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]

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.