I think you, GP and WalterBright are talking past each other. Sure, cost-benefit seems to be ingrained deeply into the structure of our minds; I'd go as far as to say it's also an important part of rational thinking in the abstract. But GP isn't talking about that.
GP is talking about being forced to do cost-benefit analyses on a conscious and even instinctive levels all the time, by our economy and our society. GP is talking about the desire to not have to do that, and to instead be able to enjoy life without constantly worrying that anything but close-to-optimal decision will be disastrous in short or long-term. The dream of being able to relax, to be able to dive deep into something that interests you for couple of weeks, without risking sacrificing your kid's whole future in the process.
Upthread, I believe GP was also talking about what I call the competitive vs. cooperative nature of society. Our society is way too competitive for my taste, and it's what I believe is driving this cost/benefit craze.
Sure, I get it. I'm a Bucky Fuller fanboy and I'm always reminding people about how he calculated that we have the technology to provide for everyone already and it's time to repent, quit your job, and slack off.
But if you believe in evolution then WalterBright pretty much has to be right, from first principles.
The interesting thing is that things like daydreaming must be adaptive.
- - - -
The really mind-blowing thing is that if you take Michael Levin's work seriously ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698 ) you have to confront the idea that living tissue thinks.
Does intelligence actually grant an escape from the evolutionary "Wheel of Karma" or just reify the forms that the drive to endure takes on?
Are we engines of terrible purpose or the art of Solaris?
My take is the same. And to add to it, being constantly analyzing every aspect of one's life leads to loss of creativity, spontaneity and joy. I understand we do cost benefit analysis when we make serious choices or even for all choices but as nathan_compton points out, we don't need to do that every single time. And to further add to it, being an artist in this day and age is a f-ing privilege because only rich people can afford it. There are lots of artists who are not rich but they are stressed out and find various jobs to make ends meet, specifically very modest ends, food and shelter.
You cannot help but do it every single time. Even when you choose what TV channel to watch. If you conscious mind doesn't do it, your subconscious will.
Making good cost/benefit decisions is how poor people move up financially, and making bad ones is how the rich become not-so-rich. (Like David Cassidy, who spent his wealth on drugs and parties and one day woke up jobless, friendless, and money-less. A similar story happened to Will Smith, though he managed to turn his life around, make better decisions, and regained his wealth.)
I'm not here to rag on good cost benefit analysis. Obviously resources are finite and we need to, both individually, and as a species or a moral collective or whatever, make somewhat rational use of the resources.
What I am trying, but apparently failing, to get across, is that optimizing a cost benefit analysis is not the primary mode of human existence. It may be, in some uselessly wide tautological sense, an inevitable aspect of it, but it doesn't characterize the human experience in toto. Most human beings do plenty of things which they don't consciously evaluate in such bloodless terms and, indeed, because there is no universal notion of cost or benefit, its unclear what your imaginary perfect analyzer would be up to in the first place.
Thus, if we are to preserve as valid the vast majority of human activities, we must deny the idea that literally every moment needs to be consciously optimized and embrace the counter-notion: that society be organized in such a way that we can sometimes, perhaps as often as possible, chill the fuck out.
> What I am trying, but apparently failing, to get across, is that optimizing a cost benefit analysis is not the primary mode of human existence.
I get what you're saying, but, with respect, I think you're wrong about that.
> It may be, in some uselessly wide tautological sense, an inevitable aspect of it,
As far as scientific consensus goes, I think it's pretty common to encounter the belief that life is "just" biological machinery and, ergo, evolution is a chemical tautology.
> but it doesn't characterize the human experience in toto.
But here it seems to me that you're verging into mysticism, which personally I don't mind but you have to call it out.
> Most human beings do plenty of things which they don't consciously evaluate in such bloodless terms
Yes, I agree, and in fact it seems to me to be a very recent, even modern, thing that people are doing that at all. I mean, accounting only began around 5k years ago, eh? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform )
> there is no universal notion of cost or benefit, its unclear what your imaginary perfect analyzer would be up to in the first place.
There is a universal notion, but it's self-referential: success at replication.
Again, this is a IRL chemical tautology: success at replication engenders new conditions that then bring about changes in the (virtual) fitness landscape engendering new adaptation. (E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event )
Thus the universal notion of benefit is a verb not a noun, further, it's a self-defining "emergent" notion.
Evolution and meta-evolution occur at the same time, are the same process.
From this POV, it's absolutely fascinating (IMO) that this process created self-aware individuals with intelligence that can, e.g. look at the night sky and see stars in all their celestial glory (as contrasted to mere tiny lights on a fixed fabric.)
> Thus, if we are to preserve as valid the vast majority of human activities...
(Just to mention in passing, I don't think we can evaluate the validity of human activity en mass for at least a few hundred million years or so. If we talking apes can't survive longer than the unintelligent dinosaurs I don't think any of our civilization(s) can be considered valid.)
...we must deny the idea that literally every moment needs to be consciously optimized...
(Again, I'm not saying that, and I don't think WalterBright meant that either, but it's not interesting IMO)
...and embrace the counter-notion: that society be organized in such a way that we can sometimes, perhaps as often as possible, chill the fuck out.
Now, here, you are talking my language friend! I mentioned elsewhere in the thread that I'm a fan of Bucky Fuller, in part because he basically said that our tech can support us with a high standard of living w/o "disadvantaging anyone" and we should be able to retire at 25 (etc.)
So, yeah, slack off. :-)
That's the other interesting question, IMO: is the evolution of intelligence the end of evolution or a change of form? (And this Q is complicated by the fact that intelligence is ambient (cf. M. Levin's work.))
I mean, what if we all slack off ("Let the robots do the work and we'll take their pay.") and get enslaved by Klingons or degenerate into blobs?
I agree that we should not be dangling appealing but actually disastrous choices in front of people, particularly if they aren’t educated enough, or aren’t provided enough information up-front in order to make an educated decision.
This is true in everything from investment opportunities (SEC with Registered Securities, and the higher bar for selling to unaccredited investors), to mortgages ($0 down with no income verification and a teaser adjustable rate), to food or drug safety (you don’t have to know how to check that food or drugs are safe at the grocery store or pharmacy) and generally you want it to be true of work opportunities as well — not that this is necessarily going to be the best use of your time, but that you know at least it should be safe and at least minimally profitable.
Personally I think many drivers make very good money on Uber, and also on the food delivery apps, in particular for how those apps fit their lifestyle and their preferences for when/how they want to work.
When it gets to be a bridge too far is if you exceed the baseline minima, and start telling people their preferences for how they want to work are wrong, or assuming everyone who disagrees with you just doesn’t know any better.
If you have a narrow optimum that's dragging your whole cost/benefit analysis towards it, and that optimum is externally created and controlled, you too become what's called a slave. A good example is wage slavery.
But perhaps this isn't about the fact that we're optimizers under pressure. Maybe it's better viewed as a problem with the shape of the optimization space. It looks vastly different for rich vs. regular people - the slopes are gentler when you have the means, so you don't have to worry so much about falling into local minima you can't ever escape from.
GP is talking about being forced to do cost-benefit analyses on a conscious and even instinctive levels all the time, by our economy and our society. GP is talking about the desire to not have to do that, and to instead be able to enjoy life without constantly worrying that anything but close-to-optimal decision will be disastrous in short or long-term. The dream of being able to relax, to be able to dive deep into something that interests you for couple of weeks, without risking sacrificing your kid's whole future in the process.
Upthread, I believe GP was also talking about what I call the competitive vs. cooperative nature of society. Our society is way too competitive for my taste, and it's what I believe is driving this cost/benefit craze.