Robert Anson Heinlein proposes in one of his novels (Time Enough for Love?) an anesthesia that does not eliminate pain, but the memory of pain.
Of course, none of us would want that anesthesia. The disconcerting part of the matter is that, after having used it, we could not have any complaints regarding it.
This theoretical case and many other surprising situations are clearly explained if we accept the idea that at every moment we are a different person.
For example, it is common to access some memory of adolescence and to be ashamed of oneself, of what we did or even of what we thought at that moment. It seems as if someone else has done it. It can become humiliating or almost inconceivable that we would have been able to think or do such a thing. But this is explained simply if we accept that we are precisely talking about another person: my “I of the past”. Every millisecond (or minimum unit of time) we are a different person. This is called Empty Individualism.
Would it be a good idea to use an anesthetic that does not remove the pain but only the memory of the pain? The correct answer is that it would be good for my “Me after the surgery” but in no way for my “Me during the surgery”. If we talk about the past, it does not seem that we can do much, but if we talk about the future, that anesthesia is not in any way good for my “Me of the future during the surgery”.
In general, it seems that using that anesthesia would not be a good idea. But to value this we would have to take into account all the “I’s”. And why take into account only the “I’s” of my future temporal line and not all the “I’s” of all the beings that feel? What do the “I’s” of my future temporary line have that others don’t?
The suffering of my “I’s of the future” is as relevant to my “current I” as the suffering of other individuals of the future that are not “I” in my timeline. In fact, for a certain “I”, the suffering of other I’s, both past and future, and both of the time line itself and the rest of the time lines, is equally relevant.
This is very well understood with the example of Heinlein’s anesthesia. Imagine that we have been operated of a knee with that anesthesia that only erases the memories. At the end of the operation, they confess it to us. Of course, this will outrage us, but my concern for my “past self during the surgery” depends on my memory and that bond that I have created with my other selves. However, that “I of the past during the surgery” is almost as disconnected to my “present I” as any other “I”. It is just connected by an imperfect memory that can also be deceived.
If we want to refer to the fact that subjectivity exists, and to say that there is some kind of subjective identity (some kind of “I”), it seems more correct to recognize that either that entity is scattered in infinity small selves, or that in essence it is a unique subjective entity that encompasses all beings at all times, although we are not able to perceive it completely. As in the story of the elephant in the dark, in which one only touched the trunk, another the ear and another the leg. Instead of fighting by saying, some that looks like a snake, others a giant leaf, and others a column, it may be more appropriate to speak of a single being that manifests itself in different ways.
That is, it seems more appropriate to say that there is only one subjective being, of which each of us, in each moment, perceive only a small part. This is called Open Individualism or The Hypothesis of the Unique Subjectivity, which I tried to describe together with the Closed Individualism, although not with that name, in my book Sensitive Sand.
It is true that there is a strong apparent continuity of the subjectivity linked to each body over time. The continuity of identity (the continuity of the “I”) is a persistent illusion. Some even think that the self is not only continuous but pre-existent and immortal. But we must recognize that our limitation to experience what other bodies experience now, in the present, is similar to the limitation that we have to experience our own experiences of the past and of the future. There is not much difference between “our” experiences and “those of others”, rather than the associations that we are making in our mind, through memories of the past and forecasts of the future.
It is true: subjectively, I experience a thread of consciousness that travels in time in a single direction and in a single body. This is called Closed Individualism. But we also have the experience that things fall “down”. Our experiences are always true and authentic insofar as they are subjective experiences, and therefore incontestable. But when we define or describe them, we may be making mistakes. It is totally true that things fall down. Things fall. They fall down. They do it. We know with certainty that this happens. But this does not mean that the expression “fall down” is correct or that it describes reality well. In the same way, speaking of our self as an entity that travels in a temporal thread fits perfectly into our subjective experience, and as such it is true. But this does not mean that this description describes reality with precision. If we find inexplicable aspects of this description (Closed Individualism) and on the other hand other descriptions fit better (Empty Individualism and Open Individualism), we would be more honest if we begin to accept the latter, even if they are less intuitive.
The partial perception of our “I” in the form of a thread that travels in time in a single direction could have been evolutionarily selected. How can we know if this is true? We could create computer simulations of worlds in which different partial perceptions of reality are represented and check it out which of them thrive in an evolutionary environment (where there is scarcity, recombination and mutations). This is exactly what I am working on now. I think we can represent metaphysical philosophical theories in computer simulations and let them evolve and in this way learn a lot from them. To understand them better and to assess their likelihood better. In the previous link I explain why this is important.
What kind of possibilities could we represent and value evolutionarily? A multitude of them: the subjective experiences could be accumulated so that each of us will experience in each moment everything that was experienced in the past. Or in a temporary window that can be dimmed or not. We could experience what beings near in space are experiencing. We could be composed of different levels of beings that are experiencing, in the form of Russian dolls. We could experience what everyone experiences. There could be groups of two or more subjectivities within each body, competing and collaborating to avoid suffering. There could be specific connections between the subjectivities of pairs of individuals, which under certain conditions merge into one, etc.
I do not pretend to directly represent all these possibilities, but create simulated worlds where there are the basic components that can generate this kind of things (in a symbolic way; I do not pretend to generate sentience) and see if this happens or not and how. In this way we can a better understanding and better assessment of the likelihood of different possibilities or philosophical theories, such as Empty Individualism, Open Individualism and Closed Individualism.
Of course, it is possible that someone has had this idea before, and our universe is precisely that simulation.
Practical applications of Open and Empty Individualism
Psychology
Empty Individualism (and its cousin, Panpsychism) explains not only that our personality changes over time, but also that at the same moment our behavior is marked by the result of the tension between different emotional entities with opinions and objectives are very different, usually opposed. These entities would not be insensitive abstract logical modules: they would be entities with authentic subjective experiences. If someone asked us things like: what do you want to do? what do you think? what do you want? what do you think of me? what do you feel towards me?… a possible answer would be: to which “me” what are you asking? Empty Individualism perfectly explains that in a moment we want or decide something and after a second something incompatible. This is very common in sentimental and couple conflicts. One conclusion is that we should not demand from the other (or ourselves) a perfect coherence in the feelings (and much less in the manifestation of these). In addition to frustrating and reproaching others for their emotional inconsistency, we could try to deepen these contradictory feelings to identify them, understand them and express them better, accepting their contradictions that are perfectly explained in the model of the Empty Individualism.
Altruism
Open Individualism and Empty Individualism offer an argument in favor of altruism based precisely on selfishness. According to these theories, the supposedly selfish actions that aim to favor my “I of the future” are in reality altruistic actions towards my “I of the future”. If, as Empty Individualism says, all the “I’s of the future” are equally foreign to me, whether or not of my own time line, it would be more appropriate to start such selfish action in favor of those selves of the future that need it most, since the system as a whole behaves as if there were only one sentience, as indicated by Open Individualism and the most intelligent and selfish action would be to help those beings who need it most, because they are all “me”. Of course, this includes all beings that feel, not just human beings. We should prioritize, first of all, avoid intense suffering.
The metaphysics of the end of suffering
Things do not fall down, but are attracted to the center of planet Earth, this being a model that can be complicated including other celestial bodies. The difference is not important at the local level, but it is fundamental to understand it if our plan includes escaping from the planet. In the same way, knowing what sentience really is (Open Individualism, Empty Individualism) does not seem very important if this in practice manifests itself in other ways (Closed Individualism), but in a project that pretends to escape from all suffering it is absolutely essential. Of course, this may sound as far-fetched and ambitious as escaping the gravity of planet Earth. A few centuries ago no one in his right mind would have proposed something like that, or if he had, he would have been ridiculed as a pretentious madman.
Are Open Individualism and Empty Individualism convincing?
Open Individualism is nothing new. Open Individualism or its equably expressed in similar terms or through metaphors and symbolisms, is present in myriad mystical and philosophical traditions, in one way or another: (“Everything is One”, “God is all that exists, and all of us are God. You are God “).
On the other hand, Empty Individualism can be traced to the aporias of Zenon, like “Achilles and the turtle”, the river of Heraclitus (“No man can cross the same river twice”) or Locke’s socks, and undoubtedly receives a important push thanks to technological advances (digital systems, pixels, binary digits, video games, …) as well as thanks to quantum and discrete mathematics.
Empty Individualism is much easier to argue than Open Individualism. However, I believe that Open Individualism is better. Personally, years ago and after thinking a lot about all this, at a certain point I came to the conclusion that Open Individualism was the best explanation or interpretation of reality, the most probable. Since then I have not found any good argument against it. As I have explained, Open Individualism is nothing new. The difficulty is in offering a good explanation of why it is a good interpretation of reality, a better interpretation than Empty Individualism and of course, better than Closed Individualism, even if these two descriptions are correct under certain parameters, in the same way that classical physics can be considered correct in a certain context, even if quantum physics is better.
Why Open Individualism is a better explanation than the Empty and the Closed one? In the words of Iacopo Vettori:
Empty individualism is similar to Close Individualism, because both try to explain your existence with a set of events that produced “you”. Empty Individualism is the extreme attempt to reconcile that explanation with a reductionist view of the universe. In my view, even that attempt is flawed by the fact that we have to assume without reason that a set of events that produces “you” exists anyway. Once we understand that producing a organism 100% equal to your body is not enough to explain why you perceive that as “you”, Open Individualism remains the only possible rational explication of why “you” exist. That’s the core of my whole convincement.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jonathan Leighton, Robert Daoust and Joe Kern for offering me their impressions about the first draft. Some of these comments were made in the Open Individualism Facebook Group.
Additional readings
- I suggest the texts of Daniel Kolak, Iacopo Vettori, Robert Daoust, Magnus Vinding and Mineta Edralis Jurášková on this subject.
- Leonardo Panerati about free will and individualism
About the document
- First version: Jul. 2018
- Updated: Aug. 2018
Empty Individualism in photos
https://www.facebook.com/manuherran/posts/10158159969801484
Related:
Empty individualism is what good old day enlightened men had talked about — specifically called “nothingness” by Buddhism, that can be achieved instantly (almost instantly, I’d better say)…
Your “sentient sand” can be reduced to I guess, the sentence is in the material called “silicon” … ?
Totally wrong, Sir!
The so-called “sentience” in this case is in the line of certain humans’ intellectual thoughts that created how to turn it on or off.
That is where sentience lives, as the replica (or image) of God. The line of thoughts which is also one of the attributes of God, and you can only be able to travel, using a time machine. But this time machine itself is limited by the time, Of Course that it won’t go beyond the “existence of the time”, Sir.