On a bit of a tangent here - is there a brain architecture where a consistently good (and lucid/clear) experience is guaranteed? Is such an experience within to reach of humankind?
For example - junk food, infinite scroll, instagram, many forms of advertising seem to hijack (for a lot of people, but not all) some of the mechanisms that we have evolved (and that are useful 'in the wild') in a way that does not benefit, and often actively harms, the person.
A culture that actively detects and rejects such things can be somewhat effective, as it can make employing such mechanisms unprofitable. It is still unlikely to protect the most vulnerable.
One could legislate and make such practices illegal. But that raises the problems of 'who decides' and 'where do you draw the line', and of necessity restricts human freedoms (and also creates illegal markets with organized crime). See, for example, narcotics or prostitution (which both are good examples of the hijacking I described). Should we go back to something like the Hayes code for movies?
The fundamental question is whether it is ok to do good to someone against their will.
Do you think it's okay to do good to someone against their will?
Assuming the mechanism was there to objectively validate what is good, I'd say yes. People come into existence, and much of their experience is against their will. So what's a little more helplessness, especially in the pursuit of their own wellbeing.
2. Abandoning the quest for ironclad guarantees. Such guarantees leave no freedom.
Good things to google include "embodiment" and "Andrew Huberman"
https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...