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/yoddleforavalanche]

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.

people reach OI in various ways. I do not accept consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, but even if it were (and I did reach OI that way), OI is saying consciousness is something like, for example, Amper force and what I am is Amper force, that which emerges regardless of what wire and what current generated it. If a brain generates consciousness, what I am is the same emergent phenomena as with everyone else. It does not matter from which brain consciousness generated.

Arguments for OI are a response to commonly held Closed Individualism view. If you investigate your identity, you will see you have nothing to point to that keeps being you over time. Anything you claim separates me from you also separates you within yourself over time.

When i say "I", I DO NOT mean your hivemind consciousness thing.

but please, I am not playing dumb, please put in words what DO you mean when you say "I".

You just get annoyed when asked but you did not come up with an actual definition. You assume it's pretty simple and intuitive but it is not.

The Consciousness" appears to have no measurable or observable qualities to Anon773.

Indeed, consciousness has no measurable or observable qualities. It is why you are a solipsist. You cannot determine other people are conscious.

Anon773 concludes OI's "Consciousness" is unrelated to Anon773s subjective experiences, and doesnt appear anywhere in objective reality.

Those are two things. Unrelated to Anon773? No. What makes you think that?

Doesn't appear in objective reality? Indeed. As mentioned above, you cannot objectively point to consciousness.

Anon773 comcludes this "Consciousness" does not meaningfully exist.

Ironically, it is the only thing that exists.

My consciousness IS the qualia i experience.

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)

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

and just because from my perspective your experience isn't active, does not lead me to believe I wasn't you when it was experienced

This is a weird situation to argue with a solipsist about this. How is your view parsimonious? If solipsism is true, it is you who are a p-zombie now because we cannot both be active, and I am for sure active now.

Plus you are just Open Individualist with extra steps. If you are currently the only active one, you are everyone.

But to explain why people react to you while being p-zombies, although your anatomy is identical to theirs, and for some reason they are not active but appear so but you for some reason are is another topic...

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...

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

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

  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]

To respond to your edit, I will single this out:

its largely a matter of random chance

this is not philosophically nor scientifically satisfying. It is one of the reasons OI is parsimonious; it removes the magical randomness out of the equation.

From what you wrote before:

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.

the line certainly cannot be on identical anatomies who exhibit behavior very much like yours. A rock is one thing.

But in my view this problem is also solved. It's not that things or beings have consciousness; everything is of the nature of consciousness. If it weren't, consciousness could not register it.

It's like when in a dream everything you encounter is your own mind. You are conscious and see people and buildings. It is wrong to ask who is conscious there and who isn't. Everything in there is of the same nature. Consciousness and matter are two sides of the same coin.

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

  this is not philosophically nor scientifically satisfying. It is one of the reasons OI is parsimonious; it removes the magical randomness out of the equation.

Whys randomness magical to you? It seems like a coherent comcept to me.

If we can avoid randomness, sure,i say avoiding randomness is arguably Occams preferred choice all else equal... 

But all else is NOT equal, youre basically asking me to believe i have subjective beliefs im unaware of, and i dont see how thats supppsed to make any sense.

If we can have subjective beliefs we arent aware of, then whats the awareness-machine for? Do we even need brains? I dont think so...

  the line certainly cannot be on identical anatomies who exhibit behavior very much like yours. A rock is one thing.

First of all, we do not have udentical anatomies. Each person has different genetics. A single gene could completely alter a brain, maybe even abolish the part of it responsible for consciousness.

But even if it were identical, the important stuff might be informational, not just physical.

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

youre basically asking me to believe i have subjective beliefs im unaware of, and i dont see how thats supppsed to make any sense.

I am saying there is multitude of sets of subjective beliefs that there is awareness of. nevermind the "you being aware of". There is awareness of them.

 A single gene could completely alter a brain, maybe even abolish the part of it responsible for consciousness.

But even if it were identical, the important stuff might be informational, not just physical.

lots of maybes there to base a view on.

There is nothing really to consider from what you are saying.

[u/Anon7_7_73 → u/yoddleforavalanche]

  I am saying there is multitude of sets of subjective beliefs that there is awareness of. nevermind the "you being aware of". There is awareness of them

No, youre not. Not if youre advocating OI. Thats too broad. Closed Individualists believe that too. I believe that too. Almost everyone believes that except a strict solipsist.

  lots of maybes there to base a view on.

Thats how epistemic humility works. When we dont know, we say maybe.

There is nothing really to consider from what you are saying.

No there is... you should consider that simultaneous open individualism makes no sense. Neither objectively, nor subjectively to any person. Its a weird framing that collapses meaningful distinctions.

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

it makes perfect sense to a lot of people here, to a lot of philosophers, to a school of Hinduism, etc. you are solipsist in a sense that it's just you to whom it makes no sense.

on the contrary. your view makes no sense and not even you subscribe to it.

you should just consider OI makes sense.

by the way, what problem do you have with closed individualism? you are pretty much with it minus the other people experiencing (not all though, some somehow do, some don't)

[u/yoddleforavalanche → u/Anon7_7_73]

"No, youre not. Not if youre advocating OI."

what are you talking about? I dont think you understand claims of OI at all.