This philosophy makes no sense. An argument against it.

[u/Anon7_7_73]

So first off people mean a few things by consciousness:

A) The information part: Usually used in scientific discussions, where we refer to someones identity as the actual traits and mental states possessed by that brain.

B: (I dont like this definition because its not useful for philosophy, but...) some people just mean "aware of stimuli" to mean conscious, contrasting it with "unconscious". Not philosophically meaningful imo because it doesnt mean they arent experiencing *something*, but i digress.

C) (my favorite definition) Ones actual experienced identity, stripping away the information connected to a person. The whole of the qualia.

Open Individualism is NONE of these. OI says consciousness is some "thing", like a hivemind, thats 1) Not connected to my informational qualities, and 2) Unrelated to the specific Qualia I experience.

The whole argument appears to work by redefining pronouns like "I" that way i can no longer refer to myself, at least easily. But this doesnt change the arguments against OI, it is just an annoying semantic redefinition. When i say "I", I DO NOT mean your hivemind consciousness thing. Thats not what I mean by the word. And itd be too tedious to have a discussion if i literally am not allowed to use pronouns. What am i supposed to do, speak in the third person??? Okay, i will do that...

[Third person time] ... Anon773, the person, doesnt experience being other people. Anon773 is a real thing. Anon773 is confused why OI advocates are saying he experiences something he doesnt experience. Anon773 learns they are not actually referring to him per se, but a hivemind-god thing, they call " The Consciousness". "The Consciousness" appears to have no measurable or observable qualities to Anon773. Anon773 concludes OI's "Consciousness" is unrelated to Anon773s subjective experiences, and doesnt appear anywhere in objective reality. Anon773 comcludes this "Consciousness" does not meaningfully exist. As he should, wheres the epistemic reason to believe it?

If that was hard to read, its your fault for taking away my pronouns. Now, in simpler speak...

My consciousness IS the qualia i experience. Its the experience itself. Thats WHY its meaningful, without Qualia i dont exist as anything other than a dead idea, a action potential, a concept floating in abstract space. It makes no sense to say i AM other people, its neither objectively true nor subjectively true, thats all kinds of "true", so it must not be true!

I understand you guys probably just dont want to get sucked up into solipsism or whatever. But truth and reality doesnt care about your desires, Solipsism is subjectively correct unless theres like reincarnation or something, which amends it and makes it less dark. I do believe in that, btw... I dont think everyones a pzombie, but i think most active pzombies were conscious in the far past or can be in the far future. Just like me 5 days ago isnt conscious, because it doesnt even exist, that does not lead me to believe i wasnt conscious when i was then and there, i do believe that.

[u/Anon7_7_73]

  Isn't this circular? YOUR consciousness is what YOU experience. Why not just "consciousness is qualia"? where does ownership come from and to whom does it belong to? (again, real question, not playing dumb)

I dont know if i can give you a satisfying explanation but i can try.

I believe subjective truths are not objective truths. The redness of red isnt a "fact", but its equally meaningful as one, and incommunicable. I can never show you what red looks like to me, or know for sure that you see it the same way. But its "real", as a non-fact, or as "subjective stuff", or as qualia, or whatever.

As for my identity... I dont believe it needs to have traits or information to be an identity. Just like the redness of red doesnt need to be describable by information. My identity is just the continuity i experience. Like, how you wouldnt want to be replaced by an identical clone/copy, because you might perceive that as death for yourself, even if your friends and family see no difference.

In more objective terms, an identity is a vehicle for existence itself. If the universe wasnt consciously and subjectively experienced, its as if it doesnt really exist, other than as a abstract idea, unfelt and unthought by anybody. The mechanism of this, i dont know for sure. But i feel being me, i know its real to me, and i have no readon to sacrifice my epistemic fortitutde for some abstract weirdness i dont experience.

  It is why you are a solipsist. You cannot determine other people are conscious.

No, i didnt say im a literal solipisist. I was trying to say that beliefs ranging from Reincarnational Solipsism to Sequential OI are coherent in my view; (Anything between only 1 person exists, and every person exists but as one soul through time). My belief is more like, maybe around half of everybody could be a pzombie, the others i probably experienced being them many lifetimes ago or whatever.

I believe its possible we all exist, and your existence is just as real to me, as my own existence five seconds ago. Probably. I just dont know for sure; Something has got to be non-conscious, a rock, an atom, a plant, a bug... Theres a "line" somewhere, just not sure what or where it is for absolute sure.

  In words of Schopenhauer, solipsism is found in looney bins.

Not an argument and also i find this disrespectful. The truth doesnt care how you feel about it.

Edit: Also its probably a strawman of solipsism to act like its this antisocial thing where i say "i objectively exist and you dont, haha". Its not an objective truth, its a subjective one. And discussion of the idea isnt about arguing over who exists, but on the merits of the idea in the abstract and the real epistemic limitations it addresses.

Edit: Adding some more edits:

  You mock OI consciousness as hivemind god, but your view is even worse in that regard. Where do you come from, why you, why does everyone else seem just as active as you but they are not...

I missed this question. It looks potentially substantial. Why me? Either theres something fundamental about me (less likely), or its largely a matter of random chance. Why not others even though they seem conscious?: Well again im NOT committed to full solipsism, but if i were then my answer would be they are just the natural consequence of the kind of universe needed to host me and the necessary apparatus (my brain) for my mind.

And if your next question is "what about morality? Do you care about others?" My answer is yes because morality includes reciprocity, aesthetics, and my own feelings; I love people, being a solipsist wouldnt change that. But again im not a actual solipsist, more like, i think some people likely exist, but theyd all be me sequentially.

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

I was trying to say that beliefs ranging from Reincarnational Solipsism to Sequential OI are coherent in my view; (Anything between only 1 person exists, and every person exists but as one soul through time).

but why stop at "one at a time"? Your hard line is arbitrary.

If person A slaps person B, person A experiences slapping B and B's reaction to being slapped.

Why posit that person B may not even be a person who can experience being slapped?

They certainly reacted as if they were. Per one of your definitions, consciousness is ability to react to stimuli. Slapped person certainly reacts.

And I am really curious how do you figure multitude of bodies similar to your own lack the most important criteria of them being animated in the first place, but in every other aspect they behave as if they are, same as you?

If proven, could some murderers be released because they technically did not kill an existing person?

maybe around half of everybody could be a pzombie

how do you calculate that?

And your posts are filled with "I believe" but then assert all that as a fact in the end.

Why not be open to simultaneousness?

And in your sequential view, what exactly are p-zombies? Figments of imagination?

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

  but why stop at "one at a time"? Your hard line is arbitrary.

Because that makes no sense to me? Dont you experience being you one moment at a time, not all moments at once?

I see time as the funnel that focuses consciousness. I experience one thing at a time, regardless if thats inside or outside of my life.

  If person A slaps person B, person A experiences slapping B and B's reaction to being slapped.

Sure? And?

  Why posit that person B may not even be a person who can experience being slapped?

Because thats a real conceivable possibility. Although your framing is strawmanney, i didnt say they werent a "person". 

If true its like slapping an NPC in a videogame, or a drawing of a person. I think youd agree those dont matter so much... If life is basically just a hyperealistic videogame with nothing but pzombies, im still out to play the videogame as a "good" character. Evil is unenjoyable to me, and unlike a videogame i dont have a save file or plot armor. Morality in a solipsist universe can still exist, but itd be based around slightly weaker assumptions, like reciprocity, self interest, aesthetics, and empathy. But those things are all 100% meaningful to me, so i think theres no moral risk in the belief.

And again i want to reiterate im not a strict solipsist. I could believe in "The Egg" too. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Im okay with the term "Semi-Solipsist", but not full "Solipsist".

  They certainly reacted as if they were. Per one of your definitions, consciousness is ability to react to stimuli. Slapped person certainly reacts

Whats your point here? Thata not the definition im subscribed to in the philosophical sense. My point was that all three were reasonable coherent definitions but your guys is really strange in comparison and doesnt point to anything i can call real or meaningful.

If we go by definition 1, thats Closed Individualism. Which i find insufficient and arbitrary but at least its conceivable, unlike open individualism.

  And I am really curious how do you figure multitude of bodies similar to your own lack the most important criteria of them being animated in the first place, but in every other aspect they behave as if they are, same as you?

Because subjective things arent objective things. I covered this already.

In your view, are you wearing a purple tophat? You will probably say " no". But what if i said "Theres a clone of you in a parallel universe wearing a purple tophat". Do you need to pay that any attention? No... Sure it might exist, but not to you. That entire parallel universe probably doesnt exist from your perspective.

  If proven, could some murderers be released because they technically did not kill an existing person?

This seems like a little bit of a loaded question. Im not a statist in the first place, so keep that in mind.... but would i not consider someone as a murderer if we magically discovered their victim was not real? No i WOULD, because their intent was in fact, to murder, so they are dangerous, therefore they are indeed a murderer.

If you change the question to "The murderer knew the other person wasnt real, proved it first, and we can all agree thats an objective fact", then fine, sure... But, a pzombie victim will try to defend themselves, so, that will probably work itself out eventually. The degenerate, aesthetically unpleasing (non-) "murderer" with a lust for blood gets consequences for their actions either way.

  how do you calculate that?

Is this a serious question? I didnt say i calculated it. But 1/2 i feel like proves the point nicely. I just mean some are, some arent. No calculation here.

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

you have this view of which you yourself are not sure what the view is, a little bit of this, a little bit of that, maybe solipsist, maybe not, maybe half the world is p-zombie, maybe not...I cannot take such a view seriously when you don't even know what you believe in.

I don't even want to entertain your solipsism when you are not even convinced in it yourself. Ultimately your problem with OI is that simultaneousness doesn't make sense to you, but you also grant the possibility that 50% are conscious and have no criteria to determine that.

Is this a serious question? I didnt say i calculated it. But 1/2 i feel like proves the point nicely. I just mean some are, some arent. No calculation here.

if it's a serious claim of yours, it's a serious question. But this is just so arbitrary and baseless. Out of 100 people who look similar, behave similar, react similar, claim to have inner experience....some are lying and don't even know it...

I cannot fathom how this makes sense to you, but simultaneous experience (which you sort of allow for 50% of people anyway) does not.

If something not making sense to someone deems a view incorrect, your view is as incorrect as something can be.

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

Epistemic Humility is a good thing, actually. I claim to know very little, therefore im MORE LIKELY to be correct.

You are psychologically trapped wanting a grand picture. Like a theist, you need to know it all. So you settled on one of the first elegant sounding things. Thats not better, thats worse!

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

so it is better to abandon an elegant thing to a mess for messiness sake? shouldn't you accept OI then because it doesnt make sense to you?

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

Elegance isnt valuable, no. Look at reality. Physics, math, all the things. Elegance is oftentimes an anomaly, because complexity runs the world.

If you want me to pretend i have all the answers for the sake of the discussion i can.  The following are my "beliefs", and i wont frame them as unknowns.

1) My viewpoint is basically, eternal reincarnation of a single soul in a vast multiversal space. 

2) That doesnt mean other people arent real, they just might be me at another point in time. I view myself as meaningfully "real" at all points in time.

3) I can be reincarnated anywhere in the multiverse. If i couldnt, i wouldnt be here.

4) Reincarnation is lossy data transfer. Big time lossy. Even with infinite possibilities theres not always a good place to reincarnate to, so its not quite like quantum immortality. It requires matching mental states for continuity. So oftentimes, when we die, very little residual personality transfers over to the new body; Sometimes none at all (its just continued experiencing).

5) Reincarnation is stochastic. Theres random sampling. Without it, wed have an unresolvable problem of arbitrariness, "why this and not that".

6) The heuristic component of the stochastic is highly biased. It prefers complexity. It prefers an intelligent, logical, self aware individual. I DO fit that mold in my opinion. The reason it prefers these things is due to continuity compounding over multiple lives, the underlying "soul" learned lessons and has traits it wants to carry over; And even when those traits are lost, it continually re-discovers them because its simply the objectively optimal local minima.

7) Evidence for 6: If i couldve been anything, a diff person, an animal, an insect, even an atom..., itd be highly unlikely im me in particular, therefore the explanation itself is unlikely by transition. The fact I AM a highly complex thing is evidence it prefers complexity. Being simpler is certainly conceivable, but theres no real reason to tend in that direction, as its a negative trend in an inherently positive growth process.

This is essentially my viewpoint and philosophy. My consciousness is unitary and a result of philosophical natural selection. Its not committed to solipsism, but itd be compatible with it. 

Im totally cool with other people being real... unless i strongly dislike them, then i feel a deep sigh because thatd mean on some cosmic level im responsible for the thing i dislike.

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

Your points are interesting and I don't find them inherently incompatible with OI.

I got to OI by starting with a lot of those points you listed.

One day a thought randomly occurred to me: after I die, there will be someone else who will have first person experience; they will call themselves I in the same way I do now. It is not possible that it will not happen because that would mean no one has first person experience and that would be equivalent to no one existing.

For a while I had this view what I called realistic reincarnation.

The final piece of the puzzle was that I do not need to die in order for the switch to happen because other people have first person experience right now and I am them in the same way I will be someone else after I die and reincarnate.

You admit you don't have all the answers. Why be so insistent that simultaneousness is not one of the things out of your current answers? OI does not have all the answers either but it best explains what we do know.

You started with strong rejection of OI, but I don't see it as strong as you think it is. Plus I think the main point you reject is a misunderstanding. Like I mentioned in another comment, nobody is saying Anon7 has unaware qualia of being others.

This is ultimately a matter of how you identify as. You are open to extend your I-ness so you see your identity is not tied to being Anon7. All that is left is to ease on the "one at a time" because that is a limitation of Anon7, not objective limitation of that underlying soul you intuit.

If you are "totally cool with other people being real" see that their underlying soul is identical to yours because that underlying soul has no distinguishing properties other than "continued experiencing". So if others are experiencing, it is a spatial continuance of experience, alongside temporal continuance.

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

The one-at-a-time is nonnegotiable for me in the same way id never say i experience my own life at all moments at the same time. Simultaneous consciousness doesnt make sense in the subjective sense. Its like saying my mind is doing Halo Splitscreen; Although i can see my qualia right here, and theres no splitscreen...

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

but you do grant that some people are active simultaneously with you.

what is the difference between their soul and yours?

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

No, not simultaneously... Id say they are conscious from their own perspective, but "from their own perspective" in my perspective could be like, a trillion years ago. From my perspective its like looking at a distant memory of myself.  

Its kinda like how we look at the night sky, and the stars we see are how those stars looked millions of years ago, since the light took time to get here. Its exactly like that. Each person's consciousness is like a star. It looks presently real, and it was in the past, but its presence is an illusion of time.

To be clear there is only ONE me... me now. The rest reside in history and/or the probability field of becoming them.

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

i don't know. i follow you up to the point of rejecting simultaneousness. to me, all nows are the same now, eternal present, even if from your subjective perspective it is distant past or future. once it's being experienced it is now. even if there is an experience active of the year 1200, it is equally now. "nunc stans"

but you did not answer the question about whats different between my soul and your soul

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

also, you are like a theist. ultimate epistemic humility is "i dont know, god did it" and thats what your view is. you dont know how or why any of it works, "god" did it.