“But because we were arguing for fictional governments, our autocracies, or monarchies, or whatever non-democratic governments heretofore unseen, could not by magic have fire breathed into them. For me to entertain the idea of a non-democratic government in reality would have solicited incredulous stares. For me to entertain the idea in fiction is good conversation.
I do wonder though, if you could generalize this even more. How else could you reduce the perceived hedonic costs of truthseeking?”
I don’t know if I am perfectly speaking to your point but I think that it might be very relevant and significant insight I mean to levate. A conceptual argument, discussion (a real discussion but on a conceptual subject/idea), or device can be useful and valuable in their own right.
It’s a very important point to make I think, and I think it can be observed as a society we do not properly use that insight.
I think there can be further reduction of costs by the exploration of the observation that we generally don’t allow the introduction of “heaven” in conversation, debate proofs etc.
Is anyone worried I might come from a religious perspective that won’t fit into the community when I say this?
I simply mean that we need to think about the ultimate game theoretically optimal end games in the social problems we describe and try to solve.
And it seems to me that is a taboo concept to introduce, and not in the useful sense of the of the word.
“But because we were arguing for fictional governments, our autocracies, or monarchies, or whatever non-democratic governments heretofore unseen, could not by magic have fire breathed into them. For me to entertain the idea of a non-democratic government in reality would have solicited incredulous stares. For me to entertain the idea in fiction is good conversation.
I do wonder though, if you could generalize this even more. How else could you reduce the perceived hedonic costs of truthseeking?”
I don’t know if I am perfectly speaking to your point but I think that it might be very relevant and significant insight I mean to levate. A conceptual argument, discussion (a real discussion but on a conceptual subject/idea), or device can be useful and valuable in their own right.
It’s a very important point to make I think, and I think it can be observed as a society we do not properly use that insight.
I think there can be further reduction of costs by the exploration of the observation that we generally don’t allow the introduction of “heaven” in conversation, debate proofs etc.
Is anyone worried I might come from a religious perspective that won’t fit into the community when I say this?
I simply mean that we need to think about the ultimate game theoretically optimal end games in the social problems we describe and try to solve.
And it seems to me that is a taboo concept to introduce, and not in the useful sense of the of the word.