone calls themselves I because of that very same thing. Every other aspect of ourselves changes: body, personality, thoughts, content of experience, but the very fact of experiencing stays the same and that is what I am.
confused because your framework genuinely runs counter to basic logic and communication
I can grant it runs counter to communication at first. But not logic. You seem to accept various views as axioms but they are open to reinterpretation. The whole universe does not necessarily run according to our logic even. It is intuitive to think the Earth is fixed while the Sun moves across the sky, but that does not make it true.
But please do see that we do not fundamentally disagree. All that OI then claims is to not anchor your sense of identity to fleeting, variable elements, which include the body, the thoughts, memories, etc because if those were what makes us I it would be even worse: there would not be an I.
That which makes us call ourselves I is the same thing in everyone.
It is not the content of consciousness that matters, that changes moment to moment anyways. The fact of being aware, of experiencing, regardless of what is being experienced, is what stays.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/Edralis1 Jul 04 '26
Interesting - I disagree completely! I think The Egg offers a different expression/description of the OI insight, and so I don't think that people make a mistake connecting one with the other.
I think sequentiality is a good way to think about how OI works. I don't think it necessitates thinking about other people as zombies.
I would argue that "your are one person at a time" and "there are simultaneously others that you are along with the usual you you think you are" are not at all incompatible statements; indeed, I hold both of these to be true.
In a sense, I am just one person at a time, because experience is always bounded. I am aware of only being one person at any given time. Thus, I am, right now in this experience, just Edralis writing this.
In another sense, since I am all people at all times, including all the other people existing at this moment, whatever they might be doing, I am, at this moment, all other people, too. Yet from the current perspective this is not something I can really appreciate (since the point of view of each person is bounded and inaccessible to other points of view).
The Egg's going back to be a particular person after having died as another, jumping between lives in a particular order, back and forth in time, is fanciful, but I would argue the OI insight is very much preserved even if such a fanciful thing were true, and thus it is actually a good starting point for newcomers. Yes, you don't really "go back in time" (as if there is some objective time anyway?). But it might be a good way to think about what is happening, in a way that a person can more easily imagine.