Discussion What do you think about open individualism?

[Eudaimonic]

The theory that there is only "one" consciousness, that is everyone.

If you agree with this, why? If you disagree with this, why?

Bonus question: do you believe that Advaita Vedanta is a good solution to some of the problems that OI faces?

I am curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[Crow_88]

I do believe in one consciousness. That we are all part of some great and rarely seen tapestry. I agree with it because at the end of it we are just made up of energy, and energy is everywhere and in all things. So it seems that everything is part of some grand energy continuum. This does not preclude individualism, though. It's just that when we die we go back into the energy. Also, if it's all energy, then it would also include all matter.

 

[frommolecules2stars]

If we are one consciousness according to this theory, why would the term "individualism" be used? The better term is collectivism imo.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

I'm still undecided on the question of "one consciousness", but I think Advaita Vedanta is right about a lot of things. Sometimes I lean towards Ātman, other times towards anātman. In the end, whether you follow Advaita Vedanta or the Buddhist path, I feel like you're on the right track. The metaphysical details are, functionally, secondary.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

I believe in a one consciousness about as much as I believe in Jesus or Krishna or Buddah or the Great JuJu of the Mountain. Humans are small specks of insignificance. There's no way we know anything about anything on the grand scale. When we think about scale, I just don't see our abilities as sufficient enough to determine with any degree of accuracy what reality is. Or what God is.

Given that the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years across and contains an estimated 2 trillion galaxies, our individual lives and knowledge represent an infinitesimal fraction of existence, highlighting the limits of human understanding in the grand scale of reality.

Humans always want to believe they're greater than what they are. It's wishful thinking to cover up the innate hopelessness and meaninglessness of the universe.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's an interesting idea. Sometimes, connections I can't explain make me wonder about this. Why do we have similar dreams? Flying dreams are very common. How is it some people are very intuitive? They seem to know when people close to them are in danger. What are they tapping in to? I once personally had a very banal dream that then happened in real life. Which made me wonder about time itself, predestination and all that. I'm not refuting it could be some deja vu type thing but, it felt different to that.

I don't really believe it though. I equally see it as another one of those myths we tell ourselves to try to feel more important than we probably are.

Plus, as in with all religions, I'm still stuck on why? Why would a single divine like consciousness need to experience mortal life on earth? To what end? To learn how to operate a can opener? Learn algebra? Why would any of it be needed or, even desired?

Plus, ultimately I don't believe it's a God or single consciousness that gives us life. It's because our parents decided to procreate. If they hadn't done that, there wouldn't be a vessel for this particular strain of consciousness to inhabit.

 

[Eudaimonic]

I'm still undecided on the question of "one consciousness", but I think Advaita Vedanta is right about a lot of things. Sometimes I lean towards Ātman, other times towards anātman. In the end, whether you follow Advaita Vedanta or the Buddhist path, I feel like you're on the right track. The metaphysical details are, functionally, secondary.

Interestingly, atman and anatman may ultimately refer to the same thing (cf. Miri Albahari's "Analytical Buddhism: The Two-Tiered Illusion of Self")

Miri Albahari, Against No-Ātman Theories of Anattā - PhilPapers

Suppose we were to randomly pick out a book on Buddhism or Eastern Philosophy and turn to the section on 'no-self' (anatt?). On this central teaching, we would most likely learn ...

philpapers.org

If we are one consciousness according to this theory, why would the term "individualism" be used? The better term is collectivism imo.

Perhaps because we are still functionally separate due to phenomenal binding; locked in subjective frames

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

No i don't believe in that. Consciouness is only created by my brain. i am my brain that's it . i'm a bag of 30 trillion or so cells including 86 billion brain cells. 1 micro second after my brain dies i will cease to exist forever and never exist again as i am my brain , my brain is destroyed. non-existence forever is the ultimate bliss never any chance of extreme suffering the only guarantee of never suffering extremely is eternal non-existence.

one animal could be suffering the worst pain that no one could ever imagine so then everyone is suposed to feel this? i'll never believe that

if i'm in excruciating pain from kidney stones or a blocked colon with cancer another human won't know about it nor understand and won't feel that torture .

i tried to explain that pain really is billion times worse than you can remember or imagine . i don't think anyone else even cared or listened or believed or whatever. so we are all supposed to be one? so many different beliefs. that is just one belief out of hundreds i haven't seen any other human even understand what i mean by this much less internalize these things i said. just another reason for me to kill myself asap.

In this article Graciano says a human is a machine. and i agree. he says the machine believes it is conscious. so they will be able to engineer this into ai very soon . I could do it as i am an ai programmer . a quote from the article

Frontiers | The Attention Schema Theory: A Foundation for Engineering Artificial Consciousness

The purpose of the attention schema theory is to explain how an information-processing device, the brain, arrives at the claim that it possesses a non-physic...

www.frontiersin.org

"The theory does not address how the brain might actually possess a non-physical essence. It is not a theory that deals in the non-physical. It is about the computations that cause a machine to make a claim and to assign a high degree of certainty to the claim. The theory is offered as a possible starting point for building artificial consciousness. Given current technology, it should be possible to build a machine that contains a rich internal model of what consciousness is, attributes that property of consciousness to itself and to the people it interacts with, and uses that attribution to make predictions about human behavior. Such a machine would "believe" it is conscious and act like it is conscious, in the same sense that the human machine believes and acts."

 

[Eudaimonic]

one animal could be suffering the worst pain that no one could ever imagine so then everyone is suposed to feel this? i'll never believe that

Tbh I am also confused by this. How can it be the case that I experience all suffering but that it always remains abstract for me as well? This doesn't seem reasonable.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

I think the immortal Frank Burns said it best when he said:

Individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Interestingly, atman and anatman may ultimately refer to the same thing (cf. Miri Albahari's "Analytical Buddhism: The Two-Tiered Illusion of Self")

Miri Albahari, Against No-Ātman Theories of Anattā - PhilPapers

Suppose we were to randomly pick out a book on Buddhism or Eastern Philosophy and turn to the section on 'no-self' (anatt?). On this central teaching, we would most likely learn ...

philpapers.org

Thanks, I've now fallen down the rabbit hole of "ontological claims" vs "practical strategies" :)

 

[wiggy]

I hear that panpsychism is gaining a lot of traction recently, but I don't think it translates to a coherent idea of a singular universal consciousness. What's critical about panpsychism, open individualism or any theory of similar character is that - if any of them turn out to be valid - we're already living it. It doesn't feel like we are identical with external subjects, so even if that is an accurate description of reality, how much difference does it really make?