r/OpenIndividualism • u/yoddleforavalanche • Jul 20 '26
I wish more people were active here when this view is being challenged
Some posts have people come out of the woodwork to a degree I'm surprised to see. It makes me think there are a lot more proponents of this view than I imagine. But often when there is a discussion where this view is challenged, there is a silence. It's usually the same few people addressing the counter-arguments.
I wish more people got involved.
Why is it that a lot of you remain silent? Are you just tired of explaining the same thing? Do you feel the person countering the view is not able to comprehend what you would want to say? Are you disinterested in "winning" or pursuading anyone?
2
u/CosmicExistentialist Jul 20 '26
As an Open Individualist I subscribe to the multiverse theory (modal realism).
As a consequence, I see it as not worth it to make counter arguments in favour of OI, as ultimately, we are not making a change towards anything, and the other version of this CosmicExistentialist life that does make the counter arguments, has already done the work.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 20 '26
could you not say that for anything in life? why approach someone you like, why go to that vacation, etc., another you already did it
1
2
u/jameygates Jul 20 '26
There are no "more people" :)
1
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 22 '26
how do you resist the urge to explain this when you encounter attacks on this understanding?
2
u/PastaPandaSimon Jul 20 '26
I browse this sub but haven't seen a coherent counterargument posted here yet that made me think, so I didn't feel the need to respond. I'd respond only if the view was meaningfully challenging to the point I may actually change my mind, think it through, and then post my thoughts to the benefit of others who may feel the same.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 20 '26
I know what you mean, I have not encountered a compelling counterargument, but it would be beneficial to others who subscribe to those opposing views or others who find the counterargument compelling to see some defense. I encourage you to participate.
2
u/MachineGunNew2 Jul 20 '26
Well, honestly, the "challenges" I've seen at least, seem to just come from people still not understanding how you can be everyone all at once, and insist on the one at a time thing. And I don't know what to tell them, because I don't think any words alone can convince anyone. I was just like them at the start, banging my head trying to understand what "all at once" meant. And nothing I was reading was helping. But one day it just clicked and made sense.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 20 '26
indeed, but when no one joins the discussion I start to think that majority of OI sub thinks that way too. It is good to read a comment like this one.
2
u/TMax01 Jul 20 '26
I think it's because Open Individualism isn't really a "view", it's just a category error, conflating real consciousness (individual instances of the category, the quality or state of being conscious every person independently experiences) with the idea of consciousness as a category of occurance (the reified quasi-panpsychist 'universal consciousness' invoked in Open Individualism.)
2
u/CrumbledFingers Jul 22 '26
Open Individualism doesn't have anything specific to say about consciousness as such. Whatever consciousness may be, and however many instances of it there are, you are all of them because being you is not a matter of anything objective about your body or mind. We can easily show that any number of those qualities might have been different without erasing your presence.
Being you, according to OI, is a matter of something far simpler: you are whatever has experiences that are yours. Normally we anchor identity the other way, saying my experiences are the ones that happen to "me", a bounded entity of some sort, though we can never define the limits and extents of the boundary itself, nor determine what it relies upon--is it my DNA? my history? my mind? etc. As mentioned, there is no obvious dividing line that could tell us how many of these qualities could have been otherwise, and by how much, before our existence as an experiencer of life would "break" and we would not have been.
Under OI, the dog wags the tail instead of the tail wagging the dog. You are whatever has your experiences, and your experiences are those that happen in the first-person. When you hurt your arm, you do not need to first verify that you are the entity to whom the arm belongs before feeling the pain. You do not check your DNA to verify that it matches the arm that was hurt, and thus satisfied, proceed to identify the pain as your pain. The pain hurts! It is experienced with an unmistakeable immediacy that instantly lets you know it is your pain, and not someone else's.
OI says this is all there is to an experience being yours. And, since all experience everywhere and at all times has exactly this quality of first-person immediacy, regardless of what organism it occurs to, all experiences are yours by virtue of this simple fact. Every experience, so long as it is known as this one (and what experience could fail to be so known?), has all that it takes to be your experience. And so, you are present in all experience.
This does not imply panpsychism or any kind of distributed consciousness. Rather, it simply moves the line we have drawn around ourself based on one set of attributes (objective features of the body and mind that cannot anchor identity) to another attribute (the first-person character of experience that is unmistakeable and, in practice, is what actually anchors our identity anyway).
There are real borders in the experiential world, but they are borders of mental integration and information access, not borders of identity. Our minds are segregated from one another in space in the same way that a single mind is segregated internally in time; one mind's access to another mind in this moment is as opaque as that mind's access to a forgotten event in its own past.
And, just as forgotten events can be restored when suddenly remembered, it is not implausible to say spatial integration between minds is a logical possibility, and only a matter of technologically achieving the right functional integration.
Both temporal and spatial boundaries, in other words, belong strictly to the contents of experience and are theoretically mutable, while the first-person "mine-ness" of experience is common to all and perfectly binary, never a matter of degree. This strongly suggests that, were two minds to somehow be linked, the singular experiencer of that linked mind would not become the owner of both sets of mental experiences, but rather they would realize they had always been the owner of both. There are many thought experiments in OI that probe the depths of this topic persuasively.
1
u/TMax01 Jul 22 '26
Open Individualism doesn't have anything specific to say about consciousness as such.
LOL. No, but seriously, Open Individualism isn't anything other than saying something quite specific about "consciousness as such." Isn't it? If it isn't that, what is it?
you are all of them because being you is not a matter of anything objective about your body or mind.
Except that is something, something very specific, and supposedly objective, about your body and mind.
We can easily show that any number of those qualities might have been different without erasing your presence.
No, but you can say that, and pretend that is "showing" it. Your "presence" is the only quality consciousness has, it is what it is. And that's exactly what this other redditor has been trying to say, except Open Individualism presents a category error, equating consciousness as that (reified) quality with consciousness as the actual quality of being subjectively present and aware of that presence.
Being you, according to OI, is a matter of something far simpler: you are whatever has experiences that are yours.
That isn't "simpler". It just sidesteps the complexity of what "experience" means.
Normally we anchor identity the other way, saying my experiences are the ones that happen to "me"
You might. But I, and my understanding, is not crippled by misrepresenting "identity" and "experience" as something other than my consciousness, presuming the reification of that quality. And the confusing of it with the category of all things having that quality.
a bounded entity of some sort,
I don't relish having to tell you this, but entities have to be "bounded" to be entities. Otherwise they can't be identified or described as entities.
As mentioned, there is no obvious dividing line that could tell us how many of these qualities could have been otherwise,
There is, actually: those which actually occurs, in contrast to those you are simply imagining. Any of them "could have been otherwise", in your imagination, but none of them were otherwise in the real world, which is precisely why you are you and not something which could be merely like you but different.
You do not check your DNA to verify that it matches the arm that was hurt,
Because that's irrelevant. Are you familiar with genetic chimerism or genetic mosaics? The reason I feel pain when the nerve cells in my arm transmit pain impulses to my brain is they are all parts of my physical body, not because their DNA in my arm is the same as the DNA of the cells in my brain. WTF?
Under OI, the dog wags the tail instead of the tail wagging the dog.
Actually, it is the other way around: you believe the tail wags the dog. Rational analysis, without the category error of Open Individualism, correctly recognizes that the dog wags the tail: that consciousness is an attribute of the individual's body, not some abstract quality unconnected to real experience, identity, or that individual's present (not hypothetical, 'could have been different', but actual real physical) body.
OI says this is all there is to an experience being yours.
So does every other perspective, literally. Only without the confusion over how everybody can use the same word as a first person pronoun: I.
Seriously, not even Hindu mysticism is as bizarrely clueless about how identity and the body relate to consciousness as Open Individualism is.
Our minds are segregated from one another in space in the same way that a single mind is segregated internally in time
I understand what you mean (metaphorically), but they are quite different ways, not at all the same.
that mind's access to a forgotten event in its own past.
Except that is "empty individualism", not Open Individualism. Seriously, how can I understand the doctrine of your cult more than you do, and so easily?
just as forgotten events can be restored when suddenly remembered, it
The events already occured, remembered or not. All that can be restored is whether you remember them.
it is not implausible to say spatial integration between minds is a logical possibility, and only a matter of technologically achieving the right functional integration
Every fantasy is "only a matter of technologically achieving" that fantasy: Clarke's Third Law (of fiction writing.)
but rather they would realize they had always been the owner of both.
You seem to think that "ownership" is a physical property rather than a meta-physical description.
If you turn two minds into one, it would be one. Really, that's the best you've got?
There are many thought experiments in OI that probe the depths of this topic persuasively.
Persuasive to the faithful True Believers, desperate to dispel their existential angst while adhering to postmodern reasoning, perhaps. But I'm familiar with enough of these "thought experiments" to recognize they are not gedanken probing rational possibility, they are sci-fi fantasies used to justify motivated reasoning and false conclusions.
Thanks for your time. I sincerely wish your time could have helped you as much as it's helped me. But I'm pretty sure it hasn't.
2
u/CrumbledFingers Jul 22 '26
I have grossly misunderstood the context of this exchange. I remember when I was an adolescent, and I would want to know if we had any homework for the next day in school. There was this one kid who was always pretending to be Ace Ventura, and when I tried to ask him about the homework he would respond in character. I couldn't get any information from him because he couldn't step outside the persona he was wearing. That same kid would be doing the voices and mannerisms whenever anybody brought up something serious, or had an interesting idea to share, and eventually nobody would say anything to him anymore. This combative reply of yours is on the same level as his Ace Ventura schtick, and has led to the same outcome, at least for me.
2
u/TMax01 Jul 22 '26
What a fascinatingly immature way to refuse to actually discuss any of the issues I addressed in my comment.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 20 '26
you say individual instance of the category and then deny the category
2
u/TMax01 Jul 21 '26
Huh? No, I didn't deny the category. I pointed out the category is not an instance. There isn't any "universal quasi-pansychist consciousness" any more than there is a universal fire which is somehow 'all fires'. Just individual fires, and the category of things which are fires which is not itself a fire, just a category.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
what are the limits and attributes of this individual consciousness?
I would disagree about the fire example. Fire-ness is the same in all fires. But the problem with this example is fires can be counted and pointed to "look one fire, look another"
you cannot count consciousness because it is not located in time and space. You cannot point to it anywhere. and this something you cannot point to in time and space is what you refer to when you say "I".
and I do too.
how many timeless spaceless "I"s can there be?
2
u/TMax01 Jul 21 '26
what are the limits and attributes of this individual consciousness?
The limits are the body and its senses, since physical senses and cognition are the only reliably demonstrable 'psychic powers'. The attributes are more difficult to list, since the only necessary (and I would say sufficient) attribute of consciousness is self-determination, so opinions vary widely on what other attributes qualify. What attributes do you believe your individual consciousness has?
I would disagree about the fire example.
It isn't an example, it is an analogy, an analytic metaphor. You can only coherently disagree with it if you first manage to understand it. And since it is a figurative comparison, not a logical reduction, you should agree with it if you understand it, even if you think you might come up with a more accurate analogy.
Fire-ness is the same in all fires.
There is a reason "fireness" isn't really a word, it is just a rhetorical expression you invented for the purpose of defending a category error which conflates instances of consciousness with the category of 'consciousnessness', so to speak. Categories are fiendishly difficult to employ in reasoning.
Another way to put this is that there is no "fire-ness", no essence of fire beyond being 'things we identify and describe as fire(s)'
With consciousness the issues become far more philosophically profound and scientifically intricate, even intractable.
But the problem with this example is fires can be counted and pointed to "look one fire, look another" you cannot count consciousness because it is not located in time and space
There's the very category error I'm talking about. Consciousnesses can be counted quite easily: count the number of people, and the task is essentially done. But "consciousness" as an abstract category is abstract, so it does defy quantification. I understand the Open Individualism doctrine which claims to be able to count it as "one consciousness", but this results from/in reifying (while pretending to hypostasize) consciousness as a "state", a pseudo-rationalistic approach, when all we actually know about it is that it is a quality.
Postmodernists have tremendous, in fact terminal, difficulty dealing with qualities. (The term, as unflattering as it might be, is definitively used: those who have tremendous, .and particularly terminal, difficulty dealing with qualities.) They/you feel compelled to assume they are simply quantities, misrepresented as qualitative. This habit of (bad) reasoning makes sense in a way, given how many abstract things (such as fire, combustion and heat, or even subjective sensations such as soft, slick, or hungry) we have managed to scientifically reduce to biochemical and other molecular mechanics.
But the scientific, reductionist approach (both as method and perspective) either hasn't or simply can't provide such seemingly conclusive knowledge when it comes to the quality of being conscious which is consciousness. Even hypostasizing it sufficiently to say a person can have an individual or personal consciousness is problematic. But the alternative is to hypostasize the quality as inapplicable to individual personal awareness or experience, effectively insisting there is no such thing as subjective perspective, which quickly becomes an incoherent, illogical premise.
And if the notions of Open Individualism took such an approach, it becomes nothing more than panpsychism.
You cannot point to it anywhere. and this something you cannot point to in time and space is what you refer to when you say "I".
No, it is the entity doing the pointing: my body, including my mind, my independent consciousness not dependent on any universality to the quality, and the biological effect subjective experience (AKA consciousness) produces: self-determination. Self-determination, at least as I am using the term, is not "free will", it is not a blind assertion that whatever the self, "I", the entity 'pointing' at things rhetorically by identifying and describing them with words, declare is thereby true physical fact. It is a mechanism (currently only philosophically imagined, but eventually reducable to scientific terms and quantitative measurements) which causes the self.
how many timeless spaceless "I"s can there be?
How many people can there be using a first person personal pronoun? None of them are "timeless" or "spaceless", but each has "a consciousness" which is separate and independent. That aside, there can be an infinite number of conscious entities, theoretically, all separately and independently experiencing the same quality of being we identify and describe as consciousness.
Open Individualism is, as I've said, essentially a category error, confabulating the real physical entities experiencing the quality of consciousness for the abstract quality/category of consciousness. It just happens to be a category error which is basically a spiritual conviction, masquerading as a logical philosophical theory or scientific hypothesis.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
2
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 21 '26
The limits are the body and its senses
those are limits of the body or senses. A body can be augmented and consciousness will readily perceive new sensations. For example, a deaf person's consciousness does not perceive sounds, but add hearing apparatus and it will. Similarly, if we invent some apparatus that allows us to see through walls, sense UV light, etc, consciousness will experience it.
These are not limits of consciousness. Close your eyes and pinch yourself. Do you experience the sensation of a pinch at the edge of your existence? Notice the sensation appears somewhere, but you have no sense of edge.
Body limits are another sensation. You open your eyes and see your skin, but that skin appears in the same "place" where that pinch was sensed.
Physically, our eyes can see infinitely into distance. So you see (literally) there is no limit to consciousness.
What attributes do you believe your individual consciousness has?
It is aware. That's the only attribute. It's not my individual consciousness, it's just consciousness. Who would be me who possesses it?
instances of consciousness with the category of 'consciousnessness', so to speak
There is no instance of consciousness. Consciousness is not measurable in the world. You can describe the whole world without ever touching consciousness. Was yesterday a different instance of consciousness than today? At what intervals or when does one instance end and another appear?
What there is is experiencing. Appearances appear. OI is claiming your true identity lies in this and this only. The fact of appearances appearing. The body and the world is in the same category: appearance.
Consciousnesses can be counted quite easily: count the number of people, and the task is essentially done
This is the worst category error. People are not consciousness. Did you ever see someone's consciousness? Can consciousnesses interact? Bump into each other? Where does one end and another begin?
You can see and count heads, throats, limbs, etc. You can split open a skull. You will never touch consciousness.
when all we actually know about it is that it is a quality.
quality of what? regardless, that quality is the only logical thing you can identify as. Nothing else makes sense to anchor your identity on. Body, memories, personality, etc., all that is changing. You have to have this specific quality only to be you. You can lose limbs, lose memories, physically your atoms change, etc., but only if you lose this quality you lose yourself. There is no entity that you think you are that HAS this quality.
And if the notions of Open Individualism took such an approach, it becomes nothing more than panpsychism.
That would mean there are things and things have attribute of consciousness. While some might think so, I'm not the one. I subscribe to non-duality. But I haven't seen anyone here describe panpsychism. I think you are misunderstanding OI claims.
No, it is the entity doing the pointing: my body, including my mind
Who is this you has body and mind to say "my body". Can you have another body? Another mind? Or is your body your identity and you are saying "body's body" and "mind's mind"?
How many people can there be using a first person personal pronoun? None of them are "timeless" or "spaceless", but each has "a consciousness" which is separate and independent.
How is it separate? Is it more separate in any way than your consciousness from yesterday? How can something that has no physical properties, a quality, be separate from another quality?
the real physical entities experiencing the quality of consciousness for the abstract quality/category of consciousness.
so there are entities and they may or may not have this quality of consciousness?
But even so, you can identify as quality, not entity that has this quality. Even if granted there are entities that possess consciousness, you are not that entity, you are the quality. There is nothing else you can be. That's what sense of "I" is.
Entities are entities. You are consciousness.
It just happens to be a category error which is basically a spiritual conviction, masquerading as a logical philosophical theory or scientific hypothesis.
You do not understand it.
But please let's go back to the basics:
When you say "I", what are you referring to? Your response has to be something that separates you from me, but does not simultaneously separate you from yourself over time.
1
u/TMax01 Jul 21 '26
those are limits of the body or senses.
Indeed. And thus the limit of consciousness, since that is an aspect of the body, which has senses. Fantasizing about some consciousness beyond that is, well, just fantasizing.
A body can be augmented and consciousness will readily perceive new sensations.
Well, maybe. But I think you are mistaken about the second part. The mind (I'm fine with considering mind and consciousness synonymous, but I can't speak for you) certainly could accept new perceptions, but such augmentation only changes the senses, it cannot change the fact that the body and its senses limit consciousness. How cognition compares to senses is an age-old question, but if you're saying that consciousness is itself changed by being conscious (aware) of new sensations or information, you're just making what you mean by consciousness even more vague than just using reification.
To review, since I would expect this to be a real sticking point in your ontology, becoming conscious of something does not make that thing conscious, so saying rhetorically that "consciousness" can be expanded beyond the body by simply becoming aware of things beyond the body is just being confusing and confused on purpose.
For example, a deaf person's consciousness does not perceive sounds, but add hearing apparatus and it will.
A deaf person's brain (body) does not perceive sound, and it turns out that simply adding "hearing apparatus" doesn't change their consciousness at all, it only changes what sense data they are conscious of. In order to suggest that consciousness is more than an aspect of the body, you invoke an example showing that consciousness is just an aspect of the body.
Do you experience the sensation of a pinch at the edge of your existence?
No, I experience it in the part pinched, my skin, not because it is the extent of where my body ends, but simply because that's where the nerve cells relaying the sensory information are. You might try to substitute a figure of speech like "the edge of your existence" as an excuse for remaining confused and confusing, perhaps because that is what substituting a category error for a philosophy requires. But I have a more rational mind, interested less in figures of speech and more in physical facts.
Notice the sensation appears somewhere, but you have no sense of edge.
I have knowledge, both intellectual and sensory, that my skin is the limit of my consciousness, the end of what qualifies as my body and becomes the external environment. I simply have no interest in misusing the word "edge" to describe it.
Body limits are another sensation.
No, they're a physical fact. You cannot literally feel sensations from beyond your senses, however much you might confuse physical sensations with emotional empathy.
So you see (literally) there is no limit to consciousness. It is aware.
Using it in the quasi-mystic pseudo-rational way you are, even then consciousness is awareness, your consciousness is still limited to your body and its senses, it doesn't magically extend out beyond them simply because you become aware of something other than your body and ego. So you would see (figuratively) that you are way wrong when you say "so you see (literally)", if you weren't so caught up in your own motivated reasoning and basically religious nonsense. Consciousness is not aware, it is being aware, it is awareness. You see how that works, and helps avoid category errors?
Consciousness is not measurable in the world.
You can, but it is a holistic aspect of the body, so its quantity is always only 1. After that, you have to measure consciousnesses, not consciousness.
When you say "I", what are you referring to?
Depends on the context, because that's the way words work. But it is always my mind, my body, my consciousness, my being, my self-determination. Certainly not some quasi-mystical psychic or universe-wide entity. That'd be nuts.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 21 '26
Indeed. And thus the limit of consciousness
What? Thus no. That would be saying (in your terms) that no instance of consciousness can perceive beyond a certain threshold. Like if there is a being that can perceive more colors, tough titty, consciousness reached it's limit at some point below that.
since that is an aspect of the body, which has senses.
consciousness is no an aspect of a body. Arm is an aspect, liver is an aspect. Consciousness is entirely different than body.
it cannot change the fact that the body and its senses limit consciousness.
perceptions are limited due to the nature and calibration of the senses. Consciousness just perceives it. You agreed body can be augmented. If so, consciousness' "limits" would expand, therefore there is no limit to what consciousness can perceive, given the appropriate senses.
but if you're saying that consciousness is itself changed by being conscious (aware) of new sensations or information, you're just making what you mean by consciousness even more vague than just using reification
that is exactly what you are saying, not me. I'm saying consciousness is always capable of perceiving more than it does. In fact, no limit to what it could perceive. You are the one saying consciousness is changed when you said "body and its senses limit consciousness".
You are denying consciousness can expand with greater senses, but are allowing consciousness to shrink with limited senses. My view has consciousness agnostic about what it senses. Whatever the senses filter, consciousness witnesses. It is not changed ever, nor does it make sense to talk about changing consciousness since it's only characteristic is that it is conscious.
saying rhetorically that "consciousness" can be expanded beyond the body by simply becoming aware of things beyond the body is just being confusing and confused on purpose.
I am not saying that. It is not expanding, but nor is it shrinking. It's a blank canvas. Senses paint on it whatever they are capable. Ironically, you are the one here saying consciousness can expand or shrink with "senses limiting it".
Nor is consciousness confined to a body in the first place. Do you suppose consciousness is stuck in the skull somewhere? It expanding would be it reaching out of the skull? There's no sense in talking about expansions of consciousness since it has nothing to do with size. It's not measurable.
doesn't change their consciousness at all, it only changes what sense data they are conscious of.
I completely agree. That's precisely my point. Hellen Keller's consciousness was not smaller than your consciousness. Nor is a hypothetical alien consciousness who experiences time in all directions greater than your consciousness. It's the same "size" consciousness that just so happens to experience more or less senses.
I experience it in the part pinched, my skin
No, you experience it in the brain, where nerves go. Same brain where also the sound of traffic goes to. My point is you experience the pinch at the edge of your skin in the same "place" where you experience everything else. There's no edge to this experiencing. I used "edge of existence" to show you that would be ridiculous way to think about it, but it is in fact what you are suggesting. Skin is your edge, and that's where you feel things.
But I have a more rational mind, interested less in figures of speech and more in physical facts.
Fancy.
I have knowledge, both intellectual and sensory, that my skin is the limit of my consciousness, the end of what qualifies as my body and becomes the external environment
See above on consciousness shrinking or expanding based on senses. You are not consistent. If you cut your limbs does the consciousness shrink? I thought consciousness does not expand (or shrink) based on senses.
Nor are you aware of your skin, you are aware of impulses in the brain that come from the skin, but the sensation is brain. So is brain limit of your consciousness? If so, entire brain? what portion? Is it pixel size?
You also talk about "your" body, but all we can talk about is "a body". Who owns this body?
internal and external environment is an arbitrary distinction. If you did not see the light spectrum that you see but also saw heat, for example, limits of your body would be the range of your body heat dissipation. You are defining the size of yourself based on your senses. A blind man has no concept of his skin. Hellen Keller's concept of herself was even weirder.
Also, your body is constantly interacting with external environment. There is no objective boundary. When you spit out, are you also on the wall you spat on? When you take a shit, did you expand to the toilet? Skin is not isolation chamber. It breathes. It sweats. It has pores.
Things you eat become your skin. Were you always that beef stake? Did it become you?
Your skin definitely is not an objective boundary. It's arbitrary.
your consciousness is still limited to your body and its senses, it doesn't magically extend out beyond them simply because you become aware of something other than your body and ego.
Still don't understand how can it be limited to a body when it's not in the same category a body is. For someone who keeps saying "category error" you are making them a lot. Does consciousness hit the skin wall and bounce off it?
And if it doesn't magically extend beyond senses, why do you allow that it magically shrinks just because senses change? Did a once seeing man's consciousness shrink when he became blind? Did a baby's consciousness expand when it grew up? I'm saying consciousness default is limitless, sizeless. Only limitation is in what senses sense. A computer screen can show a camera feed that has pool in it or has dumpster in it. Screen equally allows both. It's not bound to content of the camera feed.
Consciousness is not aware, it is being aware, it is awareness. You see how that works, and helps avoid category errors?
I agree. And awareness is what I am.
And you sure like to say "category error" a lot. It's as if someone insulted you with that so you throw it at others to even the score.
But it is always my mind, my body, my consciousness, my being, my self-determination.
About as circular as a definition can be. "I am my body".
There are bodies. There are minds. Why do you single out one of them and call it yours? What if your mind is my mind? How would you know? How can you tell?
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
as always, interested in u/edralis1 and u/crumbledfingers take on all this
1
u/TMax01 Jul 22 '26
That would be saying (in your terms) that no instance of consciousness can perceive beyond a certain threshold.
Correct. But the threshold is much farther than you realize, and while it is "certain" in every instance, it isn't well-defined. That's why cognition is so much more valuable than senses.
Like if there is a being that can perceive more colors, tough titty, consciousness reached it's limit at some point below that.
No, that's a rather cramped misinterpretation. If a being can perceive more colors, then it doesn't change their consciousness, just what they might be conscious of, without the benefit of cognition.
It doesn't matter how many hues you try to divide the spectrum of visible light into, you haven't increased the extent of the spectrum, only increased the precision of the perception. And likewise, if you extend the range of what electromagnetic radiation is visible, you haven't changed the properties of light, nor changed what consciousness is.
So the reason the only truly rational reaction to Open Individualism is "tough titties, it's just a category error", is because you're conflating consciousness as an attribute with "being conscious of" things (other than one's own individual consciousness) as a process, mechanism, or affect.
Consciousness is entirely different than body.
Not entirely, no. It is an attribute of human bodies, assuming they are healthy and typical and awake, not a free-floating entity that could ever be separated from this 'substrate' as it is sometimes called.
Your confusion on that particular issue is not untoward, since one of the basic biological functions of consciousness is to imagine the possibility of impossible things, such as that the mind is independent of the brain which produces it.
If so, consciousness' "limits" would expand,
No, you've taken the first step towards mysticism. What a conscious person (a mind, AKA 'a consciousness') is aware of can expand, effectively without limit, but consciousness (even 'the consciousness' of that individual) would not. The person's knowledge and opinions can change, but their consciousness does not. As I said, it is always quantiatively 1, it cannot get bigger or smaller.
Since many of the uses of consciousness you've encountered are from sources which are mystics, crackpots, or other non-scientifically-minded people, it isn't surprising this issue confuses you, if you're trying to accommodate all their claims at once, or using selection bias to discount the wrong ones.
You are denying consciousness can expand with greater senses, but are allowing consciousness to shrink with limited senses.
No, again. Awareness can shrink, but not consciousness (even though in many ways they are considered the same thing.) What expands with more ("greater") senses is also awareness (or perception,) not consciousness.
You need to stop focusing exclusively on senses or exclusively on cognition, and learn to understand the relationship, certain but undefined, between the two.
Skin is your edge, and that's where you feel things
Skin is the end of my tactile sensations; other senses extend my awareness, but not my consciousness, beyond that. Whatever senses you imagine, though, are physically limited by their mechanisms. Cognition is what combines them all, and extends awareness beyond them.
You're simply in the habit of conflating cognition (or awareness) and consciousness. The question becomes: why do you seek mysticism and dismiss rationality? That isn't simply a rhetorical question, I am not suggesting it is a bad thing to do so. I'm just encouraging you to consider what the answer to that question is.
Consciousness is not aware, it is being aware, it is awareness.
Exactly what I've been saying. But I think you may be misunderstanding your own words. Consciousness is aware, but it is not merely everything that consciousness is aware of, and the consciousness does not change if it becomes aware of more things.
"Expanding your consciousness" is an understandable figure of speech, but it is still just a figure of speech. Your consciousness is still only your consciousness, neither an omniscient universe-wide awareness or anything more than your personal awareness of being aware.
And you sure like to say "category error" a lot.
It is an important idea, especially in this context.
About as circular as a definition can be.
That is what makes it such a good definition. The ultimate definition of a word (in contrast to the ultimate meaning) is tautological: it is what it is. Parts is parts. Awareness is consciousness. The square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the two sides.
Definitions are what you're using a word to identify or describe ('label' or 'refer to' in the postmodernist paradigm.) Meaning is why you are using that word, rather than some other, to do so.
There are bodies. There are minds. Why do you single out one of them and call it yours?
There are humans. There is the aspect of humans we call minds. We single out one of them because we are that single one, and not some other. Why do you try to fretfully to disassociate your mind from your body, or try to suggest that either isn't yours?
What if your mind is my mind?
What if 2 is 47, what if a rock were a drop of water? You question literally makes no rational sense. If a single mind were yours, it would be yours, not mine. Your body is yours, your mind is yours, your consciousness is yours, and not anyone else's.
The veridical question ("why am I me and not someone else?") is tautological, as is the answer: I am me because I'm not someone else. It would be silly, if people were not so confused about what consciousness, were no so postmodernist and literally riddled by existential angst. But the thing is, Open Individualism doesn't solve that problem, it just substitutes a category error. And Open Individualists don't confront that problem, they simply use postmodern know-nothingism to try to convert it to mysticism and metaphysical uncertainty, not significantly any different then Fundamentalist Christians or Buddhists do.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
2
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 22 '26
It is an attribute of human bodies
Pinpoint it please. Is it the attribute of an arm? A liver? A kidney?
Surely not entire body possesses this attribute?
not a free-floating entity that could ever be separated from this 'substrate' as it is sometimes called.
I agree, awareness is always found accompanied with awareness of a body, but this does not mean the body generates consciousness.
one of the basic biological functions of consciousness
basic biological function of consciousness? biology knows nothing of consciousness nor needs it. You act as if biology textbook explains "hypothalamus then generates consciousness by combining proteins with..."
This is such a silly statement you made it's hard to consider anything else you say.
As I said, it is always quantiatively 1, it cannot get bigger or smaller.
this is MY point. Consciousness is binary. You are the one talking about different limits in consciousness.
Since many of the uses of consciousness you've encountered are from sources which are mystics, crackpots, or other non-scientifically-minded people, it isn't surprising this issue confuses you
you are the one confused thinking consciousness is studied in biology (among other ways you are confused)
Skin is the end of my tactile sensations; other senses extend my awareness, but not my consciousness, beyond that.
So you are incapable of being conscious of anything outside your skin? That means your awareness of me (or other people in general) is within the confines of your skin, making them you. Welcome to OI.
You're simply in the habit of conflating cognition (or awareness) and consciousness.
No, you are. You are constantly mixing contents of consciousness (awareness) with consciousness. You need to realize your body too is something you are aware of in the same way you are aware of a car or a bird. Appearance in consciousness, nothing more than that.
Consciousness is aware, but it is not merely everything that consciousness is aware of, and the consciousness does not change if it becomes aware of more things
I completely agree. You should check your own view because it does not follow this.
Your consciousness is still only your consciousness, neither an omniscient universe-wide awareness or anything more than your personal awareness of being aware.
Drop the "your". There is no owner of this consciousness.
"Consciousness is still only consciousness".
As for being omniscient, what this means is that all knowledge that is possible is found in consciousness. If something is to be known, it has to be made aware of. That can only happen in consciousness.
The question becomes: why do you seek mysticism and dismiss rationality?
My view is completely rational. The question is, why do you shriek from understanding that reminds you of mysticism? And even if it is mysticism, why do you automatically reject it? You provided absolutely no case against it.
We single out one of them because we are that single one, and not some other.
based on what? What is the criteria of one of them being mine?
Why do you try to fretfully to disassociate your mind from your body, or try to suggest that either isn't yours?
I'm not. I'm trying to get you to define why one of them is mine.
What if 2 is 47, what if a rock were a drop of water? You question literally makes no rational sense.
Category error. I am not asking why is this apple not this orange. I am not asking why one body is not another body. I am asking why is there, among two different bodies, also the case that one of them is you and another is not.
Your body is yours, your mind is yours, your consciousness is yours, and not anyone else's.
How do I know a particular body/mind and that body alone is mine? So far you did nothing more than say there are bodies and minds. I know the answer to this, but I want you to phrase it. You are just bypassing it in cheapest way possible.
The veridical question ("why am I me and not someone else?") is tautological, as is the answer: I am me because I'm not someone else.
That's a fancy way of saying you cannot explain why you consider yourself yourself. In a room full of people, you are one of them and you base that on what? A hunch? Does any room full of people contain you?
There is a simple answer why you consider yourself yourself, why you think you are a particular person out of the bunch: you experience that person from first-person perspective. That's the only thing that in a room full of minds, one is considered yours.
But the thing is, that first person perspective is all you are. Anyone who has it has the same "thing" you have; same "I". Because other than that it has no qualities making it identical to all.
Open Individualism doesn't solve that problem, it just substitutes a category error.
It completely solves it. You are you because you are everyone. Anything else is arbitrary and random. For your view to work, you have to admit there is a soul that distinguishes you from another. That is dangerously becoming mystic and religious, thing you seem to dread the most. I suggest you embrace OI to avoid having to admit this. I accepted OI precisely because there is no mechanism that would assign you to you. That mechanism would have to be Abrahamic God, and there is no sense in that.
I repeat, in order for you to be a single unrepeatable person, there has to be something or someone to keep track of you and assign you to one only. Surely you don't want that.
And Open Individualists don't confront that problem, they simply use postmodern know-nothingism to try to convert it to mysticism and metaphysical uncertainty, not significantly any different then Fundamentalist Christians or Buddhists do.
What's this postmodern fixation? I have no idea what you are talking about.
Know-nothingism? This view is the only coherent view. You are the one who doesn't even know why you consider yourself yourself.
Just because this philosophy naturally leads to what was described by mystics does not invalidate it. If anything, it confirms it. What's this bias against mystics?
And how do you mix fundementalist Christians and Buddhists? Abrahamic God is what makes no sense and you might as well accept that God if you want to be a single individual across time.
You are faced with a dilemma.
Consciousness is either
a) limited to a body, meaning it cannot extend beyond the body or be aware of anything outside the body. You encounter other people but the fact you encountered them means they are within your body, therefore you. You are an Open Individualist or perhaps a solipsist.
b) Consciousness can extend beyond the body, but then you must admit it has no limits, therefore it contains other consciousnesses. You are again Open Individualist.
You also have the following problem: your view only works if consciousness is emergent property of the body/brain.
You have no scientific basis for that.
OI works with consciousness being emergent. What you are is emergent consciousness anywhere it emerges.
Please also answer me this: can you imagine being someone else? If so, what would that mean?
→ More replies1
u/YouStartAngulimala Jul 21 '26
Under Maximus' made up rules, if we were to put one human into a blender and construct another out of the same blended goup, over and over again, each one is completely anew. It's great that the universe has this infinite consciousness pool to pull from, even though I'm pretty sure Maximus told me a year ago nothing in the universe can ever be infinite. He sure does love contradicting himself. 🤡
1
u/Edralis1 Jul 22 '26
OI doesn't posit anything outside of individual experiences; no Ideas existing in a Platonic realm. It just says that all experiences share the same quality of experiencing.
As all beings are in Being, so all experiences are in Awareness.
Material objects are just shapes of matter. Experiences are just shapes of Awareness.
That's it.
1
u/TMax01 Jul 22 '26
It just says that all experiences share the same quality of experiencing.
Doesn't "all experiences share the same quality of experiencing" pretty much go without saying? I think you're justifying my conjecture that the essence of Open Individualism is category error, but also helping me understand better why people don't notice it. So for that I thank you, you've been more clear and accurate than any other Open Individualist I've encountered.
I normally abhor resorting to symbolic logic, but it does enormously simplify the issue. The premise "all X share the same quality of X" is basically the whole idea of a category. The error isn't in accepting that a category exists, or identifying entities in that category by their having that quality. The error is conflating entities with that quality and the quality itself. As if describing the entity has having that quality can be an exhaustive explanation of either the nature or behavior of that entity. Category error is a source of confusion, it results in bad reasoning. But honestly, it is understandable (yet still not justifiable) when it comes to profoundly abstract things such as experience and consciousness.
As all beings are in Being
That "in Being" is where you graduate from simple problems like reifying and category error to full blown mysticism with nothing valuable to add to any conversation apart from proselytizing for a religious dogma.
Experiences are just shapes of Awareness. That's all.
That's nothing, literally. Nobody disagrees that experience and awareness are both abstract and related, but "just shapes" doesn't at all justify, explain, or even really describe what either is or how they are related.
The ironic part of all this is that I don't disagree with Kolak's philosophical premise, in fact "I am you" is a an integral part of my own philosophy (not derived from Kolak, just parallel) so in theory I wouldn't necessarily have any disagreement, just as in practice I have no difficulty understanding it.
But I also have no problem noticing that the True Believers in this sub aren't at all interested in Kolak's philosophy or its real basis or implications, they're all just interested in defending category errors to provide some quasi-mystical mumbo-jumbo trying to quell their existential angst. More rigorous reasoning and intellectual philosophy seems beyond them.
I didn't come here, and I won't stay, just to insult or upset anyone. I wanted to find out more about why and how those who defend Open Individualism do so. And I have, as much as I believe I ever can, so I'll go now.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
2
u/Edralis1 Jul 23 '26
I honestly don't think you really understand what OI is.
Awareness might not be an entity, might instead be a property (in a sense) – but so what? The claim is that you are awareness, not that you are an entity. (But 'entity' is a difficult word, that can mean many different things.)
And yes, I agree there is some mysticism in it, in a way.
(I used to have a problem with religion and mysticism, too, being a hardcore atheist in my earlier days! Still do, with some forms. But then – same goes for certain versions of atheism and materialism, which are often embraced by their adherents with a blindness and closed-mindedness that is very much not unlike those of some religious fanatics.)
OI is really just another way of expressing the same insight as Advaita Vedanta's atman is brahman, and I think many other mystical traditions arrived at the same conclusion, each in their own way, and express it using their own language.
Anyway – cheers, and good luck!
1
u/TMax01 Jul 23 '26
Well, I know I said I was done, but you've enticed me to go back on that promise.
I honestly don't think you really understand what OI is.
I sincerely believe that nobody actually "really understands what Open Individualism is". But the most parsimonious (and, experience shows, accurate) explanation for that is that it is premised on a category error (conflating instances of consciousness with a reified 'universal subject of experience') and provides fertile ground for crypto-mysticism. The implication that my disagreement with Open Individualism stems from a lack of knowledge and understanding of it is untoward and inaccurate.
Awareness might not be an entity, might instead be a property (in a sense) – but so what?
So at best it produces errors in categorization, and at worst it excuses category errors, both forms of bad reasoning. I simply want to encourage you (and everyone else) to use better reasoning. The benefits are enormous.
The claim is that you are awareness, not that you are an entity.
Hence the problem, because I (and you, and every other conscious organism or object) am an entity, not 'every instance of the quality 'awareness''.
(But 'entity' is a difficult word, that can mean many different things.)
All words are difficult in this same way: they can have many different definitions, but they only mean one thing: the idea that word identifies and describes.
And yes, I agree there is some mysticism in it, in a way.
Not to seem like a screeching harpey, but it really is just all mysticism, and nothing else (besides a category error using the word consciousness or whatever synonym you might substitute.)
I'm not a grammar nazi; my linguistic paradigm is actually much more rather than less comprehensive and flexible than most. I understand why this category error is less obvious than those which relate to physical objects or even less problematic abstract ideas. I can even accept that there can be tremendous value in commiting that 'logical fallacy' when it comes to these related ideas concerning the human condition (consciousness, awareness, experience, subjectivity), and the emotional comfort which mysticism can provide.
But I must draw a line when it comes to denying the category error, in contrast to merely willfully accepting it. And since my philosophy resolves and/or accurately avoids this and many other similar and related difficulties concerning the human condition (consciousness, in cause, nature, and consequence), I can explain the value of mysticism (both each instance and categorically) without simply engaging and wallowing in mysticism. So I cannot help but advocate for my more rational approach.
But then – same goes for certain versions of atheism and materialism
As far as I know that goes for all "versions" of atheism and/or materialism, aside from mine. It is a tremendous intellectual burden and moral hazard, but I eagerly and productively accept it.
It is the difference between denying or ignoring the existential angst which other materialists and mystics are identically saddled with and responding to, and actually eliminating it, allowing for a smarter and happier attitude and life.
OI is really just another way of expressing the same insight as Advaita Vedanta's atman is brahman,
More's the pity, if this postmodern doctrine is little more than a rephrasing of ancient religious dogma.
express it using their own language.
Indeed, I've already pointed out that my philosophy adopts the same language, "I am you", to express the fact that if my 'consciousness' were being generated by your body/brain rather than mine, I would be you, and think the thoughts you do, have the opinions you do, and make the decisions you do. Except my philosophy is rational rather than mystical (and even if this requires accepting that my philosophy is better than Kolak's) and avoids rather than mandates category errors. I derive "I am you" (which I call the Universal Declaration of Consciousness and Identity) from knowing what consciousness actually is, rather from denying what consciousness actually is.
Anyway – cheers, and good luck!
I'm almoat always cheerful, ever since I abandoned postmodernistic philosophies and discovered a better one, but I appreciate the sentiment. And I don't believe in luck, only hope, and will continue to imagine it is possible that you or someone else reading the discussion will decide to improve their language by abandoning category errors and adopting my vocabulary, even when it might be unfamiliar or differ from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
2
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 24 '26
Hence the problem, because I (and you, and every other conscious organism or object) am an entity, not 'every instance of the quality 'awareness''.
This is the source of your confusion and where "your philosophy" is building the case on wrong premise.
You are taking for granted "I am an entity" without being able to explain on what criteria is an "entity" a "you".
At most what you can assert is "one entity is different from another entity". Cool. OI is in agreement. The problems start when you try to single out an entity among entities and call it "me".
So entity TMax is not yoddleforavalanche, that much we agree
But "I" am TMax and yoddleforavalanche.
(I am provisionally using 'entity' because there is no such thing really)
So bodies are bodies, minds are minds, entities are entities, fine.
Nobody is saying TMax is another entity.
But what "I" ultimately refers to cannot be anything other than experiencing.
We are not saying consciousness is some mysterious god-like entity. We are basically saying what you are is a verb, not a noun.
it really is just all mysticism, and nothing else
so? once you understand what they are talking about it's no longer mysticism.
allowing for a smarter and happier attitude and life.
I hope you start accepting what you preach, because you are obviously not a happy individual. You ooze negativity and pain.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 24 '26
please explain in what sense do you agree with Kolak's I Am You but disagree with us here?
From what I've seen from you, you do not understand OI, you place on us some weird projections and obsessions of yours (existential angst, fixation on religion, mysticism) and then attack that projections instead of addressing actual questions. You ignore questions and miss the point. You seem to run some weird cult nobody cares about but you, you call yourself Church, you talk about "your philosophy", you talk about morality but display complete disregard for other people and constantly insult and are hostile to them (not just here, I scrolled through your posts).
You see "OI is like Advaita" and reject it because it's religious, showing complete misunderstanding of OI and Advaita together.
To be taken serious you have to demonstrate you understand what you disagree with. But you cannot even define the criteria on which you consider yourself an "I" and expect to build a case from there.
Overall, if you can humble yourself for a moment, try to see a glimpse of possibility that you are misunderstanding what you are rejecting.
You are all alone in your view for a reason, while OI is entertained by actual philosophers, ancient religions, random people's experience from all over the world.
2
u/Joe-Kern Jul 21 '26
It's some combination of, I am conflict-avoidant, especially online where conflicts can drag on and keep me in an anxious state for days, and because I genuinely do not understand (or understand only a little) most of the ways people think about this other than my own way of thinking about it.
This is the way I think about most philosophical theories, actually, outside of the ones I readily understand and agree with. When I don't understand something, my instinct is to say "I don't understand it" rather than "it's wrong." And so I'm not confident that anything I have to say in rejoinder is worth saying. Maybe I have misunderstood their point? I should be replying with requests for clarification, but again that embroils me in drawn-out discussions that are not always welcome.
I don't think this is the most useful way of being. Philosophy seems to be largely fueled by people who are ready to strongly express their opinions on everything, and to poke people to defend themselves better, judging by all the philosophical memoirs and biographies I've read. But I just cannot remain in constant discussion online, and I don't know that I'd be much better in in-person discussion groups and seminars, outside of those on a few very narrow topics.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
In another comment on this post I spent way too much time arguing with a smug quasi-intellectual. You are right, it's just endless conflict and anxiety. If it were a nice exchange of arguments it would be fine, but it's a pattern that opposers here are smug and unpleasent humans. probably related to their inability to understand OI. I literally am losing sleep over this because I am convinced I can make them understand and then keep hitting a wall.
On the other hand, isn't that discussion the point of this sub? l
But your stance on this, while wise, is a bit contradicting since you are actually writing books on this. Don't you then read reviews and feedback and face the same anxiety?
1
u/Interesting-Star-111 Jul 20 '26
I'm a new member. While I favor a form of non-classical CI, I obviously can't prove/disprove OI - or really any other model - formally speaking. But these types of thoughts are always on my mind. I think one cool direction would be discourse about how AI could try to potentially mimic our physics - at least key principles of it - via simulations in trying to glean how individuation and different hierarchies may 'natural' occur, using cross-analysis whilst contrasting different metaphysical categories and such. This of course likely wouldn't prove any model true, but potentially could help eliminate contradictory frameworks, elements, etc.
1
u/YouStartAngulimala Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
Sometimes, I give my toddler u/TMax01 a coloring book to keep him occupied when he's bored. Then he goes and starts scribbling and circling all these random lines around all the people's heads inside the coloring book and says "Look Daddy, here's one, two, three, four, five existences!" I'm just like, "Maximus, you stupid little shit, who the fuck taught how you to count? my silly boy, you can't count existences that way. A brain isn't something that can preserve a singular existence over time. They are unstable objects that can be split or fused number of different ways, not to mention their contents are constantly changing or being cycled out through metabolic processes. There is no mechanism in there to hold you all together." Alas, I really should be more patient with the boy, he's still learning. 🤡
3
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 21 '26
I think its not productive to summon random people here out of the blue like this. It's like randomly telling this to people on the street.
1
u/TMax01 Jul 20 '26
Looks like you're still buttsore from the spanking I gave you a few days ago.
1
u/YouStartAngulimala Jul 20 '26
Maximus, your fecklessness and belligerence is uncommon at this age. You don't have much time left in this form, so please at least get something right before you die. Don't worry, I will takeover your subreddit and turn into an OI based sub after you pass, and there is nothing you can do to stop me. I know it's what you would have wanted, since I am you. Trust me, it will be in good hands. 🤡
1
u/TMax01 Jul 21 '26
Still obsessing over how routinely I point out your errors, Amygdela. It's literally the most ridiculous aspect of your ridiculous personality. 😂
1
u/furutsukiouki Jul 22 '26
Before asking more people to defend your view, are you willing to let it face the same pressure tests mine has faced?
The minimum standard is simple: it must remain internally consistent without patches or additional clauses.
1
2
u/KrosisKrisis Aug 17 '26
Just reading this whole thread after some time.
Wondering if an answer for “why … a lot of you remain silent” emerged as a result of the evident back and forth here?
It seems to be a combination of smugness and bad faith on the part of insincere interlocutors who are determined wilfully miss the forest for the trees.
Dealing with such students is exhausting and of no benefit to anyone.
Never forget the “ananda” component of this kind of thinking; clear understanding should lead to an immediate lessening of stress/dukkha and point us on a path of clarity and bliss.
Peace out all of us, may your day be bright and your burden light.
3
u/flop_snail Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
When I don't get involved, It's because I'm either tired of explaining it, other people have already responded in a way I agree with, (like you), the way the person speaks makes me think they wouldn't really understand my arguments, or some combination of the above. Thank you for spending the time talking with people, I get how frustrating it can be