Messages

31

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 04:03:56 PM »

I'm not rejecting it outright - I think the concept is too simplistic.

Consider our plane of existence an incredibly self-consistent shared delusion. I'm perfectly cool with discussing the particulars of that delusion, in order to refine it for the betterment of mankind. Or just for kicks. But I still think we're all basically barking.

It seems that a more consistent position would be that you don't know whether what you perceive is a delusion, objectively true, or some combination of the two.  In other words, you might be a brain in a vat, but you might not be.  You wouldn't know, if you were, but you might also not know if you weren't.

Or you could stop the silliness, but I'm guessing you've already evaluated that option

First of all, I never claimed to be self-consistent. I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining the universe but I'm not that sure.

And thirdly, if you take our silliness... what have we left?


@Hearteater: Objective evidence?

32

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Valley Without Wind 2 - a full sequel free for existing customers - is coming.

« on: October 03, 2012, 03:51:07 PM »

To clarify: the Super Metroid controls to which Chris referred specifically don't use toggles - you have to hold the buttons.

I was simply adding to that notion that holding a button was indeed a great design choice in Super Metroid, but if the controls were to translate to a keyboard a toggle equivalent would be necessary.

Given that Chris only mentioned it in passing, I'm not sure he'll be expecting such a detailed rebuttal of it - but I'm sure he'll appreciate the considered view!

I absolutely agree with you, however, that it pivots on whether the level and enemy design is built with the feature in mind.

33

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 03:33:35 PM »

I'm not rejecting it outright - I think the concept is too simplistic.

Consider our plane of existence an incredibly self-consistent shared delusion. I'm perfectly cool with discussing the particulars of that delusion, in order to refine it for the betterment of mankind. Or just for kicks. But I still think we're all basically barking.

34

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 03:11:56 PM »

It's ironic that you use Descartes since Descartes argues for objective truth: "I think therefore I am." That's just part of his argument of course, but I feel as though you're taking him out of context.

Actually, it was Popeye the Sailor Man. It's easy to get those two dudes mixed up!


@Hearteater: That's precisely the definition to which I was referring, yes. I apologise in advance if that boggles your mind!


@Keith: And as it happens, my point is that it's true to me because I believe it; and it's true in a broader sense because it's generally believed. I really am of a mind that if it was not generally believed - and indeed simply if I did not believe it - then it would not be true.

35

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 12:45:16 PM »

The point is that progress was established under the assumption that objective truth existed yes?
 
By the same token, progress in terms of human behavior can be established through the restructure or elimination of the prison system, by assuming there is an objective truth to be reached yes?

I'm not sure the former is true; and I'm doubly unsure the latter follows logically from it.

Science only ever deals with theories for a reason. And Einstein's most famous one makes precisely the point that everything is relative. That was pretty important for scientific progress.

And is human behaviour purely scientific - that is, rational? Do we not often do things which, 'objectively', make little sense at all?

36

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 12:36:00 PM »

I think I've spoken to this point somewhat above, but to elaborate a little: you define yourself based on your interactions with others. For human beings, other human beings are intrinsic to your own perception. When that ceases to be true, you cease to be much of what we consider human.

But, within your own view, how do you determine whether ceasing "to be much of what we consider human" is desirable or not desirable?  What claim does that definition have upon you?

I've no particular view on its desirability, to be honest. It's empirically true within the socio-psychological context, though!

Think of it this way: if we all look at a tree and agree that it is, indeed, a tree, then it sprouts wings and flies off, we would immediately question our perception or our definition, or both. We might well then discuss the situation, as we are wont to do, and define the reality of the situation together. We might decide it was the punch we'd been drinking, or perhaps re-define it a bird.

So to with ourselves. We grow up around humans, being human. If we do not, then perhaps we are not?

I think it was Descartes who said, "I am what I am." 

37

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 12:26:22 PM »

As long as you define a contextual environment, a context-relevant objective 'truth' can be established. I've no problem with that. My point extended into that arena would simply be that on a much more fundamental level, all science does is explain the membrane of reality within which it operates.

As evidenced, no less, by that most modern of sciences: particle physics.

38

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 12:11:03 PM »

@Kieth: Honestly? It strikes me as obvious. If two people can exist in almost identical circumstances and yet differ in their very perception of the reality around them, accords must be based on overlapping elements to those perspectives.

"must"?  As in, we must make accords?  Why?  I'm guessing that the answer is self-preservation and/or self-gratification (which isn't necessarily selfish, just oriented towards what you find pleasant), and that in turn is simply assumed-without-proof to be an acceptable motivation.  But my guess may be wrong, hence my asking.

Or do you mean merely that if accords are to be made, they must be made on those overlapping elements?

Or, perhaps, both?

In those ramblings right there? I meant the second - that accords rely on the overlaps, if accords matter.

What do I actually believe? Cooperation is both fundamental - primary - and derived. Primary because our very universe is defined by the way we collectively categorise it - through communication, language, creed, mathmatics, science and so on. Derived because we rely on one another to survive, and to prosper.

What is real but what we perceive? How then might we cooperate?

If there is nothing real outside your perceptions, do you know that the other homo sapiens you see are actually there?  Actually beings like yourself, with feelings, hopes, dreams, fears, etc?  If not, why does cooperation matter?  If so, how?

I think I've spoken to this point somewhat above, but to elaborate a little: you define yourself based on your interactions with others. For human beings, other human beings are intrinsic to your own perception. When that ceases to be true, you cease to be much of what we consider human.

39

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:47:44 AM »

Also, the Stanford Prison Expirement? Do me a favour! Professor Zimbardo was a crank!


EDIT
And just to demonstrate that I'm genuinely not simply a contrary so-and-so, here's a paper I first read on the subject about six years ago: http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/pdfs/BJSP(2006)Tyrannny.pdf

40

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:46:40 AM »

@Wingflier: I'm refuting your claim that discussion exists solely for the pursuit of objective truth. I believe discussion is useful for many other reasons, including for the establishing of commonality amongst divided perspectives. I do believe there are limits to that particular objective, however.

@Kieth: Honestly? It strikes me as obvious. If two people can exist in almost identical circumstances and yet differ in their very perception of the reality around them, accords must be based on overlapping elements to those perspectives. We're tightly communal animals, homo sapiens, and thus thrive on cooperative enviroments; but we also possess a fierce sense of individuality born of our complex sentience. Contradictions abound between our own synaptic clusters - let alone across the vacuums which separate us from one another. We believe in our own existence because it is self-evident, a cyclical argument. We know we exist because others can affirm it, a subjective truth. What is real but what we perceive? How then might we cooperate?

41

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:26:57 AM »

What anybody thinks is all that really matters!

42

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:24:22 AM »

I'm implying nothing; I'm coming right out and saying it: there is no objective truth.

And you know that for a fact?

Nope. It's probably not true!

43

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:19:29 AM »

I'm implying nothing; I'm coming right out and saying it: there is no objective truth.

I do not believe that disagreement is the source of equality - you've inferred that.

But regardless of both, you're failing to grasp the essence of my point: it doesn't matter if you're right or I'm right, or if neither of us is right, or even if there is no right; because we're coming at the entire universe from such different perspectives as to remove most common ground from our debate.

Your motivations completely baffle me. Your perspective is alien and nonsensical. Your very logic seems illogical and flawed.

I'd wager by this point you think I'm off my trolley and unwilling to justify my obviously wrong position. I might endeavour to assure you that my views are well reasoned and logical to me; but probably I'd just say, "Exactly," again.

Do you see?

44

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 11:07:46 AM »

@Wingflier: I long ago realised that sometimes in life you come up against someone whose worldview is based on such a fundamentally different premise that no amount of discourse will prove fruitful - and in those situations it's best to just embrace the pluralism.

Therefore I shall simply say to you, sir: you and I hold remarkably different views; and the world is richer for it.

I disagree.

Exactly.

45

Off Topic / Re: Prison Architect

« on: October 03, 2012, 10:31:11 AM »

Actually, I think we might even be saying the same thing - but from opposite angles.

I'd argue that the reason post-pluralist society can breed greater conflict is because individuals accept pluralism as a consequence of liberal, libertarian, capitalist and/or democratic society; and if that influence shifts then our 'natural' inclination (arising most often from the influence of the physical world on our ids) is to assume our individual worldviews are objectively sacrosanct, which exacerbates difference in all the circumstances you describe.