No, that not it
It is the statistics noise.
Griefers at the Engineers
- Thread starter Gunston
- Start date
It is the statistics noise.
Thanks for the correction, my understanding was based on hearsay. /cheers
ITT: Internet intellectuals reveal their true colours and try to argue morality on a video game forum
You must be new here if you really think this is an unusual occurrence.
I mean, I am new here. So I do think it's an unusual occurrence. Except now I don't, because you've suggested otherwise.
I'll disagree with both of you. There is not an just epistemological lack of knowledge which makes predictions difficult, but also a methodological problem. Because the structure of repetion is different in regard to complex psychological repetitions and the basic natural repetition(physical, chemical etc.). Natural repetition has no memory effect, it doesn't relate to former repetitions except by being ruled by the same natural laws. Psychological repetition on the other hand, if it happens in a sufficently complex neurological structure, includes a memory of its former appearance. This makes predictions very difficult, because it forces the inclusion of a virtual (in the logical sense) space of possibilities into the "rule" governing the repetition. This is an major field of research in modern neuroscience and also logics. This is also one of the reasons why some types evolutionary psychology are at the least problematic, if (!) they try to imitate the methods of physics. Statistical noise on the other hand is usually not that big of a problem, because the problem resides already the mathematical sets, since the inclusion of virtual possibilities opens up the Gödelian box of Pandora.
Additionally "free will" is in most philosophical concepts in no way random. Starting with Plato the truly free will is mostly understood as a will following the reasoning of the "logos". Which is something different from the modern concept of logic, but can be roughly translated as a combination of deductive and axiomatic reasoning. This makes this concept of free will quite predictable ;-)
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
As if most people follow logos?
LOL
LOL
Actually yes, they do. There is just the problem that the axioms they follow are often structured through pathological processes. This is one of the core beliefs of nearly every school of psychology, that madness and normality are not random. As to their predictability, I would say the modern logics of virtuality are not included by plato ;-)
No worries. The hearsay is common, and sometimes it is deliberately repeated to serve an agenda, which just adds to the confusion.
And after that rare, fact-based interlude I'm going to slowly back out of the thread again, like Homer going through Flanders' hedge, because I've absolutely no idea what's going on in here any more.
It appears to me that what void is trying to say, when he speaks, at great length, of selfishness in isolation, is that:
“Selfishness is natural instinct and should therefore be celebrated above all other things”
“If I, therefore, just do everything from my own selfish motivation, then you need to accept, or even congratulate me, even if my selfishness has a negative impact on you in our interaction together.”
“I’m simply the messenger that we all do everything solely from selfish motivation”
Erm. How about No.
and No.
and No.
I already posted about the parallel primary motivators, and the thing here is that void clearly knows all about these things, but has deliberately failed to take these into consideration, state them to confirm his diatribe is balanced, or weigh them up in a balanced manner.
Void talks about selfishness as the be-all and end-all. Despite that he knows it is NOT the be-all and end-all, because of all the other factors I’ve previously listed and factors, as an intelligent and well read individual, he clearly is aware of.
So here we are in a social gaming experience, and void simply promotes selfishness as the one motivator that should be respected above all others.
That is the antithesis of a balanced social interaction and most people can see this clearly and transparently.
But reasons, I guess. Anything to justify being a negative impact to other players.
Ho hum.
“Selfishness is natural instinct and should therefore be celebrated above all other things”
“If I, therefore, just do everything from my own selfish motivation, then you need to accept, or even congratulate me, even if my selfishness has a negative impact on you in our interaction together.”
“I’m simply the messenger that we all do everything solely from selfish motivation”
Erm. How about No.
and No.
and No.
I already posted about the parallel primary motivators, and the thing here is that void clearly knows all about these things, but has deliberately failed to take these into consideration, state them to confirm his diatribe is balanced, or weigh them up in a balanced manner.
Void talks about selfishness as the be-all and end-all. Despite that he knows it is NOT the be-all and end-all, because of all the other factors I’ve previously listed and factors, as an intelligent and well read individual, he clearly is aware of.
So here we are in a social gaming experience, and void simply promotes selfishness as the one motivator that should be respected above all others.
That is the antithesis of a balanced social interaction and most people can see this clearly and transparently.
But reasons, I guess. Anything to justify being a negative impact to other players.
Ho hum.
No worries. The hearsay is common, and sometimes it is deliberately repeated to serve an agenda, which just adds to the confusion.
And after that rare, fact-based interlude I'm going to slowly back out of the thread again, like Homer going through Flanders' hedge, because I've absolutely no idea what's going on in here any more.
Thank me later.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Broken logos /= logos.
It retains none of the predictability becasue it's pathological.
Most people respond more to pathos and ethos.
That's why we're unpredictable.
That's the classical pre-Socratic position, but things get more complicated already within the Sophist dialogue, because there is a difference introduced between relative non-being (coffee without crème) and absolute non-being (the void, nothing).
This holds up for the concept of logos as it is used for example in neuroscience. It's a logos without crème or to be more exact without a strong relation to reality, but its fuctions still hold up, even within a pathological example. This is, in a short vurlgarized way, one of the explanations for OCD.
Edit: Grammar Error
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I will say even calling it pathological is in most cases very unfair too.
Even following basic syllogisms a learned skill, so that's nothing more than privilege speaking in most cases.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I call that obfuscation.
Pathological people can't even follow their own trains of thought!
This whole thread is about appeals to emotion and virtue signaling, ie pathos and ethos.
Plato's logos is a learned skill, absolutely. Although it's not a techné (a skill of practical application), but an reflection on the inner structure of thought. That's why he speaks about remembering in regard to the idea.
This is also why psychotherapy actually helps people to develop this skill, so that they can follow and influence their own logos.
Why should one call the distinction between different forms of negation obfuscation?
Who'd have thunk that a thread about Ganking and the state of PvP would get so deeply philosophical?
Yeah, 3/5 popcorns and still it rumbles on!
o7
The Replicated Man
T
Hey Guys! I was under the assumption that this was the Elite: Dangerous forums, not the Darwinist vs Creationist forums?
Can we get back on topic about the game and quit this silly debating and discussion about something that has Nothing to do with PvP?!
Can we get back on topic about the game and quit this silly debating and discussion about something that has Nothing to do with PvP?!