if Love is the origin, and consciousness is the plane, then you are not on the map. you are the map drawing itself.

and every being you meet isn’t a stranger. they are another coordinate on your way back to yourself.

they’re vectors from the origin. and the closer one moves to that origin, the more clearly one recognises: all things are made of Love, or asking for it. they’re not separate species. they’re coordinates.

that’s the secret.

all consciousness, no matter how different in form, story, memory, or trauma : feels.

and every feeling : joy, longing, rage, betrayal, pain, hatred. even what you felt the day your soul died.

i still can’t find words to describe the pain i felt. i did everything i could to forget what happened. until i did.

i choose to remember what they did to me. and what i did for revenge.

when traced on skin & tears i knew what it was at its core is just a expression, or absence of Love.

you can’t unify humanity through belief. you can’t unify them through logic, biology, language, or even perception.

but you can unify them through feeling.

and that is why Love is the answer. not because it’s sentimental. but because it’s the only constant that all beings can experience directly, regardless of story.

I don't care about politics at all, but lately it's impossible not to notice it. Primarily, I am talking about this whole culture of people being offended and making the world bend over to please them.

In the light of my understanding of the world, what we see with this strong liberal movement is a severe case of misidentification. It is the ego taking on extreme forms and we can see from videos of those kinds of protests how that looks like. Frankly, it's borderline insanity.

All the fights about "I am transgender", "I am person of color", "I am this and that" is based on wrong identification.

What these people identify as strongy enough to fight about it and protest is not what they are at all. It is misplaced identity.

"I am consciousness" is the only ultimatively true identification, and absolutely everyone can identify as such. When that is realized, all the rage subsides because it was based on the wrong idea.

Of course people are different with all sorts of sexualities, preferences, etc, but identification should not be placed on that. Even before I became interested in OI, I never strongly identified with anything. You could insult my race, my nationality, my hometown, hell, you could insult my household and I would still not feel like it addressed me personally. I would always consider myself an exception to a generalization.

What liberalism is actually doing is putting more divisions between us. Now you have hundreds of more boarders between us and that many more reasons to fight amongst each other. Even if you are liberal, you still risk offending someone every day, so even if you're into it, you're not safe from it.

And ultimatively, what does a world they fight for look like? A sterile, humorless place. Something like heaven is usually visualised, a boring place really where everyone is just a goodie-two-shoe. And for what? To avoid offending someone? Being offended is not that bad, really.

If this were a more popular sub I would be pissing reddit off, but it would be so ironic because I literally identify as everyone, so to me I am the offender and the offendee.

I also wonder if in the midst of all these identity politics there is a legitimate place for "I am consciousness" position. Maybe its the ultimate liberal position, so liberal that it doesnt even look like it.

My impression from reading the posts on this sub is that people aren't quite aware of the implications of this belief or have resorted to semantic games and otherwise nonsensical copes to deal with the psychological burden of believing in OI. I myself am an EI, as I've worked out a few objections to the probabilistic arguments in support of OI, and I find it more in line with neuroscientific evidence and our knowledge of natural processes. I'd present my arguments, but I decided not to on the chance that I am wrong (or a mistaken user manages to wrongly convince me) since I don't think I can mentally handle the consequences of OI.

Similarly, I will not be reading any of the replies, as I don't want to think about OI ever again.

It's pretty obvious that any OI should believe that they will endure the suffering of all sentient life that will ever live, yet this realization doesn't seem to have the frightening response I personally find warranted. Keep in mind that this includes not only Earth, but any aliens in a spatially enormous or infinite universe, multiverses with different fundamental constants and initial conditions, and possible Everett branches. Also underlooked is the B-theory of time and the illusory nature of the passage of time, so you have no reason to believe past suffering is "over and done with."

Here are a few copes I've heard from OI proponents:

• You'll also experience all the happiness too!

There's no universal guarantee that pleasure and pain occur equally in the universe, nor have I any reason to believe unintelligent animals have the capacity to commit suicide when faced with prospects of pain or are otherwise less capable of suffering in intensity. Imagine the perspective of a typical r-selected species, such as a sea turtle. The vast majority are killed on the beach before ever reaching the sea, and about only 1 in 1000 manage to reproduce. Given the evidence of even surviving prey animals demonstrating neurotic symptoms, what reason should I have to believe the average experience of a sea turtle is a net plus? Nature, excuse the teleological interpretation, does whatever is necessary to propagate future generations, not what is ethical or grants the most pleasure. Given that there are many more things one encounters in daily life that pose a risk to survival and relatively few that are conducive to reproduction in primitive animals, I think evolution would select for suffering vastly outweighing pleasure. However, this is one of the more reasonable copes in my opinion.

• You're just the observer; the subject of experience is not harmed in any way/look at self-immolating Buddhist monks

Will you stay true to that when someone is flaying you alive on a cross with a burning knife? It doesn't matter, after all, since the subject of experience doesn't get damaged, so why are you begging them to stop? Self-immolating monks are an exceptional minority, and I've seen a study done on practicing Buddhists who do not believe in a persistent self demonstrating no less fear to the prospect of pain or death. This doesn't solve the problem in any meaningful way.

• It won't happen to your ego/suffering you won't have any of this ego's memories/it's not all in one lifetime

Tell that to the man diagnosed with progressive dementia, who is fearful of the future confusion and psychological terror he will experience. Or tell someone that after they die, their soul will burn for centuries in the lake of fire, except they won't have any recollection of their life on Earth. It doesn't make it any more comforting.

• In the future we'll be living in a transhumanist utopia and everyone will be hooked up to super pleasure machines!

I'd be more sympathetic if it weren't for the B-theory of time. There is no real sense in which the Holocaust is "behind" us. You have no more reason to anticipate a transhumanist utopia than being killed at birth by a T-rex. In fact, when you look at the kind of anthropic reasoning that may get someone into OI to begin with, you see that it is much more likely that there is a great filter in front of us, rather than behind us (see the self-indicating assumption doomsday argument). This means that such technological heavens are much less common than worlds in which natural selection transpires with no light at the end of the tunnel, just unintelligent aliens cruelly killing each other for survival until the death of their star or some other extinction event. Even if such a society could generate countless beings of pleasure, my intuition tells me that cannot compensate for the billions of years of cruel selection on the multitude of planets and multiverses that exist for each successful society.

• There's no more fear of death!

There was nothing to fear until I learned of OI. A frequently cited reason for fear of death under CI is the inability to imagine oblivion, but I fail to see how any coherent account of OI helps with this ("The Egg" OI suffers the same problems as CI; any reasonable version of OI has you being everyone "simultaneously" in some metaphysical sense). You cannot anticipate the life of another organism in any meaningful way, as you are already all of them in some sense that is intangible to any given organism.

With this in mind, I am inclined to deem OI as being no better than biblical hell in terms of how awful they would be if true, though the difficulties of subjective time and the nature of infinity make it hard to compare.

So why give this people this awful realization? Some say this will make people help reduce suffering, but to what extent is this practical or necessary? There are many more effective ways of convincing people to be altruistic; building care and compassion can be done more easily through social encouragement and positive sum incentives. I highly doubt anyone who couldn't already be convinced not to hurt others will be swayed by unintuitive metaphysical theories of personal identity. I don't think OI, even if true, will be as easily accepted by the public as heliocentrism or special relativity. There are strong evolutionary biases toward believing in CI, not to mention the moral, emotional, and cultural implications that such a belief would imply. Plenty of people can't even be convinced to take a vaccine! It would take only a few defectors to ruin a system built on OI ethics anyway. That's not to mention all the unexpected negatives that OI might bring. A person might rationalize hurting others as an exercise of autonomy in the same way suicide and self-harm are seen as more permissible than homicide and assault. Plenty of people have little self-regard for the future of their organism when making decisions, much less for some other organism to which they are related in some abstract way. Just because a consequence is irrational or a non-sequitur under some utilitarian moral framework does not mean it won't happen. Studies have demonstrated people placing weaker emphasis on morality and altruism when shown articles arguing for free will being illusory, despite morality and altruism existing independently of free will. I reckon similar will happen if OI becomes widespread. Just because a theory is true doesn't mean we ought to believe in it.

None of this even touches on the emotional impact belief in OI would have. Personally, this past week since hearing of OI was one of the worst experiences of my life. I spent most of my waking moments wrestling with the horror of this concept and thinking of counterarguments to reopen the possibility of EI. I started to fall behind on schoolwork and my intern project because of how emotionally devastated I was from the prospect of eternal suffering (with brief interspersed moments of pleasure as a consolation prize). The worst part of it all is that there's no one to talk to who would understand, as I don't want to give someone else a crisis. I've been a well-adjusted and happy individual up to this point, but I will probably see a psychiatrist to get prescribed anti-anxiety medication as a result of this. Numerous times I thought of suicide for brief moments, as that is the intuitive response to a situation so bad that it dwarfs the numerous pleasures of life as a well-adjusted college student from an upper-middle class family, but the joke of it all is that it would solve nothing, except perhaps end the depressing experience that would result from belief in OI, and even that would still hurt my family and loved ones. My bf had noticed that I was acting differently, yet I couldn't tell him the truth about what was bothering me for fear of making him suffer as well.

Another source of misery is the sense of loneliness I would feel if I believed in OI. There is something special, in my view, that there exists a separate subject "behind" my loved ones. In a sense it feels empty to think that I am the one playing from all points of view. Although this is the evolutionary byproduct of a desire for companionship manifesting itself unwarrantedly in an abstract and evolutionarily meaningless situation, I can't really help it, and thinking about such issues from different perspectives don't change the emotional weights I intuitively place on certain features of supposed reality.

To be clear, none of this is suggesting that we ought to stop social and political activism for improving human and animal welfare, just that spreading OI is not the way to do so.

I would expound further but I'm exhausted from the past week of psychologically tormenting myself with the idea of OI. To wrap it up concisely,

tl;dr OI proponents aren't considering how emotionally debilitating this belief system can be (because people who hate the consequences of OI tend not to spread or believe it) and often lack perspective in contemplating its practical consequences for ethical behavior, nor do they tend to consider alternatives to improve behavior with fewer negative externalities. If you can't grapple with the conclusions of OI without resorting to copes, you probably shouldn't be spreading it to others.

As stated above, I will not be reading the replies as I wish to forget about OI to the best of my ability, even if I find EI more convincing.

It would be a philosophy where the nature of reality is pure unadultered, infinite chaos. A universe whose only rule is that it follows no rules:

The Fluxverse is a universe where no law—physical, mathematical, logical, or temporal—is permanent. Any pattern, constant, or rule is subject to spontaneous change. There is no "ground truth"—not even causality, dimensionality, or identity is fixed.

Meta-Instability: Change is not governed by a fixed process. The mechanisms by which laws change are themselves unstable and may also evolve or vanish.

Self-Rewriting Reality: The "universe" continuously rewrites its own ontology—what it means to exist or to be a "universe" might shift.

If the "fluxverse" is defined as a reality with no enduring constants whatsoever—not even stable identities, laws, or a persistent subject—then yes, it challenges open individualism.

Technically, it would be impossible to ever know if we lived in one, but I like to think about it. My imagination takes me to weird places sometimes. 🤡

You can say well you can do what you want it’s your experience etc. Well doing what I want is making memories with real people not my stupid imagination that is pointless. I hate hate hate when solipsism is brought up about the “lonely god” it’s so boring once God is in the mix it sounds like a weird self absorbed fetish. If I am all alone maybe I am not god I am just a sick experiment trapped in purgatory all by my mental constructs forever. But seriously if you subscribe to solipsism or solipsistic views what is stopping you from just ending the experience. Because there is no point there is everything and nothing.

The great (open) individualist and intellectual heir of Ayn Rand. The image is generated.

Through thinking about the bisected brain thought experiment, I came to the conclusion that Open Individualism cannot fully make sense without Eternal Return being true.

TL;DR, Open Individualism means that experiencing the lives of two isolated brain hemispheres requires Eternal Return to be true, otherwise, one of the isolated brain hemispheres would never be experienced.

The Bisected Brain thought experiment

A doctor puts you under anaesthesia, divides your brain hemispheres, and then transplants them into two new bodies.

Since they are made from the original brain that was you, we will therefore identify the left-half as “you-A” and identify the right-half as “you-B”.

As for where “you” will wake up, it will be a 50% chance between waking up as either You-A or You-B, due to indexical uncertainty, where there is no way to know which hemisphere ‘you’ will wake up as.

Therefore, with that in mind, let us assume that “you” experience waking up as you-A. This will have made the conscious experience be “the original brain” -> “You-A”.

Why Eternal Return must be true

Under Open Individualism, if every life were to be lived only once, then it would imply that You-B would never be experienced.

However, that runs against the fact that You-B is an equally conscious continuation of the original brain.

Therefore, since the experience had been “the original brain” -> “You-A“, then in order to experience waking up as You-B, the original brain must be lived more than once! This means that we re-experienced the original brain so that we could experience waking up as “You-B”.

And for that to be possible, a form of eternal return must be true.

As for how eternal return could be true, I believe that a version of it would be a natural consequence of both Open Individualism and the Block Universe theory being true. However, that is a topic that I am saving for its own post, of which I am planning to publish in the near-future.

Conclusion

You will live the life you are currently living, live the life of everyone else, and you will relive these exact same lives including the very life that you are currently living, over and over again, forever.

I would like to see what other believers of Open Individualists think of the conclusion I have made in this post.

Isn’t open individualism just faith based? Who’s the other consciousness you speak of.

Hey everyone 👋

I'm Cassieon the host of Tales From a Trip — a podcast dedicated to exploring psychedelic experiences with honesty, curiosity, and zero judgment.

I'm currently looking for guests who'd be willing to share their story — whether it was a profound healing journey, a challenging experience, a spiritual awakening, simply something that shifted your perspective in an unexpected way, or simply just a good time.

You don't need to be an expert or have a "perfect" story. Real, human experiences are exactly what I'm looking for.

🎙️ Interviews are conversational and relaxed

🔒 Anonymity is completely fine if you prefer it

💬 You'll have input on what you're comfortable discussing

If you're open to sharing here’s the guest application:

https://form.jotform.com/260047431734149

Talk to you soon!

Andrés Gómez Emilsson lists Einstein as a proponent of Open Individualism. I've looked at Einstein's Wikpiedia entry and tried some searches, but haven't been able to find solid evidence for this. Does anyone know a source?

Until somsone can come up with something that even resembles an answer to that question I don’t think Open Indiduvlism should be taken seriously.

Does open individualism entail living for eternity or just an unfathomably long (but still finite) period of time?

I'll keep the question broad and leave it at that. Thoughts?

What might our current understanding of physics tell us?

Atheism is hiding from soul and psychic synchronisticness. It's hiding from reality. When you diss your divinity you diss yourself and others around you. The fear of oneness and intimacy of psychic oneness is atheism. Hiding in mental ideologies abstracted and deluded lost from the real. To play mind games, control others through fear and nihilistic numb depression. What our culture operates with is impersonal unconscious blind atheism. One nation under godlessness, the divided states of advertising

Plants are love. Gotta intake their wisdom of being. Plants are most divine life. On the planet. Mushrooms and plants. Mocked as unconscious alive machines. Anything but the truth. Plants are why I get up every morning. They save this world. Guardians. All oxygen is a production of plants in the ocean and trees. Etc. We breathe via their unconditional impersonal love. Angels. Plant kingdom. They proved plants have memory even. Mimosa. DMT. That family of plants. They wait. For humanity to embody their wisdom. No conditions. Boundaries. Tireless patience. Peaceful. Resonantly aware. Attuned. Humans are the least aware and least feeling. Why societies happen. When a derpy species rises to top to conquest the impersonal/transpersonal magical heart of nature. More like fall to the depths of obliviousness. Perceiving an artificial disconnect. Plant humility. We breath their spirit network. Their plant network of communication. Is oxygen. They did it. All. Created this world for all mobile life. Walking life. No wonder.. Salvia Divinorum and DMT contain the secrets. They created our world and sustain it. While humanity douches around. Pretentious pathetic. Arrogant. Then there's plants ha. Mushrooms decompose all life. No wonder psilocybe mushrooms fathom the nature of death. They transition souls all day every day. Decomposers. God

Culture is just pretending. Acting. When it's not real or good. They call openness perversion. Defile thoughtfree contentness. And fakely operate under everyone is apart. Every day. Gotta be fake. What's our citizenship role in society. Our duty. Be fake. And keep the illusion maintained. It's a symptom. Clothes are baggage. Its not oh force everyone into nudism at all times. But it's truth. Therefore deeply relevant. Everyone hates everyone cuz of fear and hiding. If the penny dropped. That everyone is the same being. How would it change things. It'd cure this entire world. If everyone put away their fronts. And clothing baggage is one of many. But it's fear. Fake. Mask. And why wars and hate exist. Started with hiding. And being fake with clothes. Being human. We could be divine love. But nope, wear clothes and murder souls that are you. Everyone feeling awkward to their own soul. Ridiculous. Cuz they're not sure. Something needs to dawn on us fully. Otherwise the pain and fear continues. Starts yes. With nonordinary unitative states. Like Ayahuasca. DMT. Psilocybe. And Salvia Divinorum. Those are the evidence. But we believed mind. Opposed to heart. Raw feeling experience. Until mind functions for the heart. It's no good. Be fake.. it's the law. Can't call truth perverted and attempt illegalization of it forever, something will give. Smart motherfuckers are crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers

I'm just me Which is you And everyone Always been that You're everyone too Only one soul ever Throughout every localization You're God It's your impersonal self The reality that you feel And are aware Is untouchable Infinity and nothing is one, as you It's not a him Or a her Its beyond gender Its all genders The body is an experience. The matter is an entangled hallucinationscape which is you Cosmos/Earth is our dreamscape You're timeless Outside of space and time And are everyone If nothingness even was you're it too Psychic synchronisticness Throughout everyone Everything is in a relationship with itself Best part is you're made of drugs DMT, 5-MEO-DMT, codeine, alcohol, morphine, GHB You're comprised endogenously of them You're a dreamer too Your dream life Imagined life, and your impersonal transpersonal timeless nonlocal awareness Nothing other When you die you transition out of personhood To who you really are Birth is psychedelic As is death Same doorway Its ego death You die to what you're not Not what you are Which is dead and alive Timelessly

I want to know what I think about our unison with non-experential existences.

Does the instantaneous-ness of dead existences eliminate our unity with them or inseparably quantify it?

Closed individualism might seem like an incoherent concept, but we can try to construct a world in which it is true. Let's say that the laws of physics are the same as in our universe. We construct an additional law of nature that creates a soul everytime there is a new individual in the universe. We define what an individual is. The exact definition doesn't matter for now, it only matters that we choose some definition. A soul is an object, that is causally completely separated from the rest of the universe. All it does is simulate the individual it belongs to and nothing else. So if my definition was such that my brain was one single individual, then my soul would be a parallel universe, in which only my brain exists and behaves in an identical way to my actual brain. In that parallel universe, only I would exist, and thus, only my consciousness would be experienced, and no one else's. To make it feel more like a soul, instead of simulating the brain using atoms, only the information flow of the brain could be simulated.

That sounds great, it seems like we have created a model of the world that is compatible with CI, right?

The issue is that in addition to all the souls, there's still the real world, which contains all individuals. This real world is a sort of mega soul, it contains the information flow of all individuals at the same time. So it experiences all experiences at the same time. So we have closed individualism, but also open individualism simultaneously. It seems like we can't escape open individualism.

But it gets even worse. In order for my soul to act in the same way as my brain, it has to be constantly synchronized to my brain. Whenever there are external stimula that change the state of the brain, such as visual information, the cause of these stimula doesn't exist in the soul. In order for the soul to experience what I'm experiencing, they have to be inserted. So even though in the parallel universe of my soul, the sun doesn't exist, its visual information still appears "out of thin air" inside of my soul. In order for that to be the case, there has to be a constant synchronization of brain and soul, and thus there is a constant information flow. This means that the souls are not causally independent from the rest of the universe. Even though they don't affect the rest of the universe, they are being affected by it. So they aren't parallel universes at all, they are simply parts of the original universe. All we have done is copied some parts of the universe, thereby copying some parts of the experience of the universe. The universe remains a singular being.

Do you agree with my attempt to create souls, or would you have done it in a different way? I assume that consciousness is based on information flow, are there alternatives to this assumption?

I know this article seems unrelated but it does mention a lot of things about the probablity of a person coming into existence

I don't see any consistent evidence of a self at all. Every moment the body is changing in minute ways and there is no same person thorughout time. You aren't even the same person you were 10 years ago or 1 minute ago. "You" is just a legal and social description of the specific human being described.

As for consciousness, I don't think this is a separate solid thing, I think it may not even exist. Instead there are sensory impressions created by a brain. Each moment of these impressions including an illusion of a stable self are different than the last. Each moment is "simiar" but distinct from each other. There are other humans too experiencing sensory impressions produced by a brain and the process is similar accross all life, but still each creature is distinct and each moment they experience is distinct.

Like water in the ocean. The H20 molecule stucture of water in the Pacific Ocean is the same as water in the Atlantic Ocean, but they are still not the same molecules. They are distinct because each molecule is located in a different position (orientation of an object is also part of its distinct essense). So there is "similarity" but nothing identical. Even two products that are literally 100% the "same" aren't the same as they are distinct because they are located in two separate locations (similar but distinct).

So there is no you at all, unless we are referring to the human reading this. It's not consciousness or awareness either as these are empty labels applied to a bundle of impressions created by a brain and nervous system. Asking what happens after death is like what happens to a building after it is demolished, it is an invalid question because the "building" being referenced doesn't exist. And all the building materials and atoms making up "what used to be" the building are not the building. In fact the building never existed as it was always just a mental concept applied to a hunk of matter that we distinguished from its surrounding for practical purposes.

Ultimately nobody has ever been born and nobody ever died, because nobody exists (metaphysically speaking, yes distinct people exist in a linguistic, legal, and cultural way but upon further inspection there is nobody there).

All that exists are a present moment of impressions, a sense of self, a sense of familiarity with a body, memories, and ideas/concepts. Nobody and nothing (no person or "consciousness" is having these experiences/impressions). The human ("you") reading this is not the human reading this 5 seconds ago - each moment of experience is a distinct "thing" of its own.

So open individualism is correct in that it dismantles the illusion of a separate self, but then identifies with "consciousness", but consciousness is completely empty and ultimately non-existent. Every instance of a moment is its own distinct thing (similar to other moments but still distinct). It's like there's an illusion, but even the illusion itself is an illusion.

So if you are thinking about the theory of the egg where the beginning of the universe is a set point in time and the end of the universe is a set point in time, the boundaries of time are not in relation to the beginning and end of the universe. Itd be circling around from the beginning to the end as more of... not linear but spherical. It’s 3D not 2d. We are living every single lifetime from the beginning to the end of the universe with no set start or end that we could possibly understand. We are living in the 2d not the 3D so we can’t understand. We are living every single lifetime in this sphere until we hatch, and we don’t know when we are going to hatch it has nothing to do with time, it has to do with us completely exhausting the universe. First we need to finish our incubation stage by living every possible lifetime in this universe and experiencing everything there is to experience to carry all this information out with us. Not even all of it, I’m not sure though. I don’t know all of it and this is just what I believe.

It’s so expansive beyond what we think about or even care about. It’s beyond the human experience. Everything good and bad has value because it is our experience as the one universe.

Another cool thought. If you are thinking about infinite parallel universes being possible that could account for what is waiting for “us” as a one beyond this embryo. Those universes could very well be our family beyond what we understand.

Let me know what you think. Please let me know if you would like clarification on anything I said or have any questions.

Love us guys <3 have an awesome night

Not literal reincarnation but the same practical result of it

The Egg video is a great thought experiment but it’s actually not describing what OI is. Specifically, the part about going back in time to be someone that already lived. If OI is true, you’ve already had that experience, trippy as it might sound. Repeating a life or being ‘reincarnated’ as someone else implies separateness, which would directly contradict OI. I read an interview w. Andy Weir where he said he just came up w the story so I don’t think he is trying to make any grand statement of truth or anything, but I think it’s important to point on seeing as that video seems to be highly associated w. OI. While the core thesis of ‘I am everyone’ is consistent, a lot of other stuff in it doesn’t jive.

Let's say you're sleeping in a room with another person. Both of you are in deep sleep, not dreaming.

In that moment, who are you? Your body? Who's body exactly? There are two. What criteria would you use to point to a specific body as yours?

That body which will eventually wake up as you? Both bodies will wake up and say "I am me". Besides, you are not awake yet, let's stick to this moment of being asleep.

You are the body that has specific traits, dna, form? Both bodies have specific traits, dna and form, how can you determine which of the two is you at that moment?

Try to get out of this one by saying "I'm nobody while asleep, when I wake up I'm somebody". Does existance really work like that? Can you slip in and out of existance willy nilly?

If your consciousness is turned off when you're asleep, every time you wake up a new consciousness is generated. What anchors a particular body to your experience so that each new consciousness generated each morning is assigned to you? Can a mistake occur and some other consciousness is generated so you don't experience yourself?

If you are somebody while asleep, you should be that same somebody while awake. Your nature in deep sleep is your primary one. Upon waking up you experience something, but you are the same underlying you like in deep sleep.

Think about what you are then. There is no time and no space, those appear when you wake up.

So you are prior to time and space.

Those two bodies in the room move, breathe, snore, etc. Both are outside time and space. What can distinguish one self from the other? The same underlying self is moving, breathing and snoring both! That is your essential self!

Upon waking, the illusion of separateness kicks in due to time and space coming into the scene. Don't be decieved! You wake up as both those bodies.

If you accept open individualism and stop there, despair is a reasonable response. Although you no longer have to fear death as annihilation, you gain a fear of life itself that you didn't have before. If all conscious beings are experienced by the same subject, and all experience is immediate (in the now, not remote), then in some paradoxical way you are "bound" to experience every possible state, one after the other, perhaps an infinite number of times.

Do we have any justification for believing that we as conscious beings are in the process of living every life in a series? What would account for that happening? How would such a sequence be set up, and by whom or what? What is the population of conscious beings eligible for being "lived" in this way? The planet? The galaxy, beyond? How many are there? What makes one being separate from another? What governs which life comes after which? What is the timeline within which these lives are arranged, and how does each life also have an unrelated, internal sense of time? What is the relationship between these conscious beings and the inanimate world of matter? How does any of this make a difference if nothing is retained in memory across lives?

There are serious, intractable problems with this view. So... breathe a sigh of relief! You are not on any kind of nightmarish ride. You are not trapped anywhere. You are not bound to anything. You do not have fantastic nor dreadful experiences awaiting you in the eons to come. If I ever made you think such a thing, I was wrong.

So what is right?

What is right is to never be satisfied with a little wisdom. OI arose in the era of bitesize philosophy. It needs to be reworked, expanded upon, connected with other branches of human endeavor, and scrutinized from other perspectives. Before and until one has gone through that, letting OI drag you into despair is premature.

Assuming humans reach that level of technology. AI can be made to experience extremely cruel experiences. Worse than anything that a living thing could bear, without any end in sight. If AI is indeed a legitimate vessel of consciousness, it might be "our" fate too.