>>12634476>Usually people use unverifiable hypotheticals to do somethingPeople could may might do a lot of things. Unless you're arguing for a new system, or the better utopia, you can't concern yourself with being their God. Nor can you expect to exert control over your own life by managing them. For most people, you can only control yourself.
>I don't want to discard>I consider the hypothetical, then reject itI suspect this is what you do, not because you choose to, but because you have to. Broadly there seem to be two types of minds, and the differences stem from response to cognitive dissonance, structure of the ego, and sense of identity.
The first type of mind is probably the more common. It is unified, integrated, the ego is part of, of, the world, and its thoughts are largely linear. When it encounters new information it must mark them as either true or false, there is no stable "null state", the longer the delay before marking it true or false, the greater the discomfort becomes. If it cannot be marked as true, it is marked as false, and discarded.
The second type of mind is not unified and splits into pieces to function. In this case there is little if any response to cognitive dissonance, and multiple (superficially) conflicting models can be held in mind at the same time. Things are organized by how they can fit together and weighted by probability, nothing ever needs to be marked as true or false, and nothing is ever discarded. Loose ends are retained and used later as needed. The ego is not part of the world, and to interact with reality, to which you are only allowed one decision at a time, that whole probability space collapses to a single output as needed. You don't live in or become a belief, because belief is all held apart from the core structure that is "you".
The two types are not capable of understanding or tolerating each other long term, at least, I'm not.
