/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14825889

>>11528010

>>11513463
>You can watch Mario's videos on the topic, he actually explains it pretty well.
And Mario later rejected his views in those videos. His justification for Open Individualism was based on reductive physicalism, which he later rejected in favor of Idealism. Why do you think he was right then but wrong later?

>Think about what defines your conscious experience.
I define my conscious experience as my "point of view", for lack of a better term. I am currently observing myself on /sci/ typing these words, existing as THIS particular human. This "thisness" is what I define as my "self".

>Read "A new theory of Open Individualism", it's a quick blogpost.
That article doesn't seem to rigorously show that OI is true though, just that Closed Individualism is on shaky philosophical grounds. He states that "although it seems like this qualia-bundle has partitions or boundaries, these apparent partitions are illusions.", which is stupid. If you're going to argue that qualia binding is an illusion despite being directly observable, you might as well go full Dennett and argue that consciousness in its entirety is an illusion. Andrés Gómez Emilsson also wrote this article rejecting OI in favor of Empty Individualism:

https://qualiacomputing.com/2019/12/27/one-for-all-and-all-for-one/

>>11447120
>eliminative materialism is a higher tier than reductive materialism

>>11234456
Dennett is a brainlet

>>11115413
Fuck off Dennett

>Dennett

>Dennett

>>10990351
But you are free to take responsibility for your determination through environment and genetics.
You can logically prove that you are free and unfree at the same time like Kant did in his antinomies of the reason.

>>10957656
>Is consciousness real or just an illusion
Go away Dennett

>>10086005
/lit/ here to ruin your day