> It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation.

This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior I know that hangs out at the 7/11 by my house - he too "is" "getting attention", in that I bought him a coffee last week.

> As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day.

Indeed. There's a surprising amount of complexity in reality (although it tends to not seem that way).

> That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind.

Why only tweak? Do you support the general notion of society having a serious(!), mainstream conversation (substantial MSM coverage) about the merits of a complete rewrite?

>>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).

>>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.

> I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth,"...

Is "one can really know the mind of anyone" not necessarily intertwined with truth: that which is(!) the state of a person's mind? (Assuming we care about it of course.)

> which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes.

I said Truth cannot be achieved, not that it is irrelevant. Although for the vast majority of instances of mind, I would agree that what is true does not matter (at the perceptual level) - but there are exceptions here and there (me, for instance).

> As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless.

By what means have you come to possess comprehensive knowledge about what "is" "useless"? Useless for what? To what end?

> For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless.

Vagueness erases meaning? Perhaps in your mind, but this is definitely not how my mind works.

>>> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.

>> Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.

> In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning.

Can you explain why the "well defined" "meaning" of counterfactual causation is somehow incompatible with what I've said?

> I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad...

The theory of relativity and many other things are also word salad to those who lack the necessary background knowledge to understand it. (And if you have the urge to point out that because this is true, it does not prove that what I've said is also true, then don't bother, I well realize this.)

> ...that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie?

Herein lies complexity that would take essay length writing to even begin to address it with any precision. I think there's more than enough here already to measure the quantity of curiosity you can muster and sustain, taking into consideration the ~"utterly shit" communication medium (platform, language, etc) we are using.

>> This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.

> That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view.

I propose that reality (and communication about) is highly contextual, and that humanity's current norm is ~"good enough". When writing this, did you consider the distinction (that exists somewhere) between haven't supported in my model and haven't supported in this conversation? I do realize you explicitly specified which one (in this conversation), but my question is whether you had the other one in working memory when composing the above.

> What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system.

Indeed - we best have on our thinking caps!

(continued...)