🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:10:20 UTC No. 16084838

DOODOOSHIT

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:21:35 UTC No. 16084855

>>16084836
Tell me more, anon, what meaning of open is being used?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:32:38 UTC No. 16084870

>>16084855
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNGT0uYPHAo

This video explains it pretty well.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:14:00 UTC No. 16084986

>>16084870
How the fuck do you get from "all consciousnesses are fundamentally the same" to "there is only one consciousness"?
All protons are fundamentally identical in their properties and behaviour, but it would be fucking retarded to take that to mean that there is only one proton in the universe.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:43:53 UTC No. 16085022

>>16084836
Open Individualism is a mental illness. The fact that I'm me and not you is directly observable. It can't answer the vertiginous question and outright denies that it's meaningful.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:12:29 UTC No. 16085060

>>16084986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:06:33 UTC No. 16085157

>>16085060
This is not a widespread or accepted theory, and it is not analogous to open individualism because at least it is trying to explain a specific phenomenon we can see (positrons and spontaneous creation and annihilation of electron positron pairs) and conforms to causality.
For a more apt comparison, open individualism is like believing that fire is a constant. That there are not multiple fires on earth but a single fire forever raging and that whenever a fire is extinguished in one place, so long as fire exists somewhere else, the fire has not actually been extinguished but merely moved to the new place, and that even if all fire in the world is extinguished, as soon as a fire starts up somewhere, it's actually the same fire as before.
It is absurd to think that two processes can actually be combined into the exact same process despite zero causal link.