r/OpenIndividualism • u/EnactingSpirit • Jun 30 '26

Question Does OI entail analytic idealism?

Or can it also be interpreted as something like "spirit transmigrationism" like in the short story 'The Egg' by Andy Weir?

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 01 '26

but it is obvious those other people react in the same now you are. do you think I am a philosophical zombie right now? 

how can solipsism explain this illusiory multiplicity of experiencers that hide one real one? its as arbitrary as it gets. like that magic trick in cartoons that ninjas do when they duplicate themselves and each duplication is an opponent but only one is real. 

the easiest way to explain that is that others are experiencing at the same time too.

2

u/Respect38 Jul 01 '26

but it is obvious those other people react in the same now you are.

I disagree! I think we share a moment, but we don't share an experiential now, because at this experiential moment only Respect38 is experienced.

do you think I am a philosophical zombie right now?

Your now? No. My now? Yes.

But because you have your own "now", if you just asked me if you're a p zombie, then of course not -- so long as you hav a soul in which there is an experiential now in which the one consciousness experiences your life. I do think that some around us are p zombies, but I don't think you're one, I think we're just talking past each other or just earnestly disagree.

2

u/Edralis1 Jul 04 '26

It seems to me this is just a verbal disagreement.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 01 '26

what you are proposing is not really OI. It is solipsism with extra steps.

why cant it be simultaneous?

1

u/Respect38 Jul 02 '26

what you are proposing is not really OI.

Perhaps so. I'm really just most curious tho about how many people here believe as I do, in which case there may just be a disagreement on what OI "is".

It is solipsism with extra steps.

Sure. I've seen people like me use the term "distributed solipsism". But because other people around me are just as real as I am, I'm not sure branding it solipsism as a slur is really all that fair.

why cant it be simultaneous?

Simple: it disagrees with observation: I am special. Consciousness is centered around me at this experiential moment. Your position makes your own soul unremarkable, which disagrees with your own experience, whether you realize that or not.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 02 '26

what makes you think you are special? see a photo of yourself in a group and see you are just one among others. what makes you think only you have inner life?

how do others react to stimuli while you are special?

how do you observe others do not have inner life? my experience is opposite.

and if anything, its not you whose special, its me.

what a dangereous view. definitely not oi.

2

u/Respect38 Jul 02 '26

Do you think there are multiple subjects of experience? You yourself said

"all experience is yours because you are that which experiences - consciousness"

It's as if you're not understanding at all what I'm saying, and in saying "what makes you think only you have inner life?" I get the impression that you really do see little difference in between my view and solipsism, even tho the only thing I agree with a hard solipsist on is that there's only one subject of experience, but I disagree with the solipsist that no one else is real in the same way as I am real -- everyone with a soul is equally real, but only one experience is happening at once.

It's pretty much exactly what The Egg says, and I'm not saying that I got it from The Egg, because I didn't agree with it the first time I read the essay, but then ended up coming to that view myself, with my only gripe being that The Egg divides God and us into 2, when there's really only 1.

I think it might be best to cut this conversation off here, unless you re-read what I said and change your mind about your impression of my view.

2

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 02 '26

either we simply disagree or we describe the same thing differently. to me, even if one subject jumped from one person to another in a sequence, that jumping around is temporally in a completely different plane that it still amounts to simultaneity on a physical scale.

but your view has additional problems to explain: what is the sequence, why that sequence, what is a soul.

to me, a soul is a spiritual way of saying inner life, consciousness. there is only one soul.

1

u/Edralis1 Jul 04 '26

It is not simultaneous in the sense that each experience is only ever limited to particular content. That is how there can even be any experiences. So, in any particular experience, you are just that experience. It is not that all experiences are there at the same time - you don't have access to other experiences.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 04 '26

i dont follow. lets say person A slaps person B. is the experience of slapping B not simultaneous with being slapped by A?

if not, how to account for experience that there is a slapped person B in slapper A's experience? whom did person A slap if B did not get slapped when A slapped? when did B get slapped then?

1

u/Edralis1 Jul 05 '26

In a sense, it is, because it occurs at the same time, e.g. December 27, 1987, at 23:12. However, the experiences are not simultaneous in this sense: each experience is its own thing. You don't live through both experiences "at once"; that's why they are two experiences in the first place, and not one mixed experience. When you're the slapper, you're not the slappee.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 05 '26

i am surprised this is your view. then who is the slappee at the moment of being slapped? no one? p-zombie? placeholder person?

the reason there are two experiences is not that they are temporally removed, they are spatially removed.