One-Consciousness Universe

"The order in which the conscion visits your person-slices makes no difference to what it’s like to be you". Then how does it make a difference? What does it even mean for a conscion to visit someone before someone else? If it makes no difference, then you should adapt the theory to reflect that. And then we are left with two sets of points of spacetime (those visited by the conscion and those not), which sounds rather epiphenomenal.

Have you read the Sequences? The most important post is Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions. It's intended to prevent exactly the error you're making with the "particle of consciousness", using the example of people who made similar errors with phlogiston (essence of fire) and elan vital (essence of life). Key quotes:

..Second, the hypothesis has no moving parts—the model is not a specific complex mechanism, but a blankly solid substance or force. The mysterious substance or mysterious force may be said to be here or there, to cause this or that; but the reason why the mysterious force behaves thus is wrapped in a blank unity.

...Fourth, even after the answer is given, the phenomenon is still a mystery and possesses the same quality of wonderful inexplicability that it had at the start.

Then again, I was lucky to read that post before making any errors of similar type. It would've been harder to admit such an error after making it, because I'd be too invested. In case you have that kind of problem, there's a sequence post for that as well: The Crackpot Offer. It shows the right attitude to take whenever you abstractly, distantly, realize that you're probably wrong.

I criticize Eliezer from time to time, but he did some damn good work. Let's use it.

Trying to think of how to respond to this. On the one hand it's some nice babble, but on the other it doesn't lay out much if any evidence that it might correspond to the way the world works. I don't really think this post is inappropriate for LW, but I also think it's current low score at this time of reading (4) is probably appropriate. My best guess is that it asks readers to cross more inferential distance than they can or care to and so fails to resonate with many readers.

As for myself I get what you're pointing at and I think you're turning your thoughts in a way that may eventually lead you to an understanding of the world not unlike my own, but given the gaps you leave I also suspect you have a long way to go in developing this understanding if you choose to. Relatedly I also like the back and forth in the comments here so far, and hope it proves fruitful.

metaphysics porn which also covers The Matrix and Fight Club,

PKD was the grandaddy of that sort of thing particularly The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch.

It's worth not taking the common-sense concept of consciousness seriously, as it more or less just looks like the idea of a soul dressed up in 21st century jargon. However, as you noted, this idea doesn't rely on the existence of consciousness, but rather is a sort of panpsychist frame of looking at the world. I tend to agree with this view.

If one truly internalizes this view -- not just intellectually, but on a deep emotional level -- I think that it is probably the best argument for altruism that exists. If I told you that you were going to be in excruciating pain in five minutes unless you did something to avoid it, you would probably go to great lengths to avoid the suffering. The human mind is good at internalizing future person-slices as a continuation of its current self, and therefore acts altruistically towards those future selfs. If only we were able to do the same for all person slices on Earth.

It relates. To everything to anything and everything. In some form or the other. Because all is one. one is all. It questions every question and belives to question every answer given. It speaks what he believes in. It thinks in both ways. For all. For everything. Forevery face he sees and every face who sees him. Always looking for perfection in every action or inaction.

Daniel Kolak has a 600-page-long book ("I Am You") arguing for basically this position.

It is interesting point, about which I has been thinking a lot. Moreover, I think that I have seen a phylosophical paper, which tries to defend this idea many years ago, but I didn't preserve the link.

The idea of what you called "consion" may be useful in solving so called "measure problem" in the infinite universe. If consion exists, it has different probability of visioting different "slices " and thus we could calculate probabilities.

If it doesn't exist, all possible slices are equal, and in that case most strange and complex ones should dominate, which contradict the fact that my expirience is rather simple.

Surely, we may not call this "consion", but using terms of "blobs of probability" or "biggest part of my measure" (often on some lesswrong writing) is even more confusing and looks like "misterious answers". There is much less mysterious In the "consion" , consion is just similar to an elevator which moves between different floors of the building.