/lit/ - Literature

>>23410768
Daniel Kolak, Andrés Gómez Emilsson, and Mario Montano are a few

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

Take the open individualism pill. The entire concept of "you" is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo

>>23307863
>what we think of as our "selves" is actually just ephemeral interplay between different material aggregates
Pic related is a book that argues for something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism

>>23037503

>>22833291
>Are there any theories about ethics on a system with only one conscious entity?
Daniel Kolak has written extensively about the ethical implications of open individualism being true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism

>>22356891
If Open Individualism is true, the question is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism

Egoism is refuted by Open Individualism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo

>>22267466
By realizing that Open Individualism is true. Since we are all the same being, altruism is actually a form of selfishness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

>>21352241
Based and Open Individualism-pilled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo

>>21283750
>implying the "self" is even a coherent concept in the first place

>abortion is…le evil!
Refuted by open individualism.

If you take the assumption that all experiences belong to the same universal self of consciousness itself, then abortion is morally irrelevant as it neither causes suffering nor takes away positive experience. If you are all lives, then why do you care if you are aborted in some of them? This is the ultimate golden rule. Arguing against abortion is about as logical as arguing that every woman should give birth to as many babies as she possibly can in her lifetime.

>>20687020
Open Individualism is one argument. Daniel Kolak argues that personal identity is just an illusion, and that we are all one consciousness. Because of this, self-interest is an incoherent concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JomlwxRAtZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9unZn75Moo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhoqz4PEtkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

I am you, you are me. The sensations of the present moment, and of personal identity, are illusions. Special relativity supports eternalism, so it is already accepted that the past and future are just as real as your present moment, but there is no universal “now.” Again, that is an illusion. This is what Einstein himself believed, because he understood special relativity.

If my consciousness were somehow taken back to a random moment in my childhood, I wouldn’t notice the difference, neither now nor in that moment. If I lived this life a million times before, I wouldn’t notice the difference. Similarly, if between every moment of my life, I experienced a moment of your life, how could I tell the difference? My brain has no memories of your brain. So it is logically possible to be everyone at all times, but from within each experience, you are bound by your subjective perceptions, memories, illusions.

The problem with the standard view of closed individualism is that the personal identity is not well-defined. What makes you you? Are atom-by-atom copies of you still you? Or if you lost all your memories, and had the memories of another? Or if half of your brain were joined with half of another? If you came from nothing to be born, and enter nothing after you die, then why do you think this can’t happen again? Reincarnation is real but it occurs across all beings and all times at once. Heaven is real but we must create it.