NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9706472" data-attributes="member: 71699">I did misstake your meaning (apologies). This seems covered by assuming some unarticulated rules (perhaps more easily understood as tolerances or sensitivities) at the meta-representational layer. Let's call it "preposterousness". The presence of "preposterous" facts in W' act to block or undermine the fictive commitment to W'.The 'problem' will be the difficulty of reconciling such sensitivities, given what seems to be the safe assumption that they vary per individual.That it turns out to contain complexities at the meta-reprentational layer seems unsurprising. Among the evidence cited for the model are a number of cognitive dysfunctions around misattribution (mistaking an imaginary world for the real world and so on.) I'm emphatically not saying that the per individual tolerances or sensitivities are dysfunctional! Only that there is reason to accept that it's complex enough to contain such per individual differences.Relating to "enforced," it's interesting to consider how it should play out if someone dislikes my entertaining a pretence that a consulting detective named Sherlock Holmes has a sidekick named John Watson. Should I go along with them and remove Holmes and Watson from the fictional world (the W' I am entertaining) then on the one hand I might gain access to a different imaginary world (W'', as you say) that I find equally or more intriguing, and on the other hand I will hardly be able to enjoy the escapades of the intrepid duo. I think the only 'work' here is to be clear with ourselves about what is going on and accept that some posters might be allergic to dragons and falling heroes, whilst others are not.</blockquote>

Verification