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!

Forum ‘right givers’

As a supplement to my thread here.

Looking at the D&D forums, they also have a little forum culture where they start granting themselves rights. Like ‘Oh, the GM can’t cheat’ and such. And they have a thread where they all agree with each other that that is the case. And ‘thus’ it’s the case for their group. Except it’s only the people on the forum who have agreed with that, not their group.

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.

Service denial in discussion

There’s this thing, which I ran into recently on the forge and I’ve seen it quite a few times before, where you get assertion overload.

It’s kind of like the equivalent of a service denial attack – a bunch of assertions are given at once and apparently it’s entirely up to the other guy to probe, question and disprove them (if needed).

The thing is with that idea, it’s incredibly easy to keep piling on more and more assertions, usually in responce to those questions (like the old ‘if the earth rests on an elephants back, what does that elephant rest on’ ‘another elephant’…there’s always another fookin elephant). And alot of people who seem to believe stuff have many, many, many assertions to give. It amounts to a service denial attack, where the other guy is swamped in work.

I’m writing this in advance to say, no, your not making a point, your just swamping the other guy. Writing this in advance to show it’s not just some dodge tactic made up in the moment. Well before the arguement ever came to exist, this was written.

Provide supporting evidence for your assertions and even more importantly/more directly to the point, attempt to disprove your own assertions before giving them!!! Yes, attempt to disprove your own assertions – don’t give in to confirmation bias.

Or alternatively, tell me one assertion you had, but you disproved yourself because you found it faulty. Perhaps can’t think of any? Nothing you do is ever faulty? Is that god like perfection on your part, or have you been failing to actually weed out and disprove assertions on your part which are faulty? Is it someone elses job to do that? Even if it was, can they when you pile on a bunch of other assertions which you haven’t vetted for errors? And then pile on even more unchecked assertions when those get questioned, and so on?

Your a force on this earth, despite what you might think. Do you want to be applying that force onto other people in the name of those assertions, if you can’t name any you’ve weeded out as faulty in the past? Because unless you have god like perfection, if you can’t name any assertions you’ve weeded out, then they’re still in there and your acting upon other people in their name.

In game ‘truth’, as if the truth wasn’t a white eared elephant already

I was browsing through Lumpleys site

I read the line “You need to have a system whereby narration becomes in-game truth.” (it’s from a few years back) and it struck me, atleast with what I know today, how wrong that is. It probably sounds all naturaley and roleplayeyeyey and what-not, but that’s what I mean – it takes what I know today to just see the wrong (though I realise I’m one line quoting).

The reference to ‘truth’ is the uncomfortable seat of it all. If I started talking to you about this tortoise, right, and this hare, right, who decide to have a race – am I talking any kind of truth to you? Of course bloody not, you know I’m telling one of them old stories where everything in it is just part of conveying a central moral.

See, in the past if I’d heard roleplayers talk about truth in the game, I’d think they were just being a bit over the top with their wording. But seriously, roleplayers actually refer to truth in their game. Perhaps, if your lucky, they’ll add the prefix ‘in game’ before the truth. But ultimately, ULTIMATELY, they are ACTUALLY talking about the truth. No metaphor, no funny amorphasized animals used to convey a moral or a message or even a question – they actually refer to fik’n truth existing in the game.

It’s bizarre – it’s like they can’t work out who wins the race, rabbit or hare, unless they treat the shared ideas of rabbit and hare as ‘truth’. It’s as if they live in a parralel world where stories are started, then just exist in a flux state that needs to be resolved by some truth internal to them. Actually, I suppose that is where most roleplayers live – the bald truth of stories seems to evade them. If someone pulls their pockets out, then flops out their willy calling ‘White eared elephant!’ the ‘source’ of the elephant is pretty bloody obvious. But to a roleplayer, the rabbit and hare are some sort of creature that exists – they aren’t an extension of some other human, like the white eared elephant is, no, somehow the rabbit and hare just exist. The essential idea that they are puppets and someone has their hand up their bums, completely slips the mind of the average roleplayer – even when it’s their hand up the puppets bum. At those points, they tend to wonder why play is dull and lifeless, seemingly unable to see that the only hand in the puppet is theirs.

Anyway, I’m cruel – I’m pulling out the laser cutter on one line. But it’s like finding a landmine in a third world country – sure, there are millions more, why am I picking on this one being planted here? I guess I gotta take things in bite sized chunks.