[extropy-chat] A vignette on incongruent points of view

[Heartland]

>> Jef:
>> >> > Is it possible to bridge such a gap in understanding of each
>> >> > other's point of view?

Slawomir:
>> I suggest evaluation of each point of view exclusively with
>> respect to the *amount of tangible benefit* to the agent who
>> adopts and acts according to that view.

Jef:
> Slawomir, wasn't the key point that each person's view of the value of
> that day was completely subjective?
> Would you please give an example of
> how you would perform tangible evaluation in such a case?

As it is, it's not a good enough example to illustrate the difference between these
two points of view because amount of tangible benefit is probably similar for each
person after they returned from the beach, so let me extend this example further to 
the point where the difference should be visible.

A year later the second guy finally makes a stunning observation: "The 'beauty' I 
saw
on that day can be abstracted to beauty commonly experienced by people when they
look at a painting or when they listen to music. Beauty is being experienced by
millions of people everyday so my continued existence is not necessary to preserve
beauty in the world." [and shoots himself in the head]. The first guy, however,
continues to visit the beach where he enjoys sights and sounds of the ocean and 
playing with the soft yellow sand. After the second guy commits suicide the amount 
of tangible benefit for each guy will look like this:

Guy #1: Amount of tangible benefit > 0
Guy #2: Amount of tangible benefit = 0

It would be irrational to adopt second guy's point of view because acting according 
to that view would inevitably lead to a smaller amount of tangible benefit over 
time when compared to the amount of tangible benefit that could be derived by 
embracing the first guy's point of view.

Slawomir