Witless Poem

It’s curious, the bent between…not actual signal to noise but instead signal to reception.

The billowing urgency, the message, the rising tide.

Vs

The pointlessness of the transmission. Dial a random phone number and speak into it without listening.

The same.

Grasp. Reach. Traction. Point. Morale. Effort. Institutionalized thieves, setting us against us and collecting the pittances into their own pocket.

(How many man hours are put into youtube? Yet who gains the profit?

But yet more people flock still.

They see glamour, when glamour is no longer attached to food and shelter.

They can’t see past their seeing. Which is the message.

And if you want to pass on a message, hand over your man hours to the thief)

Traction.

And the silence in attempting to figure traction, when traction is all about not being silent.

Have I dialed your number?

Simulationism – gaming with the front of the brain turned off?

I was watching something on the brain by Susan Greenfield (she’s a baroness, lol!).

It was on a different subject, but she was describing how a three year old child, if asked what ‘Out, out, brief candle’ means, they’d say it means if you blow on a candle hard enough, it goes out.

There is no dimension of symbology and metaphor for them.

And then I happened to be thinking about simulationism and how people get uptight about ‘it’s not realistic!’ or such. I happened to be thinking that, because I had a dream where the landlord had put our house up for rent. Except the house in my dream wasn’t quite the same as the house I’m actually in. Yet that wasn’t the point, was it?

Except perhaps for gamers heavily inclined towards sim, as much as the three year old has no further dimension to the saying, a simulationist just imagines without any further dimension. Just literalist imagining. No metaphor, no symbology. Indeed Susan Greenfield says the frontal cortex is to do with metaphor and such – so simulationism? Gaming with the front part of your brain turned off?

Interestingly she also says the frontal cortex only starts to really switch on and light up at around age twenty.

Out, out, brief candle!

Emotional roots

There’s more than a few bits in the prince of nothing novels where he refers to something like men take the wreckage of what has become, then call it their own choice and declare that to be themselves.

I was idling through elfwood and saw this. One of the comments is ‘How did she die?’.

That’s the human mind – not asking why it grieves over a dead love to begin with, but asking how did she die. Just taking the wreckage of what has happened and going on from there, pursuing why she died, rather than pursuing why it was a concern at all that she died, to begin with. Your roots may as well determine your destination, but we ignore our emotional roots and simply act as extensions of them.

Words bitten back: Certainty

From here

Specifically

I’ll give this one last shot and I’m done.

Do you think I’m wrong in detecting a ‘I’ll give this one last shot, because I’m absolutely certain I’m right on this…there is no room for doubt in my mind. I can not be wrong at all on this at all’

Even Richard Dawkins, who raves about Evolution, will actually provide you methods to disprove his beloved theory, like ‘Fossilized Rabbits in the Precambrian’ (I think that was the time period – it was definately a time period they shouldn’t show up in. Comments left will prompt me to find the reference).

I mean, I don’t think it means one more shot at understanding the details of any evidence against it, as the rest of the post is just trying to add more evidence for it, rather than asking questions or such.

Here’s a quote from me, which has probably been said in the past, but I have paralel developed it.

“The man who is absolutely certain is the man who does not care what happens if he is wrong”

Just a quick link over

Philosophy: An arguement against “Humans are fundamentally bio-mechanical”
http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/2009/10/philosophy-arguement-against-humans-are.html

‘Ella Enchanted’ made me think

http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/

That 2004  movie staring Anne Hathaway.

I missed most of the start before finding it in the TV guide. The premise struck me – a girl born with a ‘gift’ of obediance. She has to do whatever she’s told. It sounded horrific to me – and so my rubber neck drew me to it. It’s set in a whimsical fantasy universe and has a bit of the vibe ‘The princess bride’ has.

Now I’d kind of seen this engaged before, in the old ‘Gargoyles’ cartoon, where a character suffers a control spell (rendering him automaton like), and then the means to cancelling that spell is lost forever. The solution? One of the good guys who had managed to get control targeted on her commands the character to obey his own will, forever. So he obeys her, but in doing so, obeys himself. Effectively the spell is cancelled.

Here, in a climactic scene where the villain has told Ella to kill her love (and not tell anyone), with the blade held over his back, she instead commands herself to not be obediant anymore.

And I thought it very striking that all that time she had suffered others ordering her about, it was because she would not command herself.

“Geez man, it was a fantasy rom com, why are you thinking about it so much?”

Because it shows what you can get away with if you just stick with a few of the regular conventions. It’s a wolf in sheeps clothing, philosophically.

Oh, and yeah, the link at the start? I’m guessing google will spider this and hopefully find my other page. Hope it wasn’t off putting.

High production just makes followers/moth to the flame

I’ve been thinking that most of the games, whether it be video games or even table top RPG’s, have such alot of production and work in them that it’s a bad thing.

Think of it from your own perspective – there are these sparkly games that draw your attention and maybe spark your imagination. But do you have the raw production capacities to actually make one yourself? To various degrees, the answer is no. Perhaps if we rewind to early D&D, or to video games on the c64, yes. But otherwise no.

So your entranced and in love with something you can’t actually make yourself. This throws you into the position of follower only – you can’t lead, because you need to be able to make it to lead. You can only follow.

A mix of sometimes following and sometimes leading is alright, but always following? That’s a bad thing, if you happen to share any values I have on self guidance.

I’m looking at all these things again and thinking wow, all the fancy production just leads me into being a follower. Pah!

Edit: And why on earth can I google this new post I made only an hour or two ago, yet I can’t google my new blog?

Carrying real world morality into a mmorpg

This post, in regards to eve and ‘griefers’.

Specifically

Can-flippers and ninja salvagers are thieves. Thieves are considered jerks in the real world, so it seems perfectly reasonable to me to consider them jerks in EVE as well.

CCP hasn’t constructed an environment where all actions a player may take have the same moral freighting. They’ve simply constructed an online environment where I need to take matters into my own hands if I want to avoid EVE’s various criminal classes or retaliate against them.

This is apparently genuine moral judgement on someone for what they did in a game.

Something they did only because it was possible to do so within the code the developers wrote. And they wrote it because they wanted it to be possible.

Not only that, but apparently CCP (the makers of the game) have apparently declared that in the game they made, actions don’t all have the same moral freighting. Oh, they have the capacity to decide that, do they? And lo if they decide it, it is true for all (and that’s taking it they have even said anything like this and this guy isn’t just purely inventing this).

Somehow, because CCP allegedly decided not all actions have the same moral weight, someone is literally a jerk for doing certain things.

And if CCP declared jihad, no doubt whoever they declare it on is most deserving of holy war.

Feeling first, asking questions latter never.

Free will – free of what?

There’s an old interview of an author I like, here, that I read again the other day.

On the other hand, I was dismayed to learn that at least one of the ‘future facts’ I pose in Neuropath has come true. Apparently, Professor John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute devised an experiment where he and his colleagues were able to determine, via fMRI scans, what their subject’s choices would be seconds before they were conscious of them. Freaks me out just writing about it.

There’s going to be people who deny this stuff come hell or high water, just as there’s people who can’t abide evolution or the heliocentric solar system. Truth be told, I’m one of them. I believe there has to be something to my experience of free will, but all the credible evidence is piling up on the other side, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. All I can do is stomp my foot and say, “No! It just can’t be.”

Because if it is, then nothing fucking matters.

This is just a sample and what’s been going through my head about his concern includes a bit more of that interview.

But basically, in terms of free will, what do you expect it to be free of? Free of connection? Free of links to anything else?

There probably is a part of the brain that’s like a random number generator and can generate impulses that come from a highly random source. That would largely be free of any link to anything else.

But apart from that, what did you expect free will to be free of? Everyone talks about the idea of free will being free, but no one ever says what they want it to be free of/thinks it is free of.

I mean, to put in a crude example, don’t you hug your loved ones? Or do you want to really be free of any real and genuine link to them? “Oh, but it’s a neurological path, an actual mechanical firing of impulses, that then fires more impulses in my mind and so on – it’s just machinery!”. Yes, it’s an entirely money where your mouth is set up (one might say no mouth at all) – it’s all deeds instead of words! It’s all machine doing that connection, instead of just thinking of it but being free of actually doing it. What’s important? How that connection is made or that the connection is indeed made?

Goals met. Goals that originate in impulses from parts of the brain that are said to do with emotion, yes, but goals met all the same. What’s more important, that the goal is met, or that it’s met via some whimsical, fantasy free will thingie? In terms of hugging loved ones as an end, does the means matter more than the end? If you can’t do it via a particular means, does that mean that particular end does not matter!? What sort of screwed up priority is that!?

Or does that make me speak from a place that’s like a character from his books, called Kellhus? (and PS: My god, how obviously close to callous…)

There’s a ‘good’ for Kellhus, which is simply what most effectively allows him to achieve his goals. He is the perfect practitioner of ‘the end justifies the means’ rationality, or what philosophers call instrumental rationality. For Kellhus, the only thing that makes acts good or bad are their consequences. Since we seem to be hardwired, and are definitely socialized, to think that certain acts are good or bad regardless of their consequences, this makes him seem ruthless and unscrupulous in the extreme – nihilistic.

Hmm, no, I don’t say the end justifies the means. But taking it that justifying is the process of not failing certain goals, I don’t think there being a mechanical process that delivers those hugs to loved ones fails at any particular goals I have, atleast.

Is the idea of theft, theft?

The idea of theft and that someone isn’t allowed to take your stuff.

Here’s a thought – why should someone with nothing support that system? What do they get out of it – they have nothing to protect, after all.

Taking it that the idea of a system is supposed to provide mutual benefit. But when someone has nothing, there’s no capacity for mutual benefit.

And if the idea of that system isn’t for mutual benefit – well, what’s the difference between that and feudal lords who demand taxes of their peasants, on pain of violence?

I think the traditional idea of theft doesn’t really give a rats ass about whether the other guy has anything. It’s just a self righteous conviction they can’t take these things and they should suffer if they try. Or atleast I’m examining what remnants of the idea are in me and it seems that way.

This also applies to obscene wealth relative to having, I dunno, just a few hundred in the bank – that person is expected to follow laws about not taking any of the millions the other guy has. But to what benefit? So if he had millions, he’d be protected? Bit of a BS benefit that one – it’s protecting someone in a way they’ll really never need.

I think in facing personal degradations due to lack of resources – well, if everyone else around you is in a similar state, well then in terms of system everyone’s getting the same benefit from not stealing. But when someone looks like the monopoly guy and the other guy is facing personal degradation, well as an equation the benefits the degradation guy get are cancelled by the degradation. So why should he subscribe to the system when it grants him no benefits?

It’s because the rich guy has the mentality of a thief and he thinks he gets to keep his money because it’s his and no one else aught to get any benefit in exchange for him keeping his money. Oh that and the gang in blue with the guns.

The feudal lords had more firepower than the peasants and that’s how they kept up the pattern they called a system. Those feudal roots are still very much present today, still expecting something for nothing (well, I suppose dishing out violence and incapacitation is giving something in return…)

« Older entries