-
You know this forum used to have more player to player interaction, I mean aside from Holy Flame Wars. People used to talk about stuff in general and relate to each other aside from the IC and IG interactions. Looks like the community could use this and I am currently bored so here is a thread for that.
______________
Even though the basic principles of RP are pretty much the same everywhere. Context sure does make a difference.
Since PS is supposed to an RP game you don't have to hide out to RP, it's generally accepted that you can RP just about anywhere. It also seems like it is easier to imagine plots in PS although it seems to be easier to work them out in other games. I say that because the RPers have to work harder to band together and support each other in other games.
However, PS does at least have this one big advantage right now. People RP halfway decently or not at all. I have seen far fewer characters in PS that make you question if you are really seeing what you think you seeing. Seems like the cybering has gone down, and most of the people, whether they RP a lot or not, actually do seem to have a decent amount of skill at it. I have seen some pretty cringe worthy stuff elsewhere.
What do you think?
-
Seriously, I am starting to think that full blown text RP is too taxing for most folks. It seems like a bit of a contradiction to be basically "writing" while in a 3d mmorpg. I know this statement is the opposite of what I've said in the past and it reflects my changing views. It would be nice if we could both "roleplay" and "do shit" at the same time. How to fuse the two together seems kind of tricky.
As for getting people to role play, I'm wondering if perhaps the original role playing crowd was born from the non-rp crowd. Perhaps its best for population numbers to rise before pushing for RP.
-
Well, there is talking instead of typing but I'm not sure how many people bother to get Vent servers for RP. Not to mention that all those guys playing female characters would be soooo busted. ;) Broken immersion anyone?
From what I have heard from players that were around long before me, there wasn't so much roleplay in the beginning so in a way you are right. But at the same time there weren't so many people either. I think the real problem is not numbers but people not feeling comfortable reaching out to RP with each other.
I've been on when there were only 20 people online, by all accounts" too few" people for RPing, and found several RPers to suck into an RP and I knew several others on could RP but simply weren't. The community isn't tight knit enough to really promote widespread RP. People really need to stop and get to know each other's characters.
I know people think it's boring, but RP needs more simple social RP to build the backbone for more complex RP. And by social I don't mean "How's your mother?". I mean talking time to use your character to dig into the background and motivations of the characters around you. Taking time to help each other to develop characters. It doesn't stop at character creation or the last thing you wrote on your own.
-
I'm not crazy about Vent as I don't want y'all to hear mah dysfunctional family screaming in the background while I'm trying to pull off a fake female English accent in a land where English do not exist. Broken immersion? Mmm I don't know... some folks might like the idea of a female character that looks convincingly female but sounds questionably male :)
Yes, PS has spiked shields, long, thick swords and traps. :o ::| ;D
Seriously though, gender is far more complicated than a simple binary.
I'm more of the opinion that its better not to force things. ( Get your mind out of the gutter xD ) RP will happen when its ready.
-
Well, in real life gender is as complex as you make it, but, in MMO land, gender, especially as it relates to females, gets really narrow really fast. That would be why women in MMOs are generally not allowed to have pants, not allow to stand without their hips sticking out at an odd and uncomfortable looking angles, and why sometimes certain "assets" seem to be larger than their heads. And we won't get into what these become when there are customization sliders, hackers, or both. :p
However, at least in PS you actually can play an ugly woman if you really wanted to. But, one of the funny things about RP in PS lately is that you can't easily pull off character flaws, quirks, and hindrances due to players making their characters so darn understanding. :P My poor Danao can scarcely be moody and sulky about being mistaken for woman when it so often doesn't come up or everyone quietly ignores the elephant in the room. XD
Even baddie characters can probably easily develop a fan following. ;)
The problem though is that you can't keep a game running and interesting if you have to wait and wait and wait to get RP. Especially for an RP game.
-
You want Danao to be misunderstood, ridiculed, and not easily accepted, but instead you get a sickening level of understanding that you feel breaks immersion. Perhaps its the expectation of not fitting in that is wrong. Are you correct in assuming that his life should be worse? Maybe the way his is being treated in game is actually an accurate reflection of how he would be treated in the real world if he were with the players in question?
I do understand your point. Its like when you play a monster, crash a wedding party, and everyone is all like, "Hey, sup dude. Have some punch." In both cases, perhaps is the expectation of a certain outcome that leads to disappointment?
( Yes, I have had experience with the latter xD )
-
Well, sure. You are right. But I'm not playing as Danao in the real world with the players now am I? And even in real life, that level of understanding and consideration is not even normal. ;D However, it happens with almost all my characters' quirks. Something or another always gets in the way of me playing it out.
For instance, Zandral is disliked but most of the time people seem to not really know how to respond to her. I can see ignoring her ICly but I think she gets ignored because people aren't quite sure what to do about a character that is surly or judgmental without being a mortal threat to other characters.
Telnavi is a shameless gossip but there is nothing to gossip about, but that reminds me that I need to make up some more news. Dahserai seeks knowledge but usually ends up imparting more than she gets. Megheraine is a practical woman but there are few opportunities to show it. Ech is not slow mentally but simple in kra's mindset but it takes time RPing with someone for that to be obvious. Illy is fresh out the DR and nuttier than a fruitcake but she is in Oja and there aren't many to RP with and she isn't quite in a state fit for travel. I just can't get a quirk to stick. :p
-
"And even in real life, that level of understanding and consideration is not even normal."
Actually, I know a good few folks from another internet community who are much like Danao. I also know one or two folks in real life with a similar circumstance ( though not exact) and have seen the same reactions in real life. Most, but not all people are in fact generally accepting or at least outwardly polite while secretly curious, however its only when the discussions touch certain sore spots that there is any conflict. Usually, from my experience, its when people exhibit ignorance or assumptions of a heterosexual, cisgendered norm that conflicts in discussion arise - or when people question the validity of one's gender expression or gender identity.
Out of curiousity, in your rp with Danao, do characters avoid such topics with him? If so, have you considered going there with Danao? Ie. Somehow exploring these topics and exposing his sensitivities?
Again, if you need a certain type of response from other players in order to feel like it was a good RP, then that might be a problem. That's part of why I'm not really into RP as much as I used to be. I actually prefer writing single author short stories for this precise reason. As an author, you can shape the dialog exactly as you feel it should go.
-
With Danao, it is rare that people really go into depth with him. But it's kinda like that with all my characters. It's hard to get enough of a rapport to were people feel comfortable or compelled to dig. But in Danao's case, appearance is only one aspect of him, it just happens to be the most obvious, but pretty much none of his aspects get much play. In all honesty though, I created the character while in a gender studies class and I wanted to see how dynamics of gender, not so much sexuality, played out in game. I found that such dynamics are very inconsistent since they barely come up at all.
But it's not so much a certain response that I need, but rather a certain level of depth. If you never go beyond the surface, I kind fall flat in my RP because I am really going for the multidimensional aspects. For instance, my characters are at this point all "good" but "good" was only a defining trait of one character and even that was tempered by personality. I miss interact with the characters that were so distinct that your could describe traits and it was pretty obvious which character was being talked about.
However, I'm too social to just write on my own. It's too introverted a task for me. I need more collaboration than that which is why I like RP. I like telling stories, just not on my own.
-
Have you considered perhaps just having regular discussions with people on gender related topics instead of trying to act out a scenario with characters? The funny thing about this is that at some point, you are going to react as yourself rather than as your character - or you are going to get sloppy as a certain level of depth is approached. ( I don't mean you, I mean other players who are no prepared to delve into an RP that is that deep. )
If I make a character with a history and personality that makes sense for planeshift, lets say. Say I make a sword smith for example - with a rich history that supports his current state and reasons for his trade. Next, he's exposed to a character with gender issues, deep philosophical concerns, or someone who likes to discuss deep ethical or moral topics. As a player, I now have to rethink the character in a much greater level of detail if I am going to make him respond as opposed to giving my own personal responses.
-
Ah, see I thought of that. That's why he is an otherwise very straight forward character. Even Danao himself doesn't delve in the deep philosophical aspects of how he relates to the world. He is just highly opinionated about it.
For instance, normal family, no unusual deaths in his background, simple backstory and premise for being in Hydlaa, simple occupation, simple goals. Most of those things don't have much to do with gender issues. I purposely sought to keep his story from becoming to cumbersome due to herding people into interacting with his quirk.
But that is why I also advocate thinking about how your character will react outside of their "home" context, that is the one you start them with and use as their comfort zone. I have a tendency to work on such things as a matter of course since I love character studies, but maybe others don't until they are forced to which is why I wrote the Character Context Check (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=40712.msg456866#msg456866) to begin with, to help those that haven't thought about it.
But I'm pretty sure that for most of my characters, I can tell you exactly how they will react in pretty much any given situation. Reaction doesn't have to be complex, merely consistent with their character.
-
Its like when you play a monster, crash a wedding party, and everyone is all like, "Hey, sup dude. Have some punch."
Somehow like at the Magic Convention. There was a Dermorian girl who appeared drunk and with little care about her appearance, insulting Sarras and others... but most people seemed to ignore her. Possibly because the on-stage activity was a lot more important. Just bad timing? Or also some uncertainty of handling the situation for the bystanders?
-
Wait a minute, there was a dermorian girl insulting people and it wasn't Sarras?!?
But yeah, it might be that they didn't know what to do with it or maybe it was just a matter of not knowing how to accommodate the RP and the Convention at the same time. Depending on how much chatter there was, it would already be hard enough to keep track of one conversation.
-
Lol! Nice catch, LigH.
To be honest, I started out with that character, then realized that it just wasn't working. It wasn't very believable to me and I suddenly got the feeling that I wasn't going to be able to play this character very well. I didn't want to disrupt or derail the event either. I was just trying to play as rude, stanky character.
-
XD So it was you.
Maybe simply doing rude would have gone better. However, I would say it is always difficult to play a new character in a situation like that. I personally have to do one on one RPs with other characters to feel out a comfortable flow for the character and then I can take them to big venues later.
-
I think it was just mostly the wrong place for this character. I had the idea of Helka having woken up due to the commotion, and then stumbling out all hung over and nasty to see what was going on. I don't know, sometimes things like this work, sometimes they don't.
-
I find stuff like that worked better in the past than now. Seems like now you need to have a character with a deliberate purpose for them to stand a chance at cutting it.
-
Well, part of it was that talking a lot would have flooded the event with unrelated dialog. I sort of realized that after a few minutes. Yes, it also depends on the other players. I think some know how their characters would react while others are caught off guard a little. I figured my character would be shunned, pushed back, or reprimanded, but got mostly polite responses instead. XD
For Christ's sake, the smelly bitch stuck her filthy finger in the pie, spat it out, was insulting, ordered the crayfish delight and instead of paying for it, she told the person at the counter to hold her empty mug. lol.
I was like, what? No F.U. for that? No "get lost" or "someone toss this pie, its contaminated?"
-
My problem, welcome. ;) I find it kills most of my character ideas. Responses are just too sterile sometimes. I also think that some players are just afraid of how another player will react to their character being mean or curt. I think the IC/OOC barrier typically holds up well until it comes to a character being mean, aside from dealing with a clear cut "evil character".
I think many have lost a sense of shades. There is good and evil with nothing in between.
And tsk tsk... Language. :P
-
Well, this is something that I try to factor into event planning. I try not to make plans so fragile that they are likely to not work if players don't react a certain way. I do get your point. The question is, how do you work around this. Leading by example might work. I learned to play by watching others.
-
Well, this doesn't work so well due to the ratio of examples to people watching. Honestly I don't know how to work around it. I am all tapped out. After awhile your example just becomes something people watch but not necessarily imitate.
I think what is needed is a larger group of people putting in that kind of effort at the same time, I mean litterally RPing at the same chronological time, so that it presents a broader continuum of possibilities. A working RP ecosystem if you will. But that is hard to do with schedules and such. I always wanted to try large scale RPs that weren't events or plot but rather everyone working within the same scenario, shaping it.
My first idea was to recruit players into an extended family so that you didn't just stand around talking about uncle bob, there actually was someone to play uncle bob. Then I had the idea of setting up a PS soap opera where you assign characters a role in the whole and give them a motivation but the rest is up to them and how they interact. So if two sides in a love triangle met up, then it was up to how the RP in that instant flows as to what happens next.
Then I thought maybe trade associations so that when your character needs another character of a specific profession, they can easily find them. There was also the Stonehead and providing a safe place for anyone to RP and jobs or careers for people... I just don't know.
However, I need to get going and head to bed. Maybe when I check back in the morning someone else will have an idea. Or maybe someone else will have started a completely different conversation entirely. XD
-
Running into a lot of walls myself. I have several 'not very nice' or at least slightly odd characters that I have been trying to play and I've had mostly really bad experiences when trying of late, to the point that I've withdrawn a lot from RP. To date, I've been insulted for my attempts, had people accuse me (the player) of being mean - yet I never target people I haven't witnessed as capable of RPing, been outright ignored, had people use OOC information against my 'bad guys' and in general have been left with the feeling that all people want is tavern RP or to RP about what craft they are learning.
I've nothing against those kinds of RP - if they are opening doors to deeper and more interesting developments, but by themselves they often bore me, probably because most characters I run into are flat and underdeveloped, have no quirks at all and do nothing interesting.
Sadly, I'm also guessing my timezone has simply become incompatible with RP on PS, because I know there are still some RPers around (and not to belittle anyone here, because I know there are RPers in my time zone, but I specifically mean the sort who RP deeper and more complex plots), but I'm just not running into them.
I'm no longer sure what to do about it. If anyone ever wants to prod me into RP, by all means do.
-
I think the problem is that those kinds of RPers are on, but now they are in the rut of not doing that kind of depth in RP. Sort of an ennui that has set in. I think players largely don't have the motivation to struggle with the concept at the same time, and then it makes everyone feel a bit isolated or left hanging.
I would like to hear some more thoughts from other people on this though. It is starting to sound like maybe we just need to figure out who feels this way too and find a way to put them in contact with each other. Maybe even have everyone work together to find an excuse for everyone's character's to interact. That last part becomes hard with anti-social or awkward characters.
-
These are some of the difficulties faced when playing a baddie. It sucks, but its par for the course. In the Outlaws guild, we taught one another how to play such characters and how to deal with players who don't understand what you are doing. This is something that folks who only play good characters will fail to appreciate.
For me, its just been a matter of renegotiating my own expectations and learning to find ways to play said character without requiring a particular response from others. For some, its means playing with only a select few players who are close to their level of play.
If you are on at night(my time), and I think you are, then perhaps we should hang out.
-
I rarely ever require a certain response... just any IC response that seems realistic would be an improvement over what I have been getting. I do get something from time to time, but it's become so rare that I've mostly given up, at least with the characters that I really enjoy playing. So if you are about at the same time as me, and don't mind running into some not-so-nice types, just let me know. I'd love to bring my nasty ones out to play again.
-
So if you are about at the same time as me, and don't mind running into some not-so-nice types, just let me know. I'd love to bring my nasty ones out to play again.
She don't know you very well do she? ;D
-
We played together in the past. From an IC perspective at least, she knows Rigwyn better than he knows her. It might be interesting to see what comes about.
-
Tay's possibly not the character I'd aim for using anyway. I don't even consider her as one of my 'nasties'... Despite what she did to Rigwyn before. :)
But with that said, it really could be interesting.
-
My problem, welcome. ;) I find it kills most of my character ideas. Responses are just too sterile sometimes. I also think that some players are just afraid of how another player will react to their character being mean or curt. I think the IC/OOC barrier typically holds up well until it comes to a character being mean, aside from dealing with a clear cut "evil character".
I think many have lost a sense of shades. There is good and evil with nothing in between.
And tsk tsk... Language. :P
Now hold on for just a moment there! I've seen a few good characters with some amazing jerkbag tendencies. Evirea for one is filled with enough snark to make even a grown man cry, while still being a good character. Travosh too can be a mean person, but his character is effectively morally neutral. Teshia can be an ass to anyone she doesn't like, or if she is just in a bad mood. There are a bunch of people who have been able to play successful jerky- non evil characters. I have also had success with a rather distasteful character who's out look is surprisingly bleak and morally ambiguous.
I haven't been around as often as I would like. the spring is a busy time of year for me, but I am up for any RP, especially with some nasty people any time. If you see me around let me know! Send me a /tell or something.
-
Now hold on for just a moment there! I've seen a few good characters with some amazing jerkbag tendencies.
Exactly, a few. And I'm used to seeing the people you mentioned around the same timezone. The problem is like any other connected to RP: numbers and availability range. We have too many gaps where people don't see much.
The hard part is how to get people together where they can get these good RPs going but do so in a way that it has high visibility, is easy to join in for characters that just stumble across it, spans enough time so that more people are exposed to it, and has enough material and continuity that it can be picked up later and still leave something to do.
-
D'awwww, how cute. Zalya thinks Trav and Tesh aren't evil. :love:
Honestly, I think part of the problem is when people expect certain things, and only those things out of RP or a particular event. Much of the fun and enjoyment about RP comes from the unpredictable nature of them, and the surprises.
-
I rather miss the unpredictable element. Sadly most of my RPs end up being very predictable. That isn't necessarily bad for some RPs. But it does get to be rather bland when your RP can easily be exchanged for a thousand others. I think this is partially from some players believing just social RPs are inherently boring. They treat the RP like a chore, try to get it over as soon as possible, or just put little effort into it and then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
That is one thing about soap opera like RPs they do tend to be rather unpredictable. I miss my little soap opera. ;D I'm going to have to recruit some people to play some parts and start a new one up.
-
Well, most of what I would call 'social RPs' really are boring. A good RPer playing this kind of RP can still be a good thing, but then a good RPer usually has more going on under the surface that they will hint at anyway, and to me, from this moment where a hint of something more is dropped, it's more than a mere mundane social RP and an actual plot related one, or a quirky one, or in some other way still an interesting one.
If I want the mundane and flat personalities, I have reality for that. I have so much reality that I choke on mundane every day. I play this for enjoyment, so only want mundane that goes someplace interesting.
Interesting doesn't have to be some massive plot or text-wall RP either. Character quirks. People being silly/stupid/threatening/unreasonably generous for no apparent reason - anything that has the power to make me sit up a little and pay attention - is good.
Maybe we should stop using the term 'social RPs' to describe those particular RPs that some people find boring and start asking WHY people find them boring instead. I generally stick things out and put effort into any RP that comes my way, time permitting, but I still find a lot of the RP I come across is massively uninteresting. But in the end, should I carry blame if I walk away from an RP that does nothing to hold my interest instead of sticking it out and enduring? I would say we shouldn't blame those who walk away from RP they don't enjoy, but instead try and give them reasons to enjoy it.
To me this means less 'purely' social RPs and more social RPs that carry hints of things which can then go somewhere. I think the distinction is important.
-
"But in the end, should I carry blame if I walk away from an RP that does nothing to hold my interest instead of sticking it out and enduring? I would say we shouldn't blame those who walk away from RP they don't enjoy, but instead try and give them reasons to enjoy it."
This is key. Its up to each of us to make the rp fun and interesting for ourselves and others. Ask not what your RP community will do for you, but .... /end lecture prematurely
In all fairness, we all like different things about each kind of rp. There are things that Illy and others value in her type of rp that perhaps we don't value and vice versa.
-
It doesn't matter what name we call it by, each new name gets the same treatment eventually. The problem is people not knowing how to properly develop a social RP. Let me pinpoint exactly why these RPs are typically boring:
Character 1: Oh hello.
Character 2: Hello.
Character 1: Are you new around here?
Character 2: Oh no. I've been here awhile.
Character 1: Oh ok...
Character 2: ...
Character 1: ...
Or... if you do manage to get info out of a character. You will listen to things like I train this way or that combat. I'm a hunter, a mage or some other generic title for what I do. You may hear about the character's backstory but you don't actually learn anything about what makes that particular character unique. This is largely because, too often, the things that make the character unique are external.
Training, family, mysterious people in the past are nice and good and they shape the character. But the character either lacks distinct qualities internally like an aversion to pie, or a lisp, or being shy around a certain race of people, or constantly loosing things, etc. or the player simple forgets to talk about it in casual RP. After awhile you get tired of hearing about training and what the other character plans to train in the future to advance their career. The character itself needs traits, aside from what mechanics gives it since everyone has access to the exact same mechanics. It might be nice to also hear about people's adventures and other RPs. I rarely hear about what people do with other characters.
However, I will say that the person walking away does bear some responsibility even if they are justified. Many of the people with this problem are new. If you don't press them to do better, they won't necessarily learn better. Same thing happens in a way with more experienced players. If they get in the rut of not doing more and no one ever pushes them, they won't realized that they have slipped into this and there will be no motivation for change. They will slowly give up.
We have to not only do better but push for more. When you talk with characters, don't stop at the "How's your mother" routine. As them about themselves in depth and also reveal details about your character. You never know where that will lead.
To be honest, I am a role player now because one day Indygo stopped me at the Magic Shop gold mine, sat me down as a new player, and asked Illysia about where she was from and her life. At that moment I had to think up a proper backstory... and then give up and just tell Indygo that there were some things I hadn't come up with yet. But years later, not only does Illy have a backstory, I've developed several other characters as well.
-
Actually, the name matters. The name used changes how inclusive and wide reaching the RP it refers to is. Social RP vs. a specific sort of social RP. There is a difference and it's rather large. If you bundle them all up with the same label, then your neat example of supreme boredom gets thrown in with much better RP as well, so that if I say "I dislike social RP" the sentence is nonsensical. I like one type. I dislike the other. Using a better name determines how well I convey that to others, and saying "I dislike a certain type of social RP" is much more positive than saying what would in effect be "I dislike all social RP." Given that RP is by nature social... well, I would hope the difference is obvious enough to grasp.
I've also never had any problem with helping new players or those who struggle with RP. But there's a difference between these players and players who were around for a long time and who do the exact same thing as new players and never ever change their routine ever under any circumstances whatsoever at all. Those are the ones I struggle not to walk away from.
I can't comment on character backgrounds much really. It's great you managed to create a couple of good ones after a few years, but if that's the norm we can't really expect anyone to be as good as you because a lot of players just haven't been around so long. I only usually spend about half hour making backstories myself, and most of the people I enjoy RPing with probably spend a few hours at most. But well, there are different schools of thought on this kind of thing as well.
-
Having a bunch of detailed characters just hanging out and doing nothing isn't much fun to me. I like to do things. I like to be a part of something.
I was thinking my main, Rigwyn isn't really the type of character that's conducive to pulling the community together. Perhaps I'll try rolling a new one for a while. Perhaps one that could be used to welcome and encourage people to play together. Maybe a charitable leader with questionable intentions.
One complaint that I've often had is that you can't play an antagonist without protagonists. Maybe I'll try this and see if it works. I don't mean starting a freaking tea party, but rather focusing on community building.
-
@Taya: The reason I lump all the social RPs together is because that is how people typically see it. Which is why it often becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Further, there are are all kinds of other names for specific forms of social RPs and they are treated with equal contempt. Being positive is nice and all but the net result is the same.
The point of my story was not that it takes years to develop characters, because it doesn't, it was that I didn't start the process of development until another player pushed me to do so. The right questions can serve as a catalyst. Indygo asked me about Illysia and that is what turned the corner on my simply playing the game into my actually RPing.
For instance, if someone tells you they don't like mining in the dungeon. Rather than simply asking them where they do like mining, you can ask them "Is it because you are afraid of clackers?" "Is it because you are afraid of the Dark?" or "Is it because you don't like being by yourself down there?" Each of these questions can get at the motivations of the other character and it can make the player think. Sometimes it is simply a matter of the other player hasn't really considered an IC motivation or reason for their character doing something yet. It might all be based on mechanics or OOC preferences of the player.
You be surprised how many players aren't refusing to change, they simply don't have a good enough springboard to launch the change. Some may have even forgotten how to do is since it is has been so long since they have done it or since they have seen it done. A player having been playing a while doesn't mean that they aren't in some ways a "newbie" and that they don't still need extra help.
@Rigwyn: Technically sitting around having a few drink with your friends and harassing each other is doing something. ;) This is just not your particular thing. You need RPs that focus more on character actions and the ramification of those actions rather than character's internal makeup. I'm the exact opposite. I almost couldn't care less what characters are doing just as long as I get to see what makes the character tick.
However, community building doesn't mean everyone in the group has to be on good terms, it just means they need to get in the habit of interacting with each other. But it takes less prior coordination to talk, especially when everyone is on good terms, than it does to go out and rob people or kidnap or set up schemes to swindle people.
-
I didn't only refer to new players but also to those who struggle with RP. These players I have no issues with and will spend hours working with whenever there's reason to, because generally they want to learn or at least aren't against it, and I've seen many others who do this as well, time and time again. There are however plenty who do nothing interesting, no matter what lines you feed them or what questions you ask.
And I find there is very little about players that can surprise me, because I don't have the assumptions you seem to feel I possess. I know a springboard toward change can make a huge difference to who does or doesn't try and RP what and when. I wouldn't bother replying to any of these topics otherwise.
I do find it very odd as well that you make comments like "Being positive is nice and all but the net result is the same" then seem to be trying to provide a pep-talk on how to be positive about other things to do with RP. You've done this before, and the net result always seems to be the same, but apparently you think it's a good idea anyway? And to clarify, I'm not questioning that it's a good idea; many of the points you raise are always good ideas. But I'm questioning how soon you dismiss other ideas and thinking that don't directly agree with your own. As Rigwyn has very accurately pointed out, different people want different things. I don't level any blame on someone who fails to provide the type of RP I prefer to see - I try to make it more accessible instead - so I don't feel I should accept any for not doing more (when I already do more than many) to grow the type of RP you prefer.
If you wish people to interact more in order to open up more RP, you really do need to see the distinction between "I dislike social RP" and "I dislike certain social RP." Because if you can't do this, you're going to put yourself in a position where you deny common ground that does exist between the different kinds of RPers we have. It doesn't matter what people typically see things as. If they see something in a way that is wrong and damages who they think they are able to RP with, then it should be questioned and saying what amounts to "this is just how it is" just isn't good enough for me.
-
They aren't mutually exclusive.
That's basically all I've come to realize from most of this conversation. That and yes, people have different tastes, different styles. Whether you like a harsh, gritty world like from Game of Thrones, or chattering around at tea with miss Elizabeth and "mistah Darcy" (because of course you must say it with the right inflection) it's up to you. Respecting tastes is one issue. One venue is not better than another. One genre is not better than another. No, nobody should be forced to RP something they don't wish to. Unfortunately this leads to fissures in the community at times, and that's when you start trying to compromise. But I find it's much more successful if both types of people give a little bend, and meet in the middle. That way enjoyment can be gleaned by both parties and everyone can have a good time. I've had a bit of success with this; after all, not every “villain” needs to be a serial killer. There are ways to involve different kinds of people that don't mean hours spent trying to delve into someone's psyche, which leaves some people drooling on the table, depending on the psyche.
Balance is good. And I've met quite a few people who do have that sort of balance. Jilata has the capacity to Role Play excellently in both a violent situation, and one that is more sedate, like the care for a child. Teshia can do this as well, even if you have to get to know her character fluidly first, despite her seemingly homicidal tendencies the character has so many bloody facets it takes a pickax and literal IRL years to break into the more detailed components. Rigwyn, a character I wish I could have got to know more, was far deeper than a mere brute. It was hinted at that his psychosis was a result of an abusive childhood, a detailed one, and that his actions were sprung from numerous incidences having to do with that. Dannan, one of Taya's characters, appears to be nothing more than insane on the surface, maybe even a little comically goofy. But I've had encounters with him about discussions of friendship and the like that certainly tread nowhere near the shallow end of the story pool. And personal-space-obsessed-enki-hating Travosh? The player made such an elaborate and moving love story it makes the Notebook look petty by comparison. These characters aren't merely EVIL. They're abrasive yes. They do bad things, yes. But if you dismiss then at this first scratch the surface level, you miss out on more than you will ever realize. Depth that blows your mind. Being more inclined towards action doesn't mean that you have to disregard social sorts of role play, you just lean a different way. And being a fan of your usual picnic doesn't mean you never ever should get into a spar now and then, you simply prefer something some might consider more sedate.
And that brings me to what I think some people are saying, if I might be so bold. Illysia, you want role play that involves a social sphere that is interesting in the way one might have a discourse about why they believe in certain moralities, or one that dissects a relationship with other characters, etc etc (insert further example here.). This certainly is not boring. But unfortunately, to get there “realistically,” characters have to get to know one another first. This is the snag that I think gets some people, even myself. People can only take sitting around talking about the weather for so long. Planeshift is above all a game, and it's a means of entertainment. If it is not entertaining, it does not serve its purpose. I can't say the heart of the “issue,” because hell, I'd never claim to have the kind of knowledge to take a sledge to THAT puppy, but I think one of the problems might be that people don't take the time to explore characters that aren't happy go lucky. Something that seems simple on the surface, like what looks like a run of the mill villain, might well be about as complicated as any evening spent supping and discussing personal feelings. In the opposite direction, sitting down and talking about your character's latest jilting is not boring, nor dull, to the right role player or reader, it's simply not everybody's cup of tea.
Before your eyes bleed with my wordiness, (and if you've actually read this far, whoever you are, I admire your attention span,) my point sums up pretty much to the fact that you can have BOTH in a mixture, and balance it out nicely. They really are not mutually exclusive. The sort of social thing that some people prefer can be found with a lot of characters you wouldn't think to look towards. But if a character is cracked in some fashion? If it is violent? If it appears to follow a certain formula? There could be reasons for that too. Of course it's true that not everyone is going to delve into the minds of their characters that deeply, but I really think more people than we realize do try it. It's simply important not to rule anybody out.
And yes, while it may sound like I'm just complimenting people here there is someone I have to acknowledge that does absolutely superbly with dealing in both realms without prejudice. Zalya. I admire this player, and I look up to them as someone to emulate in the way they deal with this situation. Zalya has always been supportive of both types of role play, and clearly seems to glean enjoyment from both. He/she has always been cordial in any interaction I've had with him/her, and any interaction I have seen him/her having. They're perfectly alright with being involved in role play revolving around something more action-packed, and also contended with chatter about what kind of dress would best flatter my socially awkward klyros' lean figure. I give you, m'dear, a round of applause.
...My fingers hurt.
/me runs off to find some ice.
-
/me runs off to find some sterile gauze, white tape and anti-inflammatory salve with which to treat his now bloodshot eyes.
(Seriously though, it wasn't really long winded at all.)
-
@Taya: Let me stop and address this issue because yet again it has come up even though I thought this was cleared up in the Hydlaa Trading Post thread. You need not waste time ascribing negative motive to my posts. If you need clarification about what I mean then fine, but I would appreciate you not accusing me of dismissing people in each thread I start on RP. If I was dismissive of other people's thoughts I would not put anything on this forum much less bother to write responses to people's thoughts.
When you post like that it feels like you are trying to derail my attempts at trying to find solutions by accusing me of somehow disrespecting others. Do you realize that it is demoralizing to try to put in extra effort to try and find solutions only to have someone accuse you of something negative which is the opposite of what you are trying to do? I don't mind criticism of my reasoning on the matter since that is the whole point for asking others, finding factors you have missed, but can we stop with accusing me of dismissing people. I put a lot of time and effort into considering what other people say and responding thoughtfully to it.
The purpose of this discussion from my end is not a pep talk. I'm not trying to get people worked up, I'm trying to get matters worked out. I prefer to work on the heart of the problem not something like name which is not what causes the problem. The issue of name can be worked out once we have more people participating in a wider amount of social RPs. Right now overall perception of the topic needs to be changed before people will quibble over details.
Also, I fail to see how working on the whole will not encompass the details. I don't have to always focus on the difference between disliking social RP and certain social RP because that is a matter for fine tuning. The problem I am immediately taking on is broader, people avoiding all social RPs that they can easily identify as such or not participating fully in such RPs, and thus will need a broader solution. I think that if we get people used to a variety of social settings, then they can pick and choose on their own which they choose to focus on. However, even a person who hates sitting around the tavern talking can probably be shown a scenario where it is less objectionable to them. So, I would say, first soften people up on the broad scale then slowly work down to as much detail as you can stomach.
@Mariana: I think you are very correct. The only thing is despite the fact that they aren't mutually exclusive, it can still be very hard to bring folks together who favor the far ends of the spectrum. For instance, Rig and I get along well OOCly and obviously talk and discuss RP just fine, but it would be far harder for us to be in RPs together when doing what we both like. For instance, I know that the kinds of social RPs that I do drive him crazy and likewise I would find it very uncomfortable in an RP with:
...
Violence, darkness, abuse and general f-cked-up-ness
...
I might be able to do a sit down RP where it is mentioned a bit but to be around for it happening would irk me much more. However, there must be some way of making a middle ground. I think it lies in having enough intermediate characters like Zalya who go between those that sit more at the poles of the spectrum.
I would also like to stick out that when getting to know another character, I don't actually advocate talking about the weather. I think it is boring too. That is what I am trying to get out, trying to change the notion that introductory RPs and RPs where characters just relate to each other have to be so benign and sterile. Just like in RL people can come into your character's life and intersect it in a variety of ways and I think we need to remind players at large of that so that they will take more time exploring those options. If I had started out RPing about things that mundane, chances are, I wouldn't be an RPer now.
And on the topic of length... see how long post just sneak up on you when you have something to say? It just happens to me more often than others. ;D
-
"For instance, Rig and I get along well OOCly and obviously talk and discuss RP just fine, but it would be far harder for us to be in RPs together when doing what we both like."
Agreed. We have mutual respect along with differences of opinion etc... Though I do get snippy at times and lob a snarky comment at Illy now and then. >.>
Out of curiosity, how important is it to y'all to have a story in your rp?
-
Out of curiosity, how important is it to y'all to have a story in your rp?
On the whole, quite important. Its a game and I like having a larger or point, something that a story tends to have. Doesn't stop me from having random conversations or anything like that, but still.
-
/me looks at her rambles on the forums, looks back at the pages of things she's never posted, and slowly scoots them out of the way with her foot. "Psh. It's not. that. important," she says with shifty eyes.
Nah. I'd openly admit I was a writer (incessant rambler) first, before I ever Role played with anyone. I mean not like professionally, more like, "I'm bored, oh hey look a keyboard..." PS has been my first RP experience. But I do love a good story. And lately I've found that, if there isn't a story to involve my characters in, I wind up getting bored swiftly. Doesn't even have to be a particular kind of tale, just something to dig my incisors into. I'd have to second phantomboy's statement, sure I can do some conversation and etc on the side here and then, but if that's all there is for long amounts of time, I lose interest. Short attention spa...
/me turns, and follows a butterfly over a cliff.
-
*readies the Wooden Spoon of Doom(tm) and looks back at Rigwyn*
<.<
I don't care necessarily but it is nice assuming that by story you mean some sort of plot being followed how ever big or small. I can content myself with everything being on the fly and not necessarily with a set destination as long as I get to observe interesting character interactions. A while back I had posted some bits of my favorite RPs here (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=37311.msg425857#msg425857). I think the one with Marqsaynt and Ixala illustrates what I mean (you can use ctrl + f with Ixala to go straight to that one). I was literally sitting between them and yet I was a really just an observer and nothing "happened" per se, but I had so much fun with that RP. I loved watching the two characters bounce off of each other.
-
I think that sometimes we seek things out but don't know know what it is that we hunger for. As a result, we try all sorts of things and are repeatedly left just as hungry as we were when we started. I think this is a very human pattern - and a very subtle one too. I know for me, there are certain things that I continue to chase despite not feeling fully satisfied. Could this be the case perhaps?
Currently, I'm just too tired to chase my own shadow.
-
And yes, while it may sound like I'm just complimenting people here there is someone I have to acknowledge that does absolutely superbly with dealing in both realms without prejudice. Zalya. I admire this player, and I look up to them as someone to emulate in the way they deal with this situation. Zalya has always been supportive of both types of role play, and clearly seems to glean enjoyment from both. He/she has always been cordial in any interaction I've had with him/her, and any interaction I have seen him/her having. They're perfectly alright with being involved in role play revolving around something more action-packed, and also contended with chatter about what kind of dress would best flatter my socially awkward klyros' lean figure. I give you, m'dear, a round of applause.
Aww I'm flattered. I really am. I try my hardest. I've always loved RP, any kind I could get. RP is a way to explore myself, and a community in a safe and fun environment, while putting an emphasis on creativity. I play and GM all sorts of P&P RPG's and I've done a few other online RP's, and a couple of LARPs, but Planeshift is still one of my favorite places for RP.
-
I think that sometimes we seek things out but don't know know what it is that we hunger for. As a result, we try all sorts of things and are repeatedly left just as hungry as we were when we started. I think this is a very human pattern - and a very subtle one too. I know for me, there are certain things that I continue to chase despite not feeling fully satisfied. Could this be the case perhaps?
This is very much my problem except that I know exactly what it is I am hungering for. I just can't get it consistently or often, especially since there are not as many people that want the same thing. I try to make do with what I can get, but when all is said and done, the whole reason I keep coming back is that I keep hoping that this time I will get what I am after.
-
Do you think that perhaps perfectionism might have something to do with it?
I suspect that perfectionism might be responsible for some of the rp recline that we saw in the past. I know that I was happier when I expected less :)
-
I doubt it. I compromise on my standards all the time. I lowered my expectations and it helped but when all is said and done, I want what I want. But, what I want to do other people think is boring when you try and lead them into it. If I can convince them to hang around a bit they often don't mind it but when I ask people to join me they pass up most of the time because they assume it is boring.
Sometimes it is but that's often because despite trying to find the right prompt it turned in "How's the weather?" or "How's your mother?" There is something to be said for character chemistry and not all characters have chemistry with each other.
For awhile I tried jumping people and dragging them in RP randomly so that they don't have time to think "this will be a social RP" and it works, but it is very time consuming and tiring to do it that way. It takes way more effort on my part to first chase people down.
-
For awhile I tried jumping people and dragging them in RP randomly so that they don't have time to think "this will be a social RP" and it works, but it is very time consuming and tiring to do it that way. It takes way more effort on my part to first chase people down.
I know I read this the wrong way on the first pass, but to me it sounded like you were kidnapping folks and tricking them into participating in bar-rp. :P That's more evil that chopping off their toes and threatening to douse their nubs with vinegar!
This is why I enjoy forum rp, collaborative writing and single author writing a little bit more. Its much easier to write something in vivid detail and not have to worry about the time constraints and visual limitations present in realtime rp.
-
Nah, just hang out in places where people run by then Greet Snipe them to see who stops and can be roped in.
But I like the game better because it lets me skip some of which to me is somewhat extraneous. If I'm in the tavern that is one less bit of context that I don't have to spend time writing about. Anyone can look around and see it for themselves. Same reason I like custom items. I can make them in advance then I don't have to spend the RP time describing it to them.
I pretty much don't care, in most cases, what a character is wearing, what else is in the room, who walked past the door, what items is in someone's hand or anything. I really just want to see character's personalities bounce off of each other and how those character react to specific scenarios. For instance, how different characters would react to your smelly, rude Dermorian. To me, everything else is an accessory detail to that and if the other things become relevant to how a character is reacting then I care, but otherwise I really don't care what color someone's cloak is. :)
...until they take something of mine or owe me money. >.>
-
I like to know all the details. I want to know what color and texture the cloak was, what exactly was dripping from the sack they held what it smelt like, and how those around that mysterious figure reacted. I like to have a picture painted in my head - something that will repeat throughout the day and nag at me. I don't know about you, but when I get really immersed in an rp, I literally see it happening.
-
I don't know about you, but when I get really immersed in an rp, I literally see it happening.
Yup yup yup yup yuuuuup! Same with me. And same with reading, really. It's why if I get really interested in what's taking place I get more and more longwinded and into what's happening. I love the imagery. If there isn't detail, it pretty much wrecks most of it for me. If it's just broken down into dialogue alone, it detracts from the level of enjoyment.
-
Totally.
For me, imagery is huge. I'll see a picture - say Red Riding hood and then suddenly, my head starts to screw with it. I'll see her again in my mind but with a worried expression on her face this time. Perhaps she's biting into a scarlet apple as a huge, twisted shadow stretches over her. Suddenly ideas start to flow and change. At one moment, she has a bloody axe hidden in the other hand, and at another moment, her grandmother is running through the forest in her worn, cotton nightie - screaming at the top of her failing lungs as a pack of snarling wolves leap and tackle her to the muddy ground.
Uh.. where was I going with that?
-
This is why I have to stretch and remember to add more details of that nature when I RP otherwise I will completely forget about it entirely. I know other people care about it more. My mind's eye is beyond fuzzy so I don't actually rely on it much or use it in RP much. I suppose that is why I enjoy the abstract more.
I get into it when two personalities clash and then I can sit and try to anticipate how the other character will react to a personal insult, how they will react if someone they know is insulted, what they will do if presented with a scenario they fear, what they will do when a matter of passion is involve, etc. Or piecing together behavioral patterns. When Zandral's (then) boyfriend spoke of some other woman, the first thing I did was review the list of females he had spoken of to Zandral recently, figure out which one Zandral would focus in on, and then toss out a line to see if he bit and if Zandral's assumptions were correct. She was only partial correct though.
Or later when figuring out how Zandral would Tell Illysia about her boyfriend, I imagined what Illy's take on Zandral having a boyfriend would be, what the general stance of their family would be on it, the state of Illy and Zandral's basic line of communication, and how Zandral would twist and turn to couch the infomation so that it would raise as few red flags as possible with Illysia. And I did all of this even though I controlled both characters, which in their case was rather fun especially when they argued completely opposing points. the two of them arguing from polar angles let me turn situations around in my head and explore both sides simultaneous in real time.
Now that I think about. To be fair, I actually get bored if I spend too much time reading about scenery and not enough about the character's internal motivations and battles.
-
Do you watch TV and Movies much?
-
Not really actually. I don't necessarily mind them I just often find it difficult to sit and watch for awhile. It has to have a lot of really engaging characters to keep me in my seat. Even an amazingly handsome actor is not enough to keep me in the chair. It's more fun at times to just walk off and imagine on my own what kinds of situations they get into and how they react.
-
I read the RP logs that you linked. I do see where you are going as far as enjoy the social/interpersonal interaction goes. The first one had a nice flow to it. There was not too much writing, and you two seemed to have a pattern of letting some things out while holding back other things - creating a mild sense of suspense. I think that's what you would call it. I'm more of a plot person. Perhaps if I knew the players in question, I might be warmer to the RP and enjoy it more.
Personally, I would rather RP with a "stranger" and be exposed to the unknown.
-
/me considers exposing himself to Riggy, then remembers "Ah right! I be married!" :whistling:
-
Roled, you naughty little elf! ::|
-
If you are into those kinds of RP, there is suspense to those kinds of situations. It's why some people don't need to go out and bash someone in the head to be on the edge of their seats; action is relative ironically enough. ;D
I don't mind RPing with strangers but it is harder to get RPs of the depth like the ones I did with Marqsaynt and Orgonwukh. Those built upon preexisting relationships and interactions. (I shall henceforth refer to people as Marqsaynt=Marq Semutara=Sem Zandral=Zan and Orgonwukh=Org) For instance, Marq was married to Sem then they divorced. Marq went with Zan and Sem went with Org. Marq and Org couldn't stand each other and and Zan and Sem couldn't stand each other and the whole thing turned into a big falling out. I couldn't have planned all of that, it simply happened but everyone had been in place for awhile when it happened.
But that isn't to say you can't RP with strangers and have engaging RPs since I had never met Ixala before ICly but I learned about her in a short period of time by watching her and Marq interact and she was an engaging character in her own right.
However, plots take more effort and I often find that for the sake of character consistency I often have to break off from them. Not to mention they just don't come around as often. I don't mind them though, but my characters rarely fit into plots.
*Readies the Wooden Spoon of DOOM(tm)*
There will be no exposing in this thread. >.>
-
Good lord, y'all have dirty minds. My virgin ears will never be the same. That's not quite what I meant by being exposed to strangers, though that sort of exposure to strangers does have a certain type of taboo appeal. This is PS though, so I won't go there. I was talking about experiencing the unknown ( My, that sounds dirty ). I mean - finding yourself in situations or predicaments that you might not have previously imagined (That doesn't sound any better.) Er eh... being powerful at times, bound, beaten and helpless at others. ( Oh..kay... we're not making any progress here. )
-
/me 's eye twitches. "Thank you. thank you. I needed that imagery so much..."
Again, it draws me back to book preferences. When talking to people about what genre I enjoy, I often comment that I actually like a little "relationship drama" or "romance" sprinkled in, even in healthy amounts, but if it's ALL the book is about, it's going to become a doorstop after I've skimmed like half a chapter. I just can't do it. It doesn't engage me at all. I want to be surprised, and enjoy the twists and turns, get behind a really detailed character with obsessive compulsive disorder because as a child they got smacked around if they didn't clean the bathroom just right. That's the sort of depth that intrigues me. I can do with the lovey dovey as it were, and even the soap-esq drama in spurts, but if it's the entire book, or the entire Role Play? Then there's simply no reason for me to be involved, because I glean no enjoyment from it whatsoever.
-
Have you heard of or read REAMDE by, hmm Neal Stephenson?
-
Have you heard of or read REAMDE by, hmm Neal Stephenson?
I hadn't until now, but I read the synopsis and it certainly sounded like it would be an interesting read!
-
Hmm.. README doesn't sound like a book I would want to read much. My favorite books are written by James Michener and they aren't fast past action thrillers but more like unfolding sagas that take several different stories and weave them all together using a common thread that you might not have realized was even there.
I like that it gives me time to think on the character and the ramifications of their actions before slamming into the next "crisis". Not to mention he is very good at presenting various viewpoints as they are viewed by the characters without personal judgement. If a character felt justified in swindling someone, you heard the whole thought process including the character's justifications and glorifications, even if the character themselves is completely reprehensible.
However, the unknown is fine, I just prefer the unknown to come from less completely disconnected sources.
-
I've read most of Michner and learned alot from him.... what was the archeological one , I forgot the title of that one, really liked it, Egypt, middle east, palestine, interesting mix of history, religious evolution, philosophy and archeo anthropology...
README isn't pulp, it's got actually amazing character development, lots of complexity, a mult cultural view of things, fascinating interweaving of characters who have developed a virtual mmorp and their real lives, and lots of surprising plot twists. And its 900 + pages so don't take it on unless you've got time!
And Stephenson has th most extensive vocabulary of any contemporary writer I've read- I had to sit with the OED online open and look up words on every other page! \\o//
-
I think you mean The Source. I have it, but I haven't read it yet. Currently reading Mexico actually. It's a possibility I could like README. Depends on the characterization. Really good characters will make me forgive other things. However Michener doesn't make me grab the dictionary quite that often but even he can send you to it pretty often too.
But I do like stories where you learn something from it. That would be much harder in an RP though.
After thought:
I suppose I should ask, for those of you who need all those other details about what is going on around the character, how much do you need to feel a complete scene? I might as well get a feel for where I need to fill in more.
-
After thought:
I suppose I should ask, for those of you who need all those other details about what is going on around the character, how much do you need to feel a complete scene? I might as well get a feel for where I need to fill in more.
For me, its about capturing or creating an experience. A dash of color here and there doesn't really do it. Again, I don't think RP is really a sufficient method for me to get that wow experience. Collaborative writing and solo writing seem to work better for me. Likewise, seeing an awesome movie does it for me too.
Speaking of which. Does anyone here follow "The Walking Dead" ?
-
Sorry, no. Zombies aren't my thing.
-
Another thread with 2 more pages "over night"; this appears completely contrary to the title of this thread! ;D
-
How is it contradictory? :P I think it is rather self explanatory. We are bored so we are talking to pass time. You were sleep so you missed it. ;)
-
Speaking of which. Does anyone here follow "The Walking Dead" ?
Daryl is win. Nuff said.
No but seriously at the risk of stealing your thunder I think I know exactly what you're about to get at. My friends often refer to the series as a "soap opera with zombies." ;D Not exactly accurate but the idea is that a lot of the storyline is based deeply in character social interactions...beneath the surface of OMG IT'S A ZOMBIE SHOOT IT SHOOT IT!
(I gotta say the over abundance of "whose baby is it" in season two kiiiiiinda drove me a little crazy though.)
But in all honesty I still very much enjoy the interactions between the characters for other reasons. Things like the conditions they have to live in that causes stress on their relationships, these "intangible antagonists," can for me take something that would otherwise be totally hollow and a drudgery to endure far more interesting. And, let's face it, far more realistic. A couple doesn't even have to be constantly bickering about something amongst each other (even that would get old after a while, for me even more quickly,) instead, I mean outside opposition, maybe not even having to do with their relations, friend to friend, spouses, or what have you, can add a certain level of depth that would have been very much absent before that. It's the impact of such strenuous conditions from other outside forces that makes such things more entertaining to me personally. (Which is why I constantly create said antagonists if there isn't one from someone else.)
-
Daryl is win. Nuff said.
(I was quite surprised when I was told that he does not exist in the comic book from which the series is taken...)
-
@Taya: Let me stop and address this issue because yet again it has come up even though I thought this was cleared up in the Hydlaa Trading Post thread. You need not waste time ascribing negative motive to my posts. If you need clarification about what I mean then fine, but I would appreciate you not accusing me of dismissing people in each thread I start on RP. If I was dismissive of other people's thoughts I would not put anything on this forum much less bother to write responses to people's thoughts.
When you post like that it feels like you are trying to derail my attempts at trying to find solutions by accusing me of somehow disrespecting others. Do you realize that it is demoralizing to try to put in extra effort to try and find solutions only to have someone accuse you of something negative which is the opposite of what you are trying to do? I don't mind criticism of my reasoning on the matter since that is the whole point for asking others, finding factors you have missed, but can we stop with accusing me of dismissing people. I put a lot of time and effort into considering what other people say and responding thoughtfully to it.
The purpose of this discussion from my end is not a pep talk. I'm not trying to get people worked up, I'm trying to get matters worked out. I prefer to work on the heart of the problem not something like name which is not what causes the problem. The issue of name can be worked out once we have more people participating in a wider amount of social RPs. Right now overall perception of the topic needs to be changed before people will quibble over details.
Also, I fail to see how working on the whole will not encompass the details. I don't have to always focus on the difference between disliking social RP and certain social RP because that is a matter for fine tuning. The problem I am immediately taking on is broader, people avoiding all social RPs that they can easily identify as such or not participating fully in such RPs, and thus will need a broader solution. I think that if we get people used to a variety of social settings, then they can pick and choose on their own which they choose to focus on. However, even a person who hates sitting around the tavern talking can probably be shown a scenario where it is less objectionable to them. So, I would say, first soften people up on the broad scale then slowly work down to as much detail as you can stomach.
You're really missing my point. What I said, if you go back and look, was:
"Maybe we should stop using the term 'social RPs' to describe those particular RPs that some people find boring and start asking WHY people find them boring instead."
And toward this end I tried to work out which specific things within the broader category of social RP cause people to become bored and disinterested, because it is completely and absolutely possible to use this information to turn things around.
But you have a tendency to dismiss anything I suggest with 'it never changes anything' and that kind of attitude is part of what isn't helpful. My opinions and ideas are equally valid to yours, but you really do brush them away without satisfying counterarguments.
And please understand there is a difference between constructive criticism and looking for negative motives. I have said over and over that I support your motives in growing RP opportunities, but you don't seem to hear me when I say this. I also could simply turn all of your criticism here back on you, because you also seem intent to derail my contributions toward the exact same thing that you are looking for. If you don't think what I say matters or that my ideas can help, then by all means, please ignore them instead.
On that note, do you realise it's demoralising to put my view out there as well, only for you to say someone with my view should carry blame for the situation we face with RP in this game? It's also demoralising when I explain the specific type of RP I would like to avoid, and the response from you is that I would be surprised by how many people will react if given a springboard for RP. I made it quite clear that the only ones I feel myself wanting to avoid are the ones who already showed me they won't respond in any way that is meaningful for me. How many times should I try and engage someone, should I try and create something interesting and invest effort and time, before I am justified in deciding I won't continue with them?
I have absolutely no doubt that your intentions are positive, but if you don't want criticism from me stop telling me things I suggest have never worked before like that's a reason not to try again. I'm quite sure in the vast history of PS that others have tried what you are trying as well. And don't tell me things I say are "nice and all but the net result is the same." Because this is dismissive. You might not intend it to be. You might not realise it. But it is.
And the thing about working on the whole of issue is that it's made up of all these tiny pieces. I prefer to break an issue into pieces and work on it that way. The issue tackled as a whole is just too big whereas smaller things are manageable. This is a text based game and every single word or phrase, no matter how small, can shape and change perceptions. I think many people would want to avoid a player who says "I don't like social RP" whereas "I don't like xxx type of social RP" is a whole different thing. Instead of saying "this person probably isn't going to RP with me" it's saying "this person is open to certain RP" and given that the issue is people not RPing as much as we'd like, I will stand by the fact that it's a very important distinction. It changes what you are broadcasting to others and makes you more approachable by letting them know what RP you might want to join in with and it also makes the one speaking it think about what they do want to be involved in as well.
-
Ok, if you find my manner dismissive, then I apologize it is not my intent, but, understand, this is my turn to not go out of my way when I don't see a need. This is not a drum circle, I will not be submitting an engraved affirmation with every post. We are all supposed to be old enough to where we can accept that others may not agree and may not not see the same merit we do. I am not going to tell you that I think it will have loads of effect when I don't think it will. If you thought that the counter argument wasn't satisfying enough then just ask for elaboration. Haven't I proved I will write more explaining why I say something if someone directly asks for it? Of it you just disagree then just disagree.
Just like you don't see the need to struggle with things you don't think will work, neither do I. If you want to work with that problem then by all means do so, but there is a reason I rely on past experience, it actually is a good indicator strangely enough. Many results are consistent even if they are not the one we wish, but if you wish to keep trying by all means, maybe I am wrong and it will work different for you and it might actually be a great success, things change. Do remember, nothing in this thread is binding. No one is enforcing any of this and stopping you from giving your opinion. But no, I will not be going out of my way further try and make it ever more friendly. I've already tried to do so and this isn't Sesame Street. I respect your view but there will be no patting people on the head any more than I normally do.
Also, if you take what I say differently than the way I mean it, I will try to clarify but I will only bother to go so far. For instance, when I said "Being positive is nice and all but the net result is the same." that was an attempt at both acknowledging what you had said and being nice. If I was being dismissive it probably would have been more along the lines of outright telling you to try it like all the other people that tried it and failed. I do not try to use extra words, to be gentle, or to couch words when I really don't want to be bothered. I was actually trying to be nice when I said that. I don't mean any harm but I'm tired of trying to be nice and inclusive only to still have someone get bent out of shape. I just don't have the energy or patience for the struggle like I used to and it does drain quite a bit of energy.
Further, when I said "the person walking away carries responsibility" I was not saying that they have to suffer under some heavy load of blame. Anyone that contributes to the situation does carry some sort of responsibility in how it develops. That does not mean that you have to turn the game into some sort of 9 to 5 job, but we all play some part in the current situation whether we struggle to do something or not. That's all that means. Not to mention, the part I left out at the time: You'd be surprised, I've seen that the majority of the players are actually capable of taking up RP just fine given the right prompt and it surprised me. I thought there was relatively few. I also found that most of them are actually decent RPers as well, when they try, and that means that they aren't necessarily refusing but they haven't found the situation that they can run with or that interests them enough to where they can figure out what to do. I suspect that very few players are outright refusing and should be blown off. For many it just seems like they may be too scared to misstep while they RP and so they hold back in a lot of places.
The implication of that is that maybe when we walk away there might be something left that we could have done, not that it is some great mandate that we have answer but the issue has not been cut and dry closed. I'm not so much advocating making the game boring for yourself but putting this out there for consideration. Which is why I bothered to say they probably just need a springboard. It's not so much that I am dismissing you, but at times I don't agree and I assumed that you could take disagreement without getting pouty.
However, if my manner is too abrasive, then I'll just refrain from answering your posts and let others discuss it with you. I'll wait to see what you decide. If you wish to continue then I will address the rest of what you say and if not then I just leave it for you to discuss with others.
-
Speaking of which. Does anyone here follow "The Walking Dead" ?
Daryl is win. Nuff said.
No but seriously at the risk of stealing your thunder I think I know exactly what you're about to get at. My friends often refer to the series as a "soap opera with zombies." ;D Not exactly accurate but the idea is that a lot of the storyline is based deeply in character social interactions...beneath the surface of OMG IT'S A ZOMBIE SHOOT IT SHOOT IT!
(I gotta say the over abundance of "whose baby is it" in season two kiiiiiinda drove me a little crazy though.)
But in all honesty I still very much enjoy the interactions between the characters for other reasons. Things like the conditions they have to live in that causes stress on their relationships, these "intangible antagonists," can for me take something that would otherwise be totally hollow and a drudgery to endure far more interesting. And, let's face it, far more realistic. A couple doesn't even have to be constantly bickering about something amongst each other (even that would get old after a while, for me even more quickly,) instead, I mean outside opposition, maybe not even having to do with their relations, friend to friend, spouses, or what have you, can add a certain level of depth that would have been very much absent before that. It's the impact of such strenuous conditions from other outside forces that makes such things more entertaining to me personally. (Which is why I constantly create said antagonists if there isn't one from someone else.)
Mearl ( sp?) Was my favorite character. I loved how obnoxious and yet funny he was.
I Do like this story/show on multiple levels. This is what I would love our rp to be like. Its got elements of action, mystery, and horror. The characters are well thought out. The plot is compelling and addictive, and the author is a true sadist. Its this sadism that makes the characters shine. Through all the horrible obstacles that he/she throws at the characters, we see what the characters are made of. Every tough decision has its consequences too. Nobody gets a free ride, so to speak.
-
The characters are well thought out. The plot is compelling and addictive, and the author is a true sadist. Its this sadism that makes the characters shine. Through all the horrible obstacles that he/she throws at the characters, we see what the characters are made of. Every tough decision has its consequences too. Nobody gets a free ride, so to speak.
You would like the author to put characters through so much. :P While it is true you can really get at the core of a character with adversity, I hate to see writers put characters through crisis after crisis without let up. I feel bad for the characters, they can't catch a break and the universe really is out to get them. :-\
-
Illysia dear, I'm not the one asking for child-level conversation or pats on the shoulder, or whatever else you might think. You're the one who seems to feel under attack. I'm just giving you honest responses.
With that said, two small things to note.
1 - you are not the only one with experience of various things. I've seen things that both support and completely go against what you think. Same with my own ideas. I have seen things that support them, and things that don't. This is why I don't like to dismiss anything that might help a situation on any level at all, no matter how big or how small. I'm not just making empty theories with no experience and no observations to back them up.
2 - Whether you reply to me or not is entirely up to you. My responses to you will always depend on what you say to me in turn. I honestly don't care how 'nice' you are. In fact, I'd rather no niceness at all unless it is completely and absolutely sincere. Forced-niceness isn't 'nice' at all. Just don't go off the other end of the 'nice' scale and toss in insults and we'll get along just fine.
-
At the risk of sounding argumentative I think I do know the bridge of what happens when people from different sides of the equation can't get along. Because I tend to role play from both vantages I've seen people, intentionally or not, make the implication that one sort of role play is in fact somehow better than another. This is a vastly incorrect assumption. Another is to say that one or the other is more mature. The fact that you may enjoy a role play involving lots of action sure as hell in no way makes you or your role play any more or less mature than wandering around bantering about recent character couplings or divorces. Likewise, simply because you dislike having direct character opposition as a consistent flow does not necessarily mean your role play is going to be any less full-filling. Tone in text is essentially non-existent, and I think in many cases people might say things (I know I have) that sound as though it's meant in a mean spirited fashion, when it is not. What might be important when commenting on a type of role play you don't necessarily like would be a phrase like, "I prefer," or "I enjoy," rather than specifying either realm as flat or boring. Using those terms instantly makes the other party think someone is disregarding them, likely with little to absolutely zero knowledge of what the role play might actually involve because it's in the opposite sphere of interest, and they haven't even bothered to try.
I would agree with Taya in that because this isn't a verbal discourse, wording can be important. Of course not everyone is going to agree with one another, frankly such a world would probably be a rather boring one. We'd all be the same. Imagine that.
/me shudders.
I appreciate as well that Illysia is attempting to do something that is sorely needed: cultivate some more Role Play.
Personally, I think that the best advantage of this thread so far has really been discussing people's specific interests. Knowing likes and dislikes in a more dissected manner allows a person to know what another is comfortable with. That doesn't mean that lovers of plot and action can never enjoy Role Play with those who prefer sociological study-type things or discourse, but it might indicate a sort of give and take in certain areas. Toning down violence a touch, or giving a little more emotion into more "every day" happenings. Of course the aspect, again, is enjoyment, and such bending wouldn't have to be constant. But that simple enough interaction can create ripples, enough that there doesn't have to be select role play 'cliques' because of a difference in interest.
I'll try to provide an example. Take for instance Roled's wedding role play. Roled, from what I understand, wanted it to be more sedate. He wanted to have a situation where there was no killing, violence, et cetera. As he set up the role play and put his effort into it, for that instance, it probably would have been cordial to allow him that, or at the very, very least, to have discussed what was allowed with him. Though this is a bit of IC OOC manipulation, in book, if the people you are role playing with don't end up having fun too, then the experience was a failed one.
In the opposite direction, (I can't really think of a good example for this, somebody feel free to chime in,) trying to shut down a role play that involves violence (negating a situation where someone is trying to force participation) is equally disrespectful. Someone has put time and effort and yes, probably quite a bit of thought into it, and a dissonance of voices speaking against it, merely with the words that they don't like it from an outside perspective, not having participated, is just as disheartening. I've seen it happen in bits and pieces, and I'm sure it's something that must have occurred before this lil nooby came onto the scene.
I have to say there is one restriction I do put on myself. I certainly wouldn't say anyone else would have to, but I feel I don't have the right to critique something too narrowly if I do not know all that which is involved. (I read through Twilight just so I could positively say in my view that it's a crock of ever loving cow sh....) <.< >.> ANYWAY. To try to label anything as flat without actually looking at it with any resemblance of closeness is to deeply discourage the person who put time and effort into it. Ultimately, I believe it's something that should be avoided. That isn't to say that people cannot make statements upon how they personally believe it could be improved, or how it is affecting them negatively to negotiate a solution, but you mustn't judge a book by its dilapidated leather cover.
-
@Taya, consider that this particular branch of the argument did not get going until you once again started claiming dismissal which I did find insulting since I had in fact stopped to consider and bothered to respond. However, I am trying to be reasonable and consider other opinions. At the same time however, I will not be bowing and scraping for approval to post my opinion, I disagree. I considered your opinion and I simply disagree. I admit, part of the irritation is instinctive bracing due to previous experiences with pretty much the exact same scenario on this forum, but at the same time I feel the need to take a stand here. I don't intend to get pushed around, this time, by people missing the point of what I am trying to get at.
Note that in my last post I already allowed for the fact that you may be right so continuing to tell me that you have experiences too is not necessary. I've already allowed for that and, if nothing else, I'm pretty sure that was covered in the Hydlaa Trading Post thread as well. I already apologized and I already explained what my actual intent was. Now that it has been covered I am content to let this part of the conversation die as discussing intent has nothing to do with the actual topics of RP. However, for the love of what's good, can we agree to a standing truce on this dismissal thing? I do not dismiss people, I simply disagree. It wastes valuable brainstorming and collaboration to rehash the exact same issue in every thread.
@Mariana: While wording can be important, I would still say that is a problem for dealing with in game while RPing or once more progress is made. I say it the way I do, social RP is boring, as an acknowledgement of how others have expressed their feelings. All forms of social RP are my bread in butter here, but I'm not so protective of it that I recoil when someone says it's boring, even if it concerns my own RP.
True generalizations have caused trouble, as you say, but at the same time, I think it is more helpful to take it as people who are against it will present it rather than take it how we view it. After all, we aren't the ones that need to be convinced, those that completely write it off are. But I do think that once those people soften there is definitely room to work on the vocab.
However, to me, the examples given are more about not stopping RP and I think in the case of social RPs the problem is getting people to not stop themselves. Or maybe I should say, get them to relax to that they can blend in. I suppose it is not terribly different from what you are saying, but I am curious to find out what people might find absolutely unbearable on a broad scale and then work to fix it.
For instance, when I do picnics or fishing trips, I can try to add more sensory description about the goings on and the environment in order to make it "come" alive for you sensory types. ;) To me it is unnecessary detail, but I can concede the point that others want it and it is not a great hardship to do it. Although I might have to invest in making settings description books so that I am not trying to do it all on the spot.
However, this does give me an idea. Perhaps what we need is to do some IC/OOC field work. :detective: What if we arranged groups of RPers from differing ends of the spectrum to get together and to take part in a group RP with the kind of RP changing. While in the RP, the people that like or favor the RP can take the lead and the other people can give input on what is missing for them. Basically OOCly testing out IC situations and getting feedback in real time.
For instance, I take Rig and Mariana out on a fishing trip. Normally, I'd skip describing the surroundings since you can see them as well as I can, but this time I try to play up the experience by adding in sensory details with my dialogue. Then I get OOC feedback as I am doing it. "No no, you've described the water enough, try talking about the wind in the area." "Ok, now don't forget to describe being sopping wet and struggling to get out of the water after you fell in." and so on. And after getting feedback, I make adjustments and try to find a midpoint between what I am inclined to do and what I need to do for others.
That way, if nothing else, we can learn how to accommodate each other. Maybe form a core of people that will bridge the gaps and train each other on how to do that.
-
You lost me there. Perhaps I was reading too fast. ::|
I think I see Taya's point. Sometimes when we complain about the RP or about how newer players RP, it may be insulting to other players. Its something we all ( myself included ) might want to be sensitive about. Likewise, for those who are sensitive, toughening up a little might help too. There's a balance to be found here between being careful about what's said and in growing a thicker skin.
-
I'm not pushing you round. You seem to have a sore point with that one specific word 'dismiss' Illysia and to place far too much emphasis on it. I can try and avoid it if it makes it easier to hold a discussion with you, but it's only really further proof that precise wording matters. I'm sorry if it offended you, but if you are going back to what I think, you're attributing far more meaning to it than was there. I don't know where you get the idea I expect you to bow and scrape from though and it does feel a bit like you are simply holding a grudge against me due to conversations elsewhere, or at least 'instinctively bracing' yourself as you termed it. Please try and lose that. There is so much I agree with you about that it's like getting kicked in the shin when every time you seem to home in on the few differences instead.
I don't even care much if you agree with me on things. If you do, great; if you don't, fine. There's a lot I agree with you about but also things I don't. I'm not out to insult you when I don't agree with you though. I might question things. I might challenge your ideas. But this is for discussion and because I don't think anything should be taken as an absolute without holding up to these things. But I want you to understand that I really do agree with a lot of what you say.
And I've never really explained what experience I have or don't have. I have never seen much need for it in the past, but since you often refer to yours it felt that perhaps it was worth noting, if nothing else to reassure you that I am not just out to disagree but am actually basing my thoughts on things I've encountered.
I'm not missing your point. I just feel there are more points as well.
-
Ok, Taya, then the issue here is a difference on what the word dismiss means and implies. It is not that I place too much emphasis on it, I had a different definition in mind. The reason I take offense at the because when you say I dismiss you, that to me is you saying that I've completely blown you off and treated your opinion with contempt. Which is the opposite of what I have done something I was pounced on for repeatedly in the past no matter what concession I made with more and more piling on and being increasingly antagonistic I tried more and more to make people feel at at ease. In the end it ran me down horribly which is why I have taken such a hard stand on this. I don't intend to bend like I used to and I certainly don't intend to give the impression to any troll that might pass by that if they just join in they can watch Illy snap and melt down. And yes, at least one of them from the past outright admitted to doing it just to see that. The rest were obviously goading.
In past I indulged and nothing good came of it, so now I am trying to head those problems off at the pass by attempting to put a stop right at the point before everything would typically break down. If you mean nothing by it other than you feel I didn't give you enough time or enough explanation then fine, but this is why I am reacting the way I am.
On the topic of what we agree on, it's not that I am ignoring what we do agree on, there is simply no reason to debate or pick out a lot of things from what we agree on... we already agree on it. The discussion is for where there is some debate as to how to proceed or a blank slate knowledge wise. I'm looking to smooth out knots and tangles, not parts that are already smooth. And I need to hear from people what it is that rubs them raw about such RPs so that those rough edges can be sanded down.
-
/me shoots the "fixing rp in ps" topic in the head!
There... perhaps it will stay dead now.
Logical Fallacies. Ever heard of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
-
Logical Fallacies. Ever heard of them?
Oh sure. Undead Horse Tropes. Ever heard of these? ;)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UndeadHorseTrope
We will find that this undead horse will be beaten into futures far flung. ;D
-
/me shoots the "fixing rp in ps" topic in the head!
There... perhaps it will stay dead now.
/me grabs Rigwyn and dances merrily around its corpse.
-
/me dances merrily too as blackened zombie ooze splatters from their feet.
Undead horse trope :) Seems there's a trope for everything.
-
/me dances merrily too as blackened zombie ooze splatters from their feet.
Ewww.... X-/
-
The Niribu Cataclysm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm) is about to happen. Bend over and kiss your planet good bye. Seriously though, some folks take this sort of thing rather seriously, so I'll try to be sensitive about it. Have you heard of Niribu? Do you know anyone who buys this crap?
-
I have heard of it but I've never met anyone that I know actually believed it.
-
The characters are well thought out. The plot is compelling and addictive, and the author is a true sadist. Its this sadism that makes the characters shine. Through all the horrible obstacles that he/she throws at the characters, we see what the characters are made of. Every tough decision has its consequences too. Nobody gets a free ride, so to speak.
You would like the author to put characters through so much. :P While it is true you can really get at the core of a character with adversity, I hate to see writers put characters through crisis after crisis without let up. I feel bad for the characters, they can't catch a break and the universe really is out to get them. :-\
I honestly do not know if I agree (not that it matters, but the title of the topic was undemanding enough to let me think that I could post :P ).
I think that it's possible, yes, to get at the core of characters/to see what they are made of, when they pass through/are immersed in terrifying situations. But even also when they are in happy or strange or unlikely situations. And maybe even when they're in ordinary (but not 'superficial') situations.
Simply, I mean, if something happens, a reaction to that something is called/needed (whatever the 'something' is: a disease, an item/entity out of its usual spot, a story told, something odd somewhere… anything! Except, maybe, char 'A' who talks to char 'B' about their own business: in this case I think that, for an hypothetical unknown non-nosy char 'C', it'd be quite uneasy to stop and do something - if 'A'&'B' 's own business isn't that, perhaps, 'A' is a blue Ynnwn or something somehow peculiar enough...).
So, I was saying, a reaction which would be a different reaction depending on what the situation is and, of course, depending on who the character is. And that's why I think that a reaction to a situation would anyway reveal what the reacting character is made of.
[In short, the key word, as I see it, is 'situations' (or 'plots'), stuff that I am quite unable to create. Anyway I think that if these'd be a bit more findable around, it should be easy enough that anyone who has created a character (and who know his/her char at least vaguely and has no weird problems with RP) would be happy to join, with his/her character's own contents.
But sadly I think I'm wrong somewhere and that I'm still missing something: I'm pretty sure that people able to create situations/build plots do exist, but Yliakum is not properly overflowed by RP... so problems should be somewhere else and I actually can't find'em.]
[And now, a maybe silly question: is character 'A' who talk to character 'B' about their own business labellable as 'social RP'?
Really, I'm asking because, even if Taya and Illysia discussed this in a few lines, pages ago, I still think I don't know. To me, this kind of situation sounds more like a 'restricted social RP' because, like I've already said, I can't easily imagine how any other character could be able to partecipate; on the other hand, undoubtedly, it is social because 'A' e 'B' are talking and there is an interaction.
But if I read 'social RP' I immediately think about something able to involve more characters than those who started it (and maybe I am wrong).
Anyway, that's probably one of the reasons making me seldom post: I'm never sure I'm exactly getting the point about 'definitions' I'm reading in posts...]
[Finally, about details: details are great and it's nice to read a precise description. But it might happen that someone's english competence isn't perfect (but it is, hopefully, anyway, good enough to play), so, the more you write, the more this someone can lose the center, the point, the action (s)he is expected to react to (even if lost in beautiful descriptions!). Or maybe not. But, if you're talking to me, I have to admit that if someone write lines and lines and lines all together I often run the risk to read too fast, missing maybe important infos, a bit worried about the eventuality that if I read too slowly the many-lines-written-all-at-once's writer will fall asleep in the meantime… I mean, if you can paint details with words, it's great and please do, just, sometimes, maybe remember to 'dilute' them and please highlight well any crucial point.]
-
You know, you can always send a [pause] message or request oocly for people to pause or slow down. As for whether an RP is action or social, I don't really think we need to polarize RP into two extremes. Some folks gravitate more towards social interaction, others more towards plot and action. I'm sure there's plenty of folks that are in between or who gravitate towards some other direction.
As for creating plots and stories, it helps if you read about "dramatic structure". This is just one way of forming a story. There are other structures that story writers will follow such as the "Hero's Journey". Links below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure
http://www.fiction-writers-mentor.com/heros-journey.html
-
I read through some of the earlier posts. Rigwyn, regarding Helka, I know the reason why no one did much about her presence. It was because you were too courteous to allow your character to disturb the event. If she had done more, something worse than bumping into others or stealing food from a vendor who did not mind, then the crowd would have likely responded. In a large group, such as an audience, if a speaker has their full attention, they are unlikely to turn their attention to a rude drunk. That's only if the drunk does not interrupt everyone's enjoyment or if the speaker does not call attention to it. A good example would be a bully in the audience of a live show. YouTube those videos of singers singling out bullies in their audience. They know the bullies will get away with it because everyone else is too busy having fun. So, the singer halts the show and directs everyone's attention to the troublemaker.
I didn't see Helka do anything too bad. Sarras did watch Helka for a while, just to make sure she wouldn't start trouble. If you had made Helka do something worse, like instigating a fight, I'm sure the crowd would have reacted. She seemed more like a poor homeless drunk with some mental disorder. Enough of the players have probably dealt with that type to know to ignore her.
-
I read through some of the earlier posts. Rigwyn, regarding Helka, I know the reason why no one did much about her presence. It was because you were too courteous to allow your character to disturb the event. If she had done more, something worse than bumping into others or stealing food from a vendor who did not mind, then the crowd would have likely responded. In a large group, such as an audience, if a speaker has their full attention, they are unlikely to turn their attention to a rude drunk. That's only if the drunk does not interrupt everyone's enjoyment or if the speaker does not call attention to it. A good example would be a bully in the audience of a live show. YouTube those videos of singers singling out bullies in their audience. They know the bullies will get away with it because everyone else is too busy having fun. So, the singer halts the show and directs everyone's attention to the troublemaker.
I didn't see Helka do anything too bad. Sarras did watch Helka for a while, just to make sure she wouldn't start trouble. If you had made Helka do something worse, like instigating a fight, I'm sure the crowd would have reacted. She seemed more like a poor homeless drunk with some mental disorder. Enough of the players have probably dealt with that type to know to ignore her.
Yes, I could have pushed the envelope a bit more, but there was an event going on and as a player, I didn't want to drown it out or break its flow. If I had more time, I might have hung out longer and found another way to get her into trouble.
There's a balance sometimes between doing what your character would do, and being mindful of other players. Helka was a bit of a pig, get some free food and left. That's fairly reasonable for a hung over drunk. :-)
-
I think Moja is just trying to figure out what we are talking about not make it sound mutually exclusive.
@Moja: I tend to define social RPs as RPs where the emphasis of the RP is on how characters relate to each other. I would consider Characters A and B discussing their business as a social RP. But I would not describe it as a social RP if Characters A and B only discussed a little bit of their business between mining. The reason I would not consider that a social RP is because, in that case, the mining is the focus and not the discussion. But if the focus of Characters A and B's RP became the discussion instead of the mining or if they were both mining and interacting to develop their characters then I would consider that a social RP. By developing their characters I mean either fleshing out their character's story or rounding out their character's personality. Many "action" RPs are ones that I would consider social RPs, but they are often not viewed that way because many people make the mistake of thinking that socializing is different from "doing something."
Also, in your example of Characters A and B talking about their business, that is only a restricted RP if you are shy. :D Someone can still be nosy and get into that RP or they can do things that affect that RP. For my character Zandral, she was talking with her boyfriend one night by the fire and then right before they kissed Sarras interrupted them and asked them not to kiss in front of her. Even though the RP was initially between my character and her boyfriend Sarras was able to join the RP as well. What will stop a person from being able to join is how easily people will let a person join their RP and how comfortable a person feels about trying to join an RP. I do think that PS needs to work on these two issues. You might see RP flourish if people feel more comfortable with others coming in and out of their RPs.
I think you are also right that situations of many types can show what a character is made of, but I don't think it has to be as extensive as what Rigwyn is talking about. I think all that is needed is a least a tiny bit of effort to create an action that will trigger a chain reaction. Here is what I mean:
Illysia: Oh, hello there. Do you need some help?
Character B: Hello, why yes I do. I don't know how to find my way to Ojaveda.
Illysia: Oh I can help. I have a map you can use. Just let me get it. *Illysia reaches down into her gigantic bag and looks for the map*
Character B: Thank you very much. *Character B waits*
Illysia: I know it is in here. Just give me a moment. I'll find it. *Illysia keeps searching in her bag but now the bag is up to her elbow*
Character B: *Character B waits some more*
Illysia: Oh bother... *she sets the bag down on the ground and she opens the bag so that she can bend over into to look. She is now up to the waist*
Character B: *Character B snickers at Illysia*
Illysia: "I really must get this bag organized," she says in a voice muffled by the cloth of the bag. *Illysia starts to toss random items out of the bag. Some of them hit the ground with a thud or a clank* "Really... I do have a map down in here... somewhere. *she continues to dig*
Character B: *Character B laughs* Would you like some help? I don't want you to get lost in there.
Illysia: Oh no. I am fine. I go through this a lot. *Illysia yelps in pain* I think something bit me! *Illysia keeps searching nevertheless* Do keep an eye on the things I throw out. If I find the map I will throw it out as well.
Character B: *Character B laughs so more* Ok.
and the RP continues....
Here there is no story, the two character's are simply interacting, but this could have been a very quick RP that would also let the characters stop RPing with each other quickly. However, because of adding a "situation" it lasts longer and the two have a chance to maybe RP more. The only thing Illysia does here is have a quirk of loosing things and then keeps everything in a large bag that she can actually crawl into. This was actually a very effective RP for getting people to RP with me in the past.
-
Regarding the mention of how to get into a "restricted rp"... I say just get close and do a little lazy rp. If the people in question acknowledge your character's presence, then its a good sign that they will welcome you. ( There is no restricted RP as far as I'm concerned. )
Lazy RP?
example:
Toothlessbastard: blah blah blah.... blah blah
Hairyassmofo: you don't make any sense...
Then do something like this:
/ me wanders into Brado's and plops down a few seats away from Toothlessbastard and Hairyassmofo.
At this point, the others see you quite clearly. If they are not jerks, they will more than likely acknowledge you - opening the door, so to speak. If they are really hellbent on roleplaying within their own sterile bubble, then they might send you an ooc message or something.
Hairyassmofo continues to berate Toothlessbastard about his piss poor diction - completely unaware of X's presence.
Yes, this is acknowledgment .....
-
Unfortunately even fairly inclusive RPers often get caught up and fail to acknowledge the other characters around them.
-
I don't see much of a distinction in roleplay. My character always has a purpose for being somewhere, and that could be anywhere. If I become involved in a "social RP," I would probably not even notice. I would be too preoccupied acting the character. I do not purposefully try to involve her in particular types of roleplays. That is just where she ends up, given whatever it is she wants or needs at the time.
"Social roleplays" sounds silly to me. Rather, I think Illysia simply has a preference for certain situations that happen to be more social given her personality. From her posts on this thread, one could safely deduce that she is an extravert. However, unsurprisingly, most people who roleplay online are introverts, which would explain the common opposition to her suggestions. We all have different preferences. This depends on the personalities of characters, as well. For example, Sarras is not normally going to want to sit down with you, have a beer, and ask about your life. That does not mean she would never ask you, ever. It's just that she would rather cause some mischief than act like a well-functioning adult.
For me, roleplay is very fluid. I just go where my character takes me. As in reality, you can't expect the world to remain constant. One moment you could be having an ordinary day, when suddenly something happens and you're swept up in a flurry of adrenaline. (Or maybe you live somewhere boring. :P )
On restricted RP... That does not even exist, in my opinion.
-
Well that is good that you can transition so well Volki but I haven't found many who don't make distinctions in some way or another. For instance, it is more likely that there are several definitions of Social RP, I simply gave mine.
And I don't think there is larger ratio of introverts to extroverts in this game. MMOs are not quite a novelty any more and many more types of people play them. Admittedly, most characters I interact with are not quite as extroverted as my characters but there are plenty of extroverted characters. I don't think extroversion is the reason people hesitate.
The character is supposed to be different from the player, but even if they are not I would hazard to guess that RPing with others through an online would not be as draining for an introvert as a real life social situations. I think it is just a matter of people following their preferences. When you have limited time and there is no guarantee that branching out will be fun, you can easily fall into only doing a limited range of things.
-
Regarding the mention of how to get into a "restricted rp"... I say just get close and do a little lazy rp. If the people in question acknowledge your character's presence, then its a good sign that they will welcome you. ( There is no restricted RP as far as I'm concerned. )
Lazy RP?
example:
Toothlessbastard: blah blah blah.... blah blah
Hairyassmofo: you don't make any sense...
Then do something like this:
/ me wanders into Brado's and plops down a few seats away from Toothlessbastard and Hairyassmofo.
At this point, the others see you quite clearly. If they are not jerks, they will more than likely acknowledge you - opening the door, so to speak. If they are really hellbent on roleplaying within their own sterile bubble, then they might send you an ooc message or something.
Hairyassmofo continues to berate Toothlessbastard about his piss poor diction - completely unaware of X's presence.
Yes, this is acknowledgment .....
Full agreement here. I absolutely love when players use this method to get involved. The example that always stood out to me was Lodisto. Teshia and one of my alts were having a talk between themselves and Lodisto involved himself by having his character cough every so often until they absolutely had to acknowledge him. I'm guessing he realised in advance that he was setting up his character to be ridiculed as well, but he also dealt with that wonderfully. How he handled his entrance meant that it was really, really easy for us to involve him in the RP. I would absolutely love to see more people doing this.
-
For me, realizing that you don't have to "win" was an eye opener. Normally in games, you say/do whatever is needed to accomplish goal x. What can be just as fun is playing a character that loses in epic ways - or who's uniquely challenged.
-
When starting to RP I had to learn that it is ok for there to be friction between and that characters don't have to like each other. I was very much a hand holding, "can't we all be friends?" type initially.
-
A graceful surrender is "advanced roleplaying". ;)
-
Advanced roleplaying for me would be reenacting Monty Python and the Holy Grail but in PS...
"You'll have to cut the tallest tree in the forest with an... EEL!"
"What's the airspeed velocity of an unladden Megaras? / What kind, the ones at the Winch or the ones at Bronze Doors? / I-I don't know... *falls down the chasm at BDouter*"
-
It's also not just a matter of surrendering but surrendering to advance the storyline. I gave up and let a guy kill Illy but to be honest there was nothing to with advancing a storyline, I was just getting sick of playing so I left Illy in the DR.
However, I have no idea what it takes to surrender to advance a storyline since I only had one "baddie" character and Shangshi killed her. :p
-
Well, that's the crappy thing about death in rp. It ends the story for that character. If its a two character rp, then it ends the rp - at least for the moment. If you enjoy the storyline, you can certainly continue either in the death real or in the dome a week later... or whatever your norm is.
For me, I prefer to avoid death in favor of other options for three reasons:
A. The end of story problem
B. To avoid the silly ooc things that people do to avoid death.
C. Torture, imprisonment and escape can be much more interesting.
One example of continuing after death would be the time that rigwyn killed vayl. It was a stupid act on my part. I was still a noob looking to accomplish something wicked at any cost. After her death, there were consequences. She was not very happy about it and confided in her friend Sinaho - who tricked Rigwyn into following her into a courtyard where he was drugged, tied to a tree and given a choice - leave vayl alone or become hydlaa's first gelded diaboli. Vayl never did seem to let go of that grudge and was always looking for a way to stick it to rigwyn thereafter. ( and she did screw him over many times afterwards.)
-
Now as I think about it, I think I got that story wrong. Rig was killed by vayl during the struggle, and she died as a result afterwards ( and was still hellbent on revenge)... long story. The point is that she didn't just let this death end the story....
-
re: Rigwyn and Vayl:
This kind of developed, ongoing, transmigrating rp is what can advance storylines, insert twists, and draw new folks into the story. Roled for example has hated Thidin (as Thidin's player well knows, and RR has enjoyed rping with Thidin alts) since 3 maybe 4 years ago when Thidin hexed his brother Dragonis and took his soul. For years everytime RR sees Thidin, he draws his sword to kill her- in the Stonehead, at the ball, walking by nonchalantly. RR has never killed her, kudo's to Thidin's player who kept the threat going while rping- we just never got the the /attack world. And whoever was there got drawn in if they wished to be... and stories were told, and 'new' characters entered the rp story. Revenge anticipated has its rp rewards.... :sweatdrop:
-
I've never had reason to kill another character but many of my characters have a mean throwing arm. You can do quite a bit just with hurling things at people. :D
-
We could give you good reason. You'll just need something lethal to throw.
Here's a question for discussion. You have a roleplay event that you want to run continuously - both while you are playing and while you are not. To do this, you need some consistency. You need a way for people to know where it left off, and what has transpired to some extent. Maybe you do need this, or maybe you can do without keeping state. I used to use forum posts to keep track of what was happening, but not everyone likes that as its a source of ooc information. What other options might there be?
I'm not talking about a little one on one RP that simply resumes the next time the two folks are on, rather I'm talking about larger events - with lots of folks who are on at different times.
This isn't a "How do I do this" kind of a question, but more of an open discussion of how it could be done better.
-
Its a good question, Rig... :-\
What RR tries to do is bring up backstory the next time he sees someone, then update them. Last night RR's convo with Teshia was an example. I knew ooc she knew about one event, and was pretty sure she didn't know about another, involving Teeleh, Herihi, Barike, and Dragonis. She did the same for me, cluing me into plot advancements with Teeleh that RR didn't know.
Its a little clunky but serves its purpose sometimes. Those who may have overheard us- especially the yelling parts :'( - might wish to join in...
Also little clues in character descriptions ig help forward some of the action....
My 2 sentiences
R :sorcerer: R
-
I would say ask and see if you can get some sort of rudimentary in game bulletin system added in on the Google summer of code project. I think that would help roleplay more so and some of the projects planned.
Or maybe requesting that in the future players be given temporary locking ability. Say, you can lock something for a 24 to 48 hour period, then after that it automatically unlocks and is fair game. That way you could place RP relevant items or books and it would be untouched long enough for the regular participants to see.
I don't know though about anything that would help right now.
-
*Venalan points to Illysia's Ojaveda News Bulletin (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=41223)*
Something like this could surely be used to give IC bulletins discussing/mentioning things which have happened in game. Considering the number of small RPs which go on anything more than just a one on one would likely be heard by NPC or other people living in the cities and could/would/should be the source of many rumors. It would allow people who follow a certain event to see if anything fitting for that story line has gone on and would let people out side that story line have some IC info on it if they want to talk about it. I know at times when I still frequently played you could have a week or two off and come back to 'DID YOU HEAR ABOUT x and Y everyone is talking about it' and you just have to come up with some 'oh I was out of town and missed it' and then you have to run about gathering all the IC info you've heard OOC or read on the forums. The posts needn't be elaborate but I think they could be a fun way you could keep up and report about your RPs. Knowing whats going on in game is difficult unless you spend enough time to find stuff out, this would be a nice off line catch-you-up.
-
You nailed one of the pain points that I would like to fix - that scenario where you need to get your character caught up on a lot of material and you might not feel like sitting there and dragging it out of someone else. While gaining such info in a purely ic way makes sense, what doesn't make sense is that your character lives in yliakum 24/7, so they should have more ic knowledge than the player does. There should be a quick way to catch up if desired to make up for our real life absence. I worded that in a confusing way.....
Maybe having a forum post for ic info would work.... like you said. Not an ic post per se, but more of an update on what any character in yliakum is likely to know. This could go bad too. If people stop sharing such info icly in favor of a ooc source. Maybe posting such updates a week late might work? I'm not sure about this to be honest.
-
For what it is worth, I made the Bulletin thread so that people could post their IC news there. I had hoped that I would not be the only one posting there but only LigH has made an attempt at adding a news piece. A forum thread for OOCly covering what is going on in the world might help as in might generate interest outside the game and prompt people to get in to see what is going on. We have fewer metagamers and godmodders these days so it shouldn't be as bad.
But given the attention span of people these days. I would say set it up so that updates are as brief as possible. People see more than one paragraph and typically don't want to read anymore. ;) However, what would bother me about this way is that many players don't even read the forum so the info would still be missed. That is why an in game option would be nice.
-
Maybe just little sentence long blurbs that are enough to give the character something to go on? I'll think about this a little more.
I was also thinking, that it might be good to have a way to make it easier for new players to get involved. As a new player, I might look at a guild tag and say, "Hey, that sounds cool, I wonder what that group is about." We know that we are supposed to ignore guild tags, but come on, they can be good for guiding a player to an interesting group. If I'm a new player, I might be wondering who do you go to if you want to RP and what do you say. It would be nice to be able to soften this barrier a little for new/shy/cautious players.
-
Also, regarding the new bulletin. Has it worked yet?
Being a bit of an idiot, I read it, then wondered what to do with it? Like say I'm a player and something there appeals to me. I would just bring it up in conversation?
-
now wouldn't it be cool if say, there was one of the npcs near bulletin boards (the artist kra? Loren Chalma? ) who every once in a while would stand reading the bulletins out loud (could this happen??) and say "What do you know! X and Y have opened a new Z shop!" or Lady P and Lord Q announce their upcoming nuptuals, to be held in Amdeneir on 15 Treman"
This would take moderating for sure, :-X so maybe its a terrible idea, (remember technical zolt here) :beta:
BUT then people would be all up in each other's bidnez! Like the Star tabloid of the Dome!
Nothing is secret! (once it's posted on a bulletin board and moderated) ... on a meta level then the player rps become psychologically community news, just in the same way people in general irl hear about stuff, even if they don't watch the news or read newspapers. It might add even more credibility to the rp aspect of the game, the player/ community aspect of the game.
Up for discussion, all- shoot holes in it as ye may!
R :woot: :woot: R
-
In the past, we had some players who took it upon themselves to distribute newspapers. Some gave honest IC stories, others deliberately slanted their stories for IC reasons. All good. It seems that nobody really sticks to doing this.
-
I haven't seen any evidence of it working yet but who knows.
The way to use it is to RP as if you got word of something posted, say by a flyer or some such thing that gets circulated to the cities. I imagine they have ways of getting news around. Then use the story as a talking point or even a prompt for action. For instance, if your character is a fashionista, then news of the latest spring fashions being taken from Octarchs might prompt you to spend more time talking about the local Octarch's clothes and trying to find a tailor to make some clothes for you like them. Or perhaps you go in the opposite direction and criticize the people in charge of the latest fashions for poor taste.
One of the things I noticed that stifles RP is getting in game and have nothing to talk about. If you are already part of an RP arc then great, but if not... :( This is especially a pain for characters that have been away for awhile. So rather leave an empty hole there, I sought to fill it with inventing news that people can run with.
I took my inspiration from the news that was apparently released in Mass Effect 2. It was a brilliant idea to release in universe news that allowed the game universe to be fleshed out without spending pages and pages on backstory. Then a pretty amazing thing happened, someone started keeping track of those news pieces on a site and RPers came in on their own and started RPing in response to the news. It was really amazing and I am not even well versed in Mass Effect. Lately though, the quality of that RP seems to have changed, but I figured that if a game that wasn't for RPers could start up RP that way then a game that is for RP should be able to run with that idea even better.
And while I'm at it... *cough*
[Many people have tried to get a news source going in game but it hasn't been able to really take. But, I had an idea that might make it a bit easier. Maybe if we pare it down into short news stories, cut down on the overhead and distribution issues, and *cough*make stuff up*cough* it will help drive things in game to the point where some of the news stories might actually be connected to or inspire in game RP.
If you have an idea for a short news bulletin then feel free to post it but keep the news IC and within reason. It's not likely that Hydlaa will have been ransacked by creatures from the labyrinths just yet. ;) If there is enough interest in it we might start an IC thread where characters can interact with each other over the news. This will help with communicating across time zones.]
-
I took my inspiration from the news that was apparently released in Mass Effect 2. It was a brilliant idea to release in universe news that allowed the game universe to be fleshed out without spending pages and pages on backstory. Then a pretty amazing thing happened, someone started keeping track of those news pieces on a site and RPers came in on their own and started RPing in response to the news. It was really amazing and I am not even well versed in Mass Effect. Lately though, the quality of that RP seems to have changed, but I figured that if a game that wasn't for RPers could start up RP that way then a game that is for RP should be able to run with that idea even better.
That's a great idea I would like the GM team to support it, one news each week would be fine to start with. If a GM would publish a bulletin each week then the players may decide to RP based on that, no need to enforce anything just a way to keep the world up and running.
-
Illysia, it would be great if you could occasionally incorporate news-worthy events from actual roleplays.
-
I had intended to do so but people have to submit news from roleplays first.
However what Roled wants sounds like maybe occasionally expanding Allelia's "about gossip" KA.
-
I see one tiny issue. Doing this requires manual work. Someone needs to manually review messages and stuff. When you do this, you are creating a job for *someone else* which may not be very easy to keep filled. Adding more of these jobs is bad practice as over time they will accumulate.
I'm not shooting it down.... just saying.
-
Rigwyn has a habit of saying useful things, but not saying everything about them that needs to be said. Then I have to come out of my hole and say more things. Godammit, Rigwyn.
Firstly,
who tricked Rigwyn into following her into a courtyard where he was drugged, tied to a tree and given a choice - leave vayl alone or become hydlaa's first gelded diaboli.
Diaboli don't exist and have never existed. Compete retcon. Ministry of Truth would like to have a word with you.
Now, onto the topics of distribution of news (which I think is a very, very good one)
In the past, we had some players who took it upon themselves to distribute newspapers. Some gave honest IC stories, others deliberately slanted their stories for IC reasons. All good. It seems that nobody really sticks to doing this.
I have experience with such distribution (once being Yliakum's premiere source for all news and quality information). The true nature of the Rockbrain would not have been unearthed without my highly-skilled sleuthing. Illysia can definitely attest to the quality of my work. The important thing here is that it is not sustainable for a player to do. Your comments about creating work are definitely true, but they apply to players too. There are no ingame functions for permanent distribution, and that means it's on a player to be:
1) Logged in
2) Hunting down people on the street and peddling books
3) NOT engaging in other roleplay while they are doing it.
Number 3 becomes the problem. How does a character discover new things and enhance the world (god knows the playerbase is limited so everyone has to contribute) when they must be focusing on peddling news? The simple answer is, they can't and burnout occurs. There gets to be a point where there are two unpublished Toenail novels that are just about completed (and quite good), but they never hit the press because doing the same selling spiel over and over again is exhausting.
Problems are all good and fine, and I know we can all come up with as many problems as we like, but I also have (and have had for a long time) a proposed solution to this problem: The Industrial Revolution. Planeshift needs to invent the printing press, and it needs to be user-accessible. Here is my ingame flow proposition:
1) Authors write a book, piece of news, whatever, and insert it into the printing press. This is located somewhere central. By the octarchal building seems reasonable, government and publishing going together and whatnot.
2) This piece of news is then distributed to each printing press on street corners around Hydlaa/Other Cities. Think a standard newspaper box, players can access it and it's like the forges, there are several slots each containing pieces of news. These can disappear after a day or two, or be archived somehow, that's a detail. My preferred solution is news stays for a week before being archived in Jayose's library. This would give players real, tangible and permanent influence on the game world.
Monitization could occur on either end, people could pay for news and all that, but I don't agree to that. The goal is not for capitalism to thrive, it is for an imaginative game to thrive and if that requires fiscal suspension of disbelief, so be it.
The topic that will inevitably come up is moderation, and who has to moderate. I think this question is incorrect. Any player can /shout. Any player can spam any number of expletives in /gossip. Players already can influence massive numbers of players negatively through bad behaviour. The solution to that is /report and this is also the solution to the news problem. GMs are already there to deal with reports of bad behaviour and this would be no exception, but I absolutely, completely disagree that each piece of news would need to be moderated before being published. That's just wasteful.
Being a programmer, I understand that the devil is in the details when adding new features, but the implementation of this feature is trivial in the scope of such a large 3D game. The entities and much of the logic to complete this is already ingame, the biggest prohibiting factor is executive leadership and lack of decision to implement this strictly roleplay-focused feature.
I won't comment any more on this other than to say that I don't think this feature will ever make it ingame, and I think that's a crying shame.
That is all I have to say on this, thank you for dragging me out of my hole and getting me nostalgic. Godammit, Rigwyn.
-
;D
While I typically avoid agreeing with Timmy I shall make an exception here. The printing press idea is good and there really does need to be an in game distribution system, more than the news boards that re already clogged with messages that are not being kept track of thus making them useless.
-
The need for moderation really applied to things that would be said by an NPC to prevent people from making NPCs say
really stupid things things that are completely out of character, that violate game rules, or that would seriously break immersion.
Good times, good times...
-
I think we have less fools and jerks now so such things are probably not as much of an issue. We just need a distribution system with ease of use and access. Players will more likely fill in the rest if it is in game instead of here.
-
Also I want to make it very clear that I don't endorse the NPCs saying anything. Ever.
God, I hate every single one of the NPCs.
-
I think we have less fools and jerks now so such things are probably not as much of an issue.
This is only because we have less players total.
-
And we won't get more unless we do something drastic to pump up the RP presence in game. The game needs to feel more vibrant to get more people.
-
If its fun, people will play. If its awesome, they will tell other people about it.
-
There was a time when I would be "that guy" who told everyone about Planeshift and the cool things it was doing. That time has long since past.
Interestingly enough, the amount of things I said was a function of Duraza.
-
If its fun, people will play. If its awesome, they will tell other people about it.
*clears throat and refers to years of forum complaints and arguments and the current player count*
Now, what were we talking about in order to make it more fun and awesome?
-
I've been entertaining an idea.
When I started playing in late '07, I remember seeing dark empire tags all over the place. Players with these tags were running around and working like ants - mining, making stuff, training each other, etc... I was never a part of that, so I really don't know much about it, but I like the idea of having an organization that both role plays and supports players in training. The advantage that I see here is that if you support new players in training ( giving them starter equipment, showing them how to level up ), they will eventually see that some members of your guild are engrossed with role play and may learn about it that way. With a minimal requirement of just speaking in character, anyone could easily participate to some extent while feeling like they are a part of the RP story/community that you have created.
I'm thinking that once they've had their fill with training and begin to get bored, perhaps the RP option will look more appealing. I also like the idea of a supporting community that's there to help the new player. In a way, I think that perhaps insisting that everyone role play very well and putting down levelers might have killed some of that fellowship and in turn role play.
What do you think about the possibility of a guild or association that caters to both as described above? Something the those who are initially more interested in leveling could be a part of?
-
I was in IRC saying this the other day, and I'll say it again here. All those things are secondary. Not saying your idea isn't good, it's just not relevant.
If you talk to people who play D&D, almost unanimously you will hear one thing: being a good DM is hard. And it requires a LOT of time. For people to experience quality RP you need the good DMs. You need people willing to put the time and effort in to make it a good experience. Currently there just aren't people taking that big of an initiative upon themselves, and until that changes, no matter how good the mentorship prospects are, unless someone is demonstrating actively how things need to be done, no one else will learn how things should be done.
I don't propose to have the solution to this one. I don't have the time to put in, and even if I did, I'm not sure I'm willing to. PS was a cool part of my life, but I'm not sure I want to go back to it. I'm pretty happy to be an alumnus. Absolutely, one hundred percent I see this as the problem, though. From a dev point of view, what needs to be done in the game is to make the storytelling easier. The printing press idea is an invaluable one. If there's a new BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy), then the number one goal of the BBEG, in terms of storytelling, is to get his name known. Get the fear instilled in the population. Nervousness. If no one told Harry not to say Voldemort's name, I'm not sure the Potter guy would be scared of him.
The rest of the community just has to either wait for their Dark Knight to come save Gotham, or a buy some hockey pads and try saving the day. Whoever takes up the mantle has a lot of work for them. The rewards are great, the feelings I had when I ran a successful, long-haul storyline were uncomparable. I just hope there's someone left in the community willing to take on the task (and that they hurry up and do so).
-
@Rigwyn: There used to be several guilds like that but I think what you want to see is like a tag and the only way to get that is with a guild and the guild mechanics present problems. People who don't want to join guilds would have a problem and then people already in guilds probably won't just leave their guild. Perhaps adding a title system might help but again it's a new feature.
Perhaps it will help to take time to hang around the explorer tent near Harns with a sign that says "Ask me for help" or something. Maybe set up a group of people that will hang out there at the same time to keep each other from getting too bored and for helping newbies.
@Ebonwumon: The problem is that there is no one to be a DM. It's a vicious circle. There is no one to do it, so there is not enough going on to convince someone to invest the time, so there are fewer people around, so there is still no one around to do it. What we need is to be able to break up the effort into smaller chunks across more people. But the printing press idea would help in that. Everyone contribute a part.
-
I have to agree with what Timmy is saying for the most part. It does take a shitload of time and lots of planning. Once you've started a game, you get lots of crap from people about how you're just another wanna-be-evil mary sue, how you are somehow wrong for writing up your events on the forums, or how moronic and brutal your characters are etc... So you ignore the ones who talk crap and just focus on the players who enjoy what you are doing but it still eats at you.
A more ideal situation would be to have two or more DMs ( please don't confuse that with GM) on at the same time and both planning and driving their stories. When that happens, awesomeness ensues.
The greatest reward in doing this imho, is seeing others thoroughly enjoy the game.
-
Most people are too scared to start something that big so two at a time is unlikely.
-
HEY RIGGY, SUMMERTIME INGAME DM PARTY?
-
no
-
I think plot workshops in game would probably be helpful, it's just how do you set one up? Maybe run mock plots and use something like groups or a channel to give OOC instruction on how to handle plot elements and incidents.
-
I and a few others had actually set up a separate forum dedicated to this . We used it to discuss technique and to collaborate on plot ideas. I'd be more that glad to help if anyone wanted to learn.
"HEY RIGGY, SUMMERTIME INGAME DM PARTY?"
-- Heh heh ... would be nice to see some sort of gathering.
-
no
-
The forum is http://tmd.myfreeforum.org however I have not looked at this in some time .... not sure if I want to continue with it or not.
On this forum, I had started a thread here: http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=40661.0
-
no
-
Woo hoo!
If you ever want someone to bounce ideas off of or to discuss ideas with, I'm here. Most folks are usually open about discussing this kind of stuff.
-
So Illy, this news thingamajig of yours... for now, the oja news bulletin. You just make stuff up and stick it on there. Should it be completely disconnected from what's going on in the game, or can it be tied in with things that are happening in the game?
If I saw a Ylian get chewed to death by a pack of rats ( fail!), could I as a character, post a short blurb about that horrific event?
If was a just joe schmo and picked up the paper and read this, I would do what? Just start bsing with others about this? If I recognizes his name, I might tell others who knew/know him?
-
Preferably it would be connected with what's going on in the game, but in my experiences all the newspapers quickly ran out of things to write about. So for now things are made up. However, if you want to post something from an RP write in a way that a reporter would catch the story second hand. I also try include IC things about NPCs such as merchants getting in new merchandise.
This is a news business so they actually have people to go out and find/verify stories not just any scrap the lands in their lap. However, there is nothing to say that they won't occasionally get hoaxed, but just keep in mind that for any news agency to survive, it must maintain at least some credibility. However, if someone wants to start a tabloid they can collect the less verified and more outlandish stories too.
Also, if you want to contribute, consider making a character that works at the bulletin to give the thread a little more flavor. It's not a requirement but it is nice, and the character can only exist on the forum if you like. Although I used to have an in game character for Namae, I don't actually have one made anymore.
Here's a scenario for how to use the bulletin for an RP
_________________________________________
Player 1 proposes to Player 2 in the plaza and turns it into a big event getting several other players in on the act. Player 1, or any other player present for that matter, can then come back to the ONBulletin and post a bulletin. (however, please do check if the bulletin has already been posted in the case of RPs. We don't need 5 posts of the same incident, RPs can be used to flesh out information. :) )
Match made in Hydlaa. Player 1 put on a real performance in the plaza running a complete routine proposing to Player 2. blah blah blah...
Player 3 comes along and reads the bulletin but doesn't know any of the players involved. But, maybe Player 3 is in a relationship with Player 4 and will now start sweating and acting more nervous around Player 4 because Player 4 may have read the same thing and will now start pressuring Player 3 to get married.
Players 5 and 6 may have also seen the bulletin and know the people involved. However, Player 5 was formerly in a relationship with Player 2 and had no idea that 2 had moved on. Now Player 5 is mad and will confront Players 1 and 2 when next seen. 6 on the other hand is just friends with the happy couple and now wants to find them to congratulate them and send wedding gifts. (For the reason that it can affect other RPs, check OOCly with characters you name, aside from your own characters, before you involve them in a post.)
Player 7 is probably the most detached of all and yet reads the bulletin and thinks "Opportunity!" Player 7 then goes and seeks the couple out and tries to sell them shady "insurance" because it can be tough for a new couple starting out and "things happen."
All the while, one post has now spawned 5 other RPs which may lead to other posts which could spawn more RPs.
-
I think the idea of an in-game news source is great for reporting REAL news and ICLY fabricated news, but just flat out making stuff up, I don't know. Something about that leaves me feeling kind of unsure. Also, if I know that most of the news was made up by players and not by characters, then I'm less interested in reading it. To me, there's a difference between a player making up random nonsense stories as "conversation seeds", and a character fabricating a story with some intention or goal in mind.
How can I put this? Steven King spoke about "The truth within the lie" when talking about writing fiction. The lie is the fictional story - its made it; its a lie. But within that lie, there needs to be solid truth and consistency. The reader will accept this fictional lie and treat it as if its truth for the sake of entertainment and immersion. If we break that immersion with inconsistency and a lack of truth, then we do him a disservice. It needs to be a lie that the reader won't choke on and struggle to swallow. It should go down easily in one gulp and not give him flatulence. ( These are not his words, just my interpretation of what he spoke about. )
Does this make sense?
-
I believe I know what you are getting at but I believe it raises inconsistencies. First and foremost is that everything from the least detail of settings up was "completely made up" at some point. Even RPs only have a subjective kind of inherent substance.
That route invalidates Dev initiatives to get player information and make it settings or "canon", if you will. It also negates the work of Devs that eventually included in our settings things that originated in their thoughts as a player. Cutting players out of the process means that the seeds will have to be left for Devs and GMs to sow who already have work and need players to step up. It also negates the work of players since not every piece of news is going to be nonsense. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The question is what makes it real? Is it that the story fell from a Dev or GM's mouth or is it that is thoughtful? For instance, do we invalidate a player RP as having any connection to the settings and the world just because one player invented that their character was robbed on the way to the city simply because they didn't have anyone to act out that RP with?
-
Fiction is a lie - its not real.
Planeshift is fiction.
As players/readers, we make an exception and say, "yes, I know its not real, but for now, I'll pretend that its real"
So long as everything herein is believable (the truth), we continue to accept and live in this fantasy bubble.
Illysia and Rigwyn have an argument about ethics in the Stone head while getting trashed on red wine. That's truth within the lie. Its consistent and believable.
Rigwyn flattens Illysia, folds her into and airplane and sends her sailing away. That's a lie. Its not believable or consistent with the way things work in planeshiftland. As soon as you see this, you are yanked out and left scratching your head.
So I ask you this. Does making up fake news - which never happened in the game take away from the realism? Maybe I'm just a boring poo poo head.... I don't know.
-
I obviously don't think so, but I would say no so long as it stays consistent within the boundaries of settings and logical progression.
"Rigwyn flattens Illysia, folds her into and airplane and sends her sailing away" is no less ridiculous if it happens in an RP or it is written on paper. The ridiculous quality is not in the medium.
"A slight cave in occurs at a mine." is no less likely because it happens in an RP or it is written in a paper.
Like I said, the problem is not whether it is made up, it is all made up. The problem is whether or not it is irreconcilable with the boundaries that we have all mostly agreed to work within, primarily settings then logic.
-
Perhaps you're right. I might be misinterpreting your idea.
-
I believe I know what you are getting at but I believe it raises inconsistencies. First and foremost is that everything from the least detail of settings up was "completely made up" at some point. Even RPs only have a subjective kind of inherent substance.
You completely misunderstood Rigwyn. He is not commenting on fiction itself. He is making a distinction between news that was spawned for the sole purpose of conversation and news of events that actually occurred in the game. He prefers the latter because it is tangible. It is relevant to our characters, and thus relevant to us. Therefore, the former becomes inconsequential. People often ignore information that is irrelevant to them. Even if they did read the irrelevant information, it would soon be forgotten because it had no connection to them.
When I open up a newspaper (or a news site these days), I only read articles that interest me. Relevant articles such as North Korea targeting my home city. Everything else is useless information, according to my brain. If I forced myself to read an article on the current state of the economy, I would not retain that information. It is irrelevant to me because I'm a jobless moocher. So, I'm not likely to bother reading economic articles because 1) they're a bore and 2) I won't remember anything I read.
-
I don't think so Volki. I think he was commenting on the made up nature of the news, like he actually said in his post. And he wasn't only talking about the bits of news that were only irrelevant to his character. He was discussing the broad concept.
However, to address the aspect of relevance, it's subjective. What is relevant to you might be irrelevant to another character and again it is completely aside from the medium. If a farmer is murdered on the side of the road over a stolen porg and you have no connection to the murdrer, the murdered, or farming, the incident is less relevant to you regardless of whether it is happened in RP or on paper. You either have a connection to the topic or you don't.
Like I said earlier, RP has relative substance, or tangibility. It is a completely different concept entirely from relevance. RP no more actually happened than any other writing, it's still fiction. As Rigywn said, it depends on what players are going to say in their mind "I'll believe this as true." That tolerance level varies from player to player.
-
Obviously relevance is subjective. Please read Rigwyn's posts again. My post tries to explain his line of thought, though I try to explain in another way and go into a bit of a segue. I'll try to make this easier to understand.
You, Illysia, provide exposition when you write these news articles. (I assume you know what this is, but I'm linking the Wikipedia page for those who do not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_%28narrative%29))
When your character writes these articles, she is providing believable exposition. The information she is sharing comes from events that really did occur. This is relevant to our characters. This is immersive.
When you, the player, write the articles, you are forcing information on us. We have to question, "Would this really happen in Yliakum? Should I trust Illysia's creativity?" We are not sure if the information is relevant to our characters because we cannot place any credibility in it. You are not a developer. We cannot trust you to know Octarchal fashion. Your questionable credibility breaks immersion.
And then I should explain my segue. Too much exposition is bad. Doesn't matter if you're a writer, a roleplayer, or relating the day's events to your friend. All we need is what is relevant to our characters. By my example, I was not trying to say this is a matter of personal preference, but instead that we are more likely to be interested in news that is relevant to us through our characters. There is enough roleplay that you can report on the roleplay and forget about reporting fictitious (irrelevant) events. If there really is no roleplay... Then don't report anything at all.
You are not going to spark roleplay with news articles. The best thing you can do is reward players by involving their roleplay in your news.
-
I was having a hard time understanding why this fake news idea feels wrong to me. I don't yet know what it is, but its like I have this little flag in my head that keeps popping out when I think about it.
On one hand yes, this is all fiction an we have some liberty to make stuff up. We do this when we role play all the time. I get you on that point. When we make stuff up or do stuff, we make sure that it makes sense in the Planeshift-verse. Your fake news articles are believable and fit in with settings. As Volki pointed out, we automatically forget information that's perceived to be false or irrelevant.
So what's sticking out? I'm still not sure. it might just be me.
Does it matter that the news is fake?
I've started role play events in the past with a made up dilemma. Ie. Sillamon's diary is stolen.....which leads to other discoveries and a chain of consequences as its sought after. I guess its valid practice, but for me, you need to line up a lot more material to turn it into an adventure. You need to set up more layers of information to be uncovered as the story deepens otherwise, it doesn't really go anywhere. For more conversational rp, perhaps my point here is inapplicable. If its just something to talk about or discuss, then perhaps its fine.
In real life I'm horrible with small talk, so perhaps this is why this seems alien to me?
-
@Volki: Considering that Rigwyn himself says he's not sure what the rub is, more than likely what you are talking about is your own issue that you see with the news. However, if you doubt the credibility of the made up news then don't use it. I am a computer and a game client away I can't force anything on you. But consider that you can be lied to by a character so what is the actual problem? It it credibility or that you simply don't trust my word? Also, what was written by Devs isn't even set in stone. Just try to make a Diaboli character if you don't believe me. They were not originally included just to be effectively written out of the Yliakum story. You can base your RP on what the devs say and can still end up getting the rug pulled from under you.
I'm not convinced that making news up is a complete failure of an idea without even being given time to see what it does in PS. I've already seen the method work, the only question is whether or not PS people will pick it up. But do feel free to ignore it if it bothers you so much to go with it. However, since many other news initiatives died on relying on in game RP alone but people still seem to want some kind of news I plan on seeing where it goes at least. There are many RP styles, this measure probably just doesn't fit yours.
@Rigwyn: It doesn't matter what rubs you wrong about it, all that matters is that it does. The simplest solution is simply not to use the news bulletin and then you don't have to reconcile anything at all. I think the problem is that you are trying to stretch a snippet into a story. It's not an adventure, an epic, or the lead in to a plot; it is background color. I think you an Volki see it as far more than it is, in your minds. You are really close to what it is though. It is initially small talk fodder that can be stretched out into more if anyone wants to take it that far. I have a different RP style from you, I almost never RP with a story in mind, I take a small prompt and I run with it and I always have. I can see it if you have no use for it yourself, but I doubt I'm the only one left that RPs that way, so it is there for those that can make use of it.
-
Illysia, I am telling you how people work. This has nothing to do with me personally. Or you personally. My post is an attempt to provide you knowledge, which you lack and need in order for this to work. Re-read our posts without so much emotional involvement. Step back and be objective. None of your ideas will see success if you cannot detach your feelings from them.
-
Personally, I'll ignore the articles as my preference is to have IC information that my character can act on and run with. I see now that this is not what Illy is trying to create. Any IC news that is real or ICly fabricated, I'm definitely into. My characters "do" things, as opposed to talking about things. Both are valid, just different colored crayons.
-
@Volki: Yes, like Rigwyn says, this is just a different type. It's not so much emotionally charged as I simple don't accept your notion that one way of RPing is inherently the only possible way that people will RP. I appreciate your trying to explain what you mean and I believe I understand. What is irrelevant will not be used. However, how you decide what is relevant to your character is not inherently the same as how everyone determines what is relevant to their character, allow for variance. You may be right that many will not like this idea, but there are those that it will not bother. Nothing appeals to everyone. Perhaps though you need to widen out and experience more types of RP; however, I admit that it is harder to find variety these days, not impossible just harder.
@Rigwyn: However, the Bulletin doesn't discriminate against RPed news, it's just that I plan on filling in gaps with things that were not RPed. There are news posts that refer to things that were actually RPed like MagCon and Bonifarzia winning the Champion's Cup or at least refer to people you can go and find and RP with. But, if they don't work for you then that's fine.
For me, I can see fine how to actually run with some of the posts, for instance organizing a Berry Festival or using my Kran character to try and get Kran dishes out of local cooks or blacksmiths and then trying to get other players to try them but then go through trial and error to find out that the squishy meat people don't take to eating rocks at all. But, I understand that those kinds of RPs would be very boring to you as they don't follow a story and the conflict is minor to nonexistent.
-
I'll have to surprise you one day....
*Makes special character just for the occasion*
-
I probably will be surprised, but heads up, I can generally tell which alts belong to RPers I've already run into before by the level of competence in RPing... just sayin'. :whistling:
-
I'll dumb it down a little, make some noob mistakes and alter my grammatical nuances. Then again, few are on when I'm on. Curses! XD
-
Yeah, that does get you too. ;D
-
Being expected doesn't help either. :surrender:
-
If you change enough things, you can hide decently. I once threw Lhaa off the scent with an alt and Lhaa can practically tell you who the grandmother is of the person behind the alt. ;D You just have to know what you do that "marks" your characters.
-
My tell is my spelling :P
-
My tlel is mytyping and the BIg SEcond letters fo my postz ::|
-
OK, I'm bored again.
What's your favorite color? I like pink myself. I don't care how stereotypical it is. Don't judge me. :P
-
It really depends on the context. I like red contrasted against black sometimes, royal blue in some cases, orange blended into brown, and green - that vibrant, emerald green that the grass and trees sometimes turn in the spring and early summer in the evening before sunset.
How about armoas? Which ones do you like most and what memories do they trigger?
-
You just like being complicated don't you? :P
I'm going to take a BIG leap here and assume you mean smells there. ;)
I seem to be hooked on lavender in general, I guess because it smells like "clean" to me and I like the smell of clean. Either that or the scent of Estee Lauder's Beyond Paradise, but only when I wear it. Apparently I have interesting body chemistry that "turns" both cheap metal and perfume. When I wear that perfume it actually gets a sweeter smell. But that is the first and only perfume that I have that was mine and not borrowed, so ultimately the memory is "MINE!" :3
-
Yes, I meant smells ;D
If someone really messed with you badly and you went into a psychotic rage, how would you take it out on them? What would evil-illy do and how would she do it? What would it look like, sound like, smell like?
-
*grumbles* sensory people... :P
As I am told: Before such a blow up, waves of righteous indignation rush over people sitting nearby like a unbidden tsunami crashing down in a wall of "Oh no they didn't" upon unsuspecting bystanders. But instead of the swirl of raging, angry water, significant heat eminates from "my side of the room" pressing upon the ones with a grape's worth of sense, those who pick up the warning signs and know to back away slowly.
As I feel it: A pressure rapidly builds like a thousand screams and a million angry rants all rushing to be the first one out. All nicety and goodwill flee like frightened children searching for some dark, dank corner hoping to go unnoticed. But, above all a clarity... a fog clearing, distraction elminating clarity sets in. There is neither room, nor space, nor time, nor any other being in existance... only righteous ire and it's target.
Words no long serve to reassure or to build up. They become cruel, terrible weapons. Weapons meant to leave not physical scars that will eventually heal and be eventually forgotten but emotional ones that will last a lifetime and that trigger strong enough memories to prevent this scenario from repeating. Everything becomes a target, a scratch to leave poison in and allow it to sit....
...
Ah who am I kidding? ;D It never gets this bad and even I don't know what I'd do. :P But I hope this makes for a nice read for you. I put a lot of work into it. ;)
Really there isn't much sensory stuff for me. My reaction goes: Deliberate Wall o' Words to make them regret having caught my full attention, scathing but truthful remarks to wound them enough to retreat from the situation, then seriously considering reaching out and choking someone depending on what actually set off the incident. But normally, rather early on, either I get a grip or someone like my mother intervenes and throws a monkey wrench in my ire train derailing the whole thing and saving the poor fool that doesn't leave me alone.
Fortunately for many people, I know when to remove myself from an aggravating situation.
-
That's not quite as I had envisioned it. I imagined you sitting there staring at said person rather calmly, then looking the other way with a sort of light, caviler chuckle as your antagonist continues to rattle your nerves. After that, another harsh comment leaves his lips - followed by silence; the sort that stinks of uncertainty, regret and awareness of how indelible the spoken word can be. Things said are permanent and cannot be undone. Words change those who hear them - sometimes with minute subtlety, sometimes with regrettable consequences.
Next, I would expect to see a grey blur and feel its wake as a thick, iron pan - the kind that grandma used to use, meets the side, front and back of their head with a hollow, liquidy thud. I could almost sense the taste of rusted copper and hear the painful, articulate screaming being pounded and reshaped into a bubbling, hissing plea for mercy as the splatter spans the Stonehead and its horrified patrons. The breaking of glass as mugs fall from startled hands, the sound of soft footsteps fading into silence as the last of the patron slips out the door - covering their mouth to stifle a tiny bout of laughter.
"Psst! Dude, she totally snapped!"
-
Nah, there is always warning for those who pay attention, but I had to learn calm and reasonable, by extension Illy did too. Her response was angry yelling then hurling a blunt object. But I've always tried to get the offending party to back down by stinging them, most of the time it works. Illy now just puts the hammer down and shuts down the incident. It's like walking into a field of poison ivy, after awhile they learn to avoid, the halfway reasonable ones anyway.
-
Green is pretty.
-
deleted
-
Ok, I'm bored again... Let's see, I'm out of news for the Bulletin for the moment... don't feel much like RPing so nothing to say there... hmm...
I know, what do you think about Kran cuisine?
Since I love geology, this makes Kran food a fun concept. For instance, maybe a lot of calcite will make kran stomachs upset because calcite fizzes when exposed to acid, but maybe if you put a little in water it works like alka-seltzer and will calm their stomachs a bit.
Also, gold is probably chewy to kran. Natural gold is really soft and kran can chew through rubies and diamonds (9 and 10 on the Moh scale respectively) so gold must be like chewing caramel to them.
I bet that kran would have taste preferences so maybe one Kran really likes the taste of magnesium so kra might like garnets, spinel, and peridots.
Kran Crunch Surprise: Take a small lump of coal. Dip it in layers of other metals. Gold and platinum for a "creamy", decadent treat or iron and bronze for a little more common variation.
Poprock clusters: Not always given to popping, but tiny rock clusters that can be eaten like popcorn.
Maybe salt is like sugar to Kran. So how about a Copper ingot Split Tin sundae?
Copper ingot Split Tin sundae: Take a copper ingot and float it in tiny tin clusters then mix generously with salt. Maybe add a slight drizzle of mercury in a very secure bowl. ;)
How's this for kran drinks(*ducks because of the players that are actually chemists*):
Blue Fire: Dissolve Copper in Oil of Vitriol leaving a rich blue solution that can be garnished with little beads of gold or silver shaped like little fires.
Golden Sunrise: Take a very small glass, dissolve salt in Oil of Vitriol forming and dissolve nitre in water. Combine the two into a fuming solution of Aqua Regia. (not safe for non krans) Once that is made, take a little bit of gold and a glass stirring spoon; use the stirrer to dissolve the gold at the bottom of the glass and create a layer of dissolved gold. Enjoy. (don't drink around non kran. >.>)
-
Do you already know my favourite drinks (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=19629.0)? The "Cave Rill" might be a conventional addition.
-
Ok, I'm bored again... Let's see, I'm out of news for the Bulletin for the moment... don't feel much like RPing so nothing to say there... hmm...
I know, what do you think about Kran cuisine?
Since I love geology, this makes Kran food a fun concept. For instance, maybe a lot of calcite will make kran stomachs upset because calcite fizzes when exposed to acid, but maybe if you put a little in water it works like alka-seltzer and will calm their stomachs a bit.
Also, gold is probably chewy to kran. Natural gold is really soft and kran can chew through rubies and diamonds (9 and 10 on the Moh scale respectively) so gold must be like chewing caramel to them.
I bet that kran would have taste preferences so maybe one Kran really likes the taste of magnesium so kra might like garnets, spinel, and peridots.
Kran Crunch Surprise: Take a small lump of coal. Dip it in layers of other metals. Gold and platinum for a "creamy", decadent treat or iron and bronze for a little more common variation.
Poprock clusters: Not always given to popping, but tiny rock clusters that can be eaten like popcorn.
Maybe salt is like sugar to Kran. So how about a Copper ingot Split Tin sundae?
Copper ingot Split Tin sundae: Take a copper ingot and float it in tiny tin clusters then mix generously with salt. Maybe add a slight drizzle of mercury in a very secure bowl. ;)
How's this for kran drinks(*ducks because of the players that are actually chemists*):
Blue Fire: Dissolve Copper in Oil of Vitriol leaving a rich blue solution that can be garnished with little beads of gold or silver shaped like little fires.
Golden Sunrise: Take a very small glass, dissolve salt in Oil of Vitriol forming and dissolve nitre in water. Combine the two into a fuming solution of Aqua Regia. (not safe for non krans) Once that is made, take a little bit of gold and a glass stirring spoon; use the stirrer to dissolve the gold at the bottom of the glass and create a layer of dissolved gold. Enjoy. (don't drink around non kran. >.>)
Cool! we're looking for kran recipes to make a true cooking book for kran! :D
-
Maybe I'm looking too much into things, but the point of eating something is to gain energy from it. In all known living things this happens by taking in complex molecules (glucose, protein) and breaking them down into simpler molecules (CO2, water). From this perspective it doesn't seem to make sense for anything to eat elemental gold, copper, etc. since these can't be broken down into any simpler molecules (barring nuclear fission, which I'm assuming is not how Kran operate). It would make sense for them to eat ores and then excrete the pure metal, gaining energy from breaking down the silicates.
Maybe I'm applying too much realism to a fantasy game. Feel free to disregard all of that. :whistling:
-
Well, Kran mostly need it as raw materials, especially for gemmation. They literally are what they eat. It would be cool if Kran could change types over time.
-
From my experience, eating rocks is not fun.
-
Introducing the all new "Kra-Flush 2000!" ( Yes, 2000 )
Kra-Flush 2000 contains a proprietary blend of ground diamonds, falka, and a dash of one or two ingredients that are known to cause krancer in the town of Ojaveda. Just drink two litres ( 3 if gemma's got a lot of junk in the trunk), krouch on the side of a steep hill and wait for the alexandrite encrusted mudslide to being! Rinse, chisel, repeat.
-
I love Rigwyn. ;D
-
I imagine that Kran diarh... er... that... is much like panning for gold in a muddy river.... ::|
-
And you wonder why there is tin ore on the side of the stone? ::|
Or lumium in a shameful little corner... somewhere within walking distance of krannyville...
You wonder why a certain kran has been soaking kraself in a pond for such a long, long time. Do you really believe what kra says ? Or perhaps kra's answer is just a poor attempt at retaining kra's dignity? ( Sometimes a good soak helps relax the muscles, if you know what I mean. )
-
You are so bad Rigwyn. :P
-
I imagine that Kran diarh...
And we still wonder what Lumium is.
-
Ok, how about this as food for thought? (Pun completely intended) PS could use some more vegetables and fruits.
Tahfan: A leafy green plant that grows large leaves in a fan like arrangement. The leave are pointed at the tip, broad in the upper to middle portions, and then taper down at the base. (a lettuce analog)
Greebl: A reddish-purple fruit that grows in a cone shape with a slightly rounded base. The outside is made of tougher peel that contains a fragrant oil and the inside consists of a pinkish, fine grain flesh that is somewhat smooth to the tongue and firm when you bite into it. (kinda like an orange)
Lump Fruit: A brown fruit with a lumpy exterior and a thin mottled skin. The inside of the fruit is rather floral and sweet smelling, but it is also brown and very squishy. It is very easy to bruise this fruit and make it look even worse.
People root: A long thin vegetable that has five very dark brown, rough, and fibrous prongs that vaguely resemble two arms, two legs and a tail. It has a sharp vinegary taste, is fairly acidic, and will burn a bit should you bite your lip while eating some. It smells distinctly of vinegar and a sort of earthy plant smell. (no magic)
Hot Kiss Pepper: A spicy, red to orange pepper that grows two lobes that resemble two full, pouty lips. Each shiny, brightly colored lobe curls with a bow shaped outer edge and a graceful arc that leaves a small hole in the center as if the pepper were blowing you a kiss. It has a rich, savory flavor that is not overwhelmed by the heat. However, it is not a pepper for those with a delicate stomach. It also has a crisp crunch when bitten into.
Rainbow Mushroom: A tiny mushroom with a white stem and a round cap that comes in a variety of colors depending on the soil where it is found. The cap contains a great deal of pigment and will stain fingers and lips if care isn't taken while eating. The stem is relatively firm and dense but quite bland and will take on any other flavor, making it good for seasoning and putting into a variety of dishes, but the cap is almost fluffy in texture and has a slight flavor that varies with the compounds that make its pigment.
Cream Bud: A small rubbery looking and feeling pouch about the size of a golden circle that hangs below a milky white flower with seven overlapping spade shaped petals. The pouch itself is bitter and inedible, but inside is a milky white sap that tastes similar to a sweet cream but with a watery consistency. The "cream" has a gentle, sweet smell and can be used almost like milk or real cream. The flower petals bear some of the "cream" as well and are actually creamier in texture than the "cream" in the bud, but they are more bitter tasting yet still edible. (got for the lactose intolerant)
As a side note, I have been reading online lessons for improving creative writing and one exercise focuses on learning to describe sensory details of everyday experiences such as... oh, eating. So aside from whether or not anyone cares this much about cooking in PS, I have just done today's sensory exercise. ::)
-
/me pulls another corpse out of its grave:
To finally keep my promise:
The Cumbana
is a vegetable which grows in large fields on the floor of streaming waters. The fruits are rich and fleshy inside [ imagine a cucumber ], covered by several layers of strong leaves [ imagine closed corn. ]. Although predjudiced as "poor people food", you shall not underestimate their healthy ingredients.
In warm seasons, almost daily one of the fruits per plant on the ground ripens and starts to rise during the early hours of the day, up to the surface of the river, connected to the main plant on the floor with a long stem. It floats on the surface during noon, and finally opens the fruit covering leaves.
Cumbanas should be harvested when they are just about to open, but not yet fully revealed. Open cumbanas macerate soon, and before the evening they will drift away as a kind of thick foam on the surface. Just in time harvested cumbanas can be kept for almost a week when keeping them chilled and only slightly humid.
Then they can be used as vegetables - for example, they are often sliced lengthwise, and the soft kernels get substituted by minced meat or spicy fruits [ like filled zucchini ]. Also they are sometimes sliced crosswise and baked under a cover of a few days old, slightly sour milk [ gratinated ].
A different way of use is harvesting them when they are still closed and about to rise to the surface. Then especially children enjoy to dive into the river, cut the stems, and hang them into the sun over a clothesline. Well dried they are a sweet fruity snack [ imagine slightly dried bananas. ].
-
...
...and baked under a cover of a few days old, slightly sour milk [ gratinated ].
...
ewww... :'(
-
Can we not have a fruit called the cumbana? For the sake of the children. Please.
-
How about a juicy little tart? :whistling:
-
I imagine it is like a combination of cucumber and banana.
-
Which really doesn't help with a name like 'Cumbana'.
-
Well, I wouldn't worry too much. Most kids either already know worse or they won't get the meaning... I remember being a kid and being able to pick out innuendos, but I had no idea what they meant. I doubt this is any intentional innuendo so it shouldn't be a problem. It's the older people with their minds already too far in the gutters you have to worry about. :whistling:
-
It's more like... I don't want to be reminded of ___ while putting... that in my... mouth.
X-/
-
Don't be too prude, Sarras; there are nastier toys for kids (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleckmuschel) (but only Germans will understand their really ambiguous name).
-
Orrghaklet:
An entire, full sized meal condensed via magic into a tiny - though equally heavy, tria sized tablet. do not spoil when left out a room temperature and can be made from any sort of food - including gemstones. A single Orrghaklet will produce the sensation of completely full and sated while providing the body with all the same nutrients found in the uncompressed meal.
Depending on the exact spell used and the proficiency of the caster, orrghaklets typically have a dull purple-ish brown appearance, are odorless, and have a pulsating magical glow about them. Due to this aura and their highly compressed state, they cannot be marked, scratched or indented in any way as to do so could have a terrible effect on their composition. Its suggested that one does not eat an orrghaklet without knowing exactly what sort of meal it was made from. An orrghaklet make from a meal of grains, meat and fruit will look identical to one made from a blend of rubies, granite and sulphur.
One CAN speculate about the derived meal by weighing the orrghaklet ( which weighs as much as the meal itself). A kran sized meal of granite stones and emeralds would weigh considerably more than a meal of fish and grains.
-
It's more like... I don't want to be reminded of ___ while putting... that in my... mouth.
X-/
As I said, it's the older people that will have a difficult time of it. ;)
Orrghaklet:
An entire, full sized meal condensed via magic into a tiny - though equally heavy, tria sized tablet.
Oooh... Willy Wonka is so going to come sue you or turn you over to the Oompa Loompas. :whistling: However, it is an interesting idea.
-
You know, I forgot about the shrinking scene... I think the orrghaklet is definitely doable... just not just which magic way or ways might be capable of accomplishing this. My guess would be brown. *shrugs*
-
Plus blue: Freeze drying.
-
Bored, bored, bored..... b o r e d .............. (inserting more dots just because)....... .... <o><r><e/><letter>d</letter>
>So... any ideas for subtle acts of malice?
ie.
Nudging a person's chair out from under them just before they sit.
Eating the last two Eggo waffles just before your significant other sits down for breakfast.
Squirting crazy glue into the maple syrup bottle.
Leaving a thumb tack on someone's wheel chair.
Putting salt in the sugar container.
These can be IC or OOC ideas....
-
Holding the door open for people twenty feet away.
Putting bugs in/on people's things. It's so weird they can't accuse you of doing it.
Pouring olive oil in alcoholic drinks.
If you're ever at an event with apple bobbing, secretly remove all of the stems. It's a pansy game otherwise.
When you're playing PlaneShift, go into the Arena and cast Phantasmal Voices on every mob you can find. This will crash the NPC server for five to ten minutes.
Rigwyn, what the hell did you do to our font?
-
"Holding the door open for people twenty feet away."
+1 I hate it when people do that xD
Wizzing all over the toilet seat. ( Yeah, they can wipe it off if they notice it, but that still sucks for them )
Oiling the steps
Using the doorknob as a tissue
Taking your time ordering your food - knowing how pissy the people behind you are getting each time you change your mind.
Emptying the gas out of cigarette lighters, wetting matches.
-
Role playing for me is simple and fun. I can role play any day and any hour. Roleplay is simple as long as your creative enough. Don't know how anyone would hate role play, perhapes they have no knowledge of role play? I guess try role players are good at being imaginative.
-
Taking your time ordering your food - knowing how pissy the people behind you are getting each time you change your mind.
In my experience as a food service attendant, there's a sort of Murphy's Law to it: You get the guy that does this. They'll finally decide what they want, the restaurant will be out of it, and then everyone else in line will decide they want the same thing. This will all happen half an hour before closing time, and then one guy will bang on the door at precisely the time you're supposed to lock up, the new employee will let him in, and he'll order ten burgers even though you just put all the stuff for making burgers away and refuse to leave until he can at least use the bathroom. That you just cleaned. And he has explosive diarrhea.
I'm not even exaggerating, this has happened to me like six times.
-
/horrorsofworkingwithpeople
wow... I am so sorry. ::|
-
Haha, don't be, it's my motivation to keep trying for college.
-
Taking your time ordering your food - knowing how pissy the people behind you are getting each time you change your mind.
In my experience as a food service attendant, there's a sort of Murphy's Law to it: You get the guy that does this. They'll finally decide what they want, the restaurant will be out of it, and then everyone else in line will decide they want the same thing. This will all happen half an hour before closing time, and then one guy will bang on the door at precisely the time you're supposed to lock up, the new employee will let him in, and he'll order ten burgers even though you just put all the stuff for making burgers away and refuse to leave until he can at least use the bathroom. That you just cleaned. And he has explosive diarrhea.
I'm not even exaggerating, this has happened to me like six times.
lol!
I absolutely hated working in fast food... I used to have dreams as I struggled to doze at night off about angry customers harassing me for more food while I lay in bed reminding myself of where I was and that these customers were not real.
Evil Pro-tip: A sheet of cellophane (plastic wrap) can be extremely hard to see when stretched tightly over the toilet ( either the seat itself or the bowl beneath for extra stealthiness. )
-
What this conversation reminds me of:
http://xkcd.com/72/ (http://xkcd.com/72/)
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/classhole.jpg)
-
Nice ;)
-
Every time I see that hat, I automatically assume the wearer is Walter White.
-
*Performs Necromancy*
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Endor.jpg/220px-Endor.jpg)
-
And your topic for this part of the conversation is?
-
Well, I'm open to anything really. Starting a new topic is better than jumping all over a dead horse, I suppose. ( An age-old planshift tradition )
See any cool movies lately?
-
No. :( I never get to see movies until they are long on DVD. Can't tell you how happy I was to get Captain America: The First Avenger on DVD recently. Mind you, it was not just for the shallow reason of thinking that Chris Evans is fine. ;D
-
xD Ulterior motifs, eh?
I just finished watching "Hemlock Grove" on Netflix. I guess you could call it modern supernatural fantasy? With the exception of the last episode, I thought it was pretty good.
-
Yikes, not my type of series. :o
I've been meaning to go back and either watch Andromeda or Farscape episodes but I don't have Netflix or Hulu so... :/
But I did recently watch a ton of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes during the Shatner Birthday fest on Hulu which left all the star trek episodes from all series free for a week. Darn that needing to sleep and deal with social interactions... It sucked up my Star Trek time.
I'm more of a Sci Fi nut myself. Does it show? :D
-
Yes, I see. you're nuts.
Eh... that sounded wrong.... Yes, you're a sci fi nut xD
I wouldn't mind some seriously good sci fi, but I haven't seen anything decent in quite some time. I like stuff that gets you thinking and wondering about things. The TED channel on youtube is good for that.
-
Apparently The Devil's Carnival is out on Netflix. I feel like Rig would like that :P
Here is a link to one of the songs. Be warned that it is dark, and very, very creepy. Just the way I like it :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqTQYGUhz_Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqTQYGUhz_Y)
-
Oooh and it got 4 stars on Netflix. I'll have to check it out. Maybe tonight.
-
I'm I the only one here with an aversion to dark and creepy?
If you want to think then Star Trek: The Original Series and The Next Generation are better for that. Most of the others have different focuses. However, there really hasn't been as much good Sci Fi lately, it's like corporate gave up on it so too bad for us.
Farscape is a space Opera, Firefly is a space western(so is the original star trek I might add... always throwing a punch like a bar brawl when they had phasers. :P ) Andromeda was one man against the universe for good (until the last season or two *cough*Seefra*cough* where it official jumped the shark).
Earth Final Conflict might have been a thinking one but I was too young at the time to remember. I just thought Taelon technology was pretty in a glowy jellyfish kind of way. I think the Alien Nation TV show might have been a thinker Sci Fi as well but again I was too young. I also think Babylon 5 might have moments of it but more of the fortune cookie kind. Again, too young and at the time I hated it; the only reason I halfway paid attention was because I liked Bruce Boxleitner's voice (and I still do... do not mind the ulterior motives >.> <.< >.>).
There were some other campy ones too like Cleopatra 2525. ;D Oh the memories.
-
I haven't seen it yet, but I've been following it off and on for a bit. Its made by the same people who did Repo; The genetic rock opera. That one is also one that you would like Rig :P Its all about repossessing organs in a dystopic future. Also it also has the guy who played Giles in Buffy in it singing about tearing people apart. Its wonderful :P
Oh, and Firefly is one of my favorite things of all time ever.
-
I halfway considered looking into Repo but now I'm having second thoughts. ;D
I like firefly with one exception. It's like Doctor Who, it will go deadly serious in a heartbeat and that is very jarring. I basically like Doctor Who except for the dead serious and the creepy... There are creatures in the series that I could so without. *grumbles* used to be able to walk through Garden sections in stores before that show... >.>
-
Hmm... my watch list is getting longer.
What I don't like about cheap horror and sci fi is the very shallow, cliche pieces that pop up now and then which are little more than a little bit of decoration, a few stereotypical characters and a plot that could have been created by a fifth grader.
I was watching once movie the other night... I can't remember the name of it.. but it was about a few college students ( your typical party of diverse characters ) who go to a barnyard rave in the the middle of nowhere and end up getting chased by cultists with matching black cloaks and identical angry-face masks. There was no story, no lore, no deep reason other than they like to torture and kill people because they believe it appeases satan.
Don't get me wrong, I love horror, but it needs to move me. It needs to keep me up at night - either with a giddy smile or with my feet tucked beneath me as I perch on the edge of my bed as I wonder about what terrible things DEFINITELY DO NOT lurk beneath it.
Star trek, I liked back in the day, but the made for broadcast TV stuff is a little to bland for my taste now. Its like eating potatoes and oatmeal with a glass of water, if you know what I mean.
-
I halfway considered looking into Repo but now I'm having second thoughts. ;D
I like firefly with one exception. It's like Doctor Who, it will go deadly serious in a heartbeat and that is very jarring. I basically like Doctor Who except for the dead serious and the creepy... There are creatures in the series that I could so without. *grumbles* used to be able to walk through Garden sections in stores before that show... >.>
I personally love when I can't decide whether to laugh or cry. I love how firefly has that conflicting emotional responce. Dr who I have had trouble getting into because of the fan base, and intimidating amount of episodes to watch.
And rig, repo itself is classified as horror but it's not really scary per say. I'd say it's more like what happens when you jam some comic books and metal music together and throw in some dark humor.
-
I might check out Repo.... Sarah Brightman is in it? I didn't know she could act too....
Paris Hilton .... lol. Ok, that doesn't say much for the movie. Still checking it out, though.
As for not being scary, seriously f-d up is definitely good too. Its refreshing, if you ask me.
-
Oh it is certainly f'd up :P also paris Hilton is a crazy druggie. I don't think I can go into more detail about it on these forums but rest assured if you like creepy messed up movies you will probably like repo.
-
Ok, crossing Repo off my list. ::|
I think Rig would like the first Dr Who episode with the Weeping Angels... I swear I never made it to the end of it. It messes with my head too much. However, I started watching Dr. Who with the 9th Doctor so I've never see the earlier stuff.
As for not being scary, seriously f-d up is definitely good too. Its refreshing, if you ask me.
I think you broke my brain Rig... seriously.
But I think you would like the original Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". It's not messed up in the twisted way you normally go, but I've never met one person that got the twist at the end before the end (without cheating. ;) ) but it is kinda messed up with you think back on it, especially when you consider "hitting at home" application.
-
I'll definitely check it out.
As for Dr. Who, I remember seeing several episodes of that when I was a kid ... like back in the late 70's. It piqued my curiosity several times but perhaps not quite enough to follow it. Some eps looked cool, others terribly boring. Then one day, my son asked me if I knew what a tardis was. I suppressed a laugh as its also slang for something outside of the show ( and something he has no knowledge of ... yet), and then surprised him with the answer. So we watched one or two episodes of some newer version of it ( Episode one of one of the newer seasons... There was some fake-blond hottie in it. ) I have the same problem.. I feel left out knowing that they are probably making references to older episodes.. and there are way too many years of material to catch up on ... and some episodes have been lost as I understand.
As for breaking your brain, I find the glorification of evil characters and evil deeds to be most enjoyable. Perhaps its a tiny little twist of rebellion or something. Sometimes it's the, "Oh no... you CAN'T go there!" that makes it that much more enjoyable.
-
As for breaking your brain, I find the glorification of evil characters and evil deeds to be most enjoyable. Perhaps its a tiny little twist of rebellion or something. Sometimes it's the, "Oh no... you CAN'T go there!" that makes it that much more enjoyable.
I'm too lawful good for that one to process for me. ??? ;)
-
I don't buy that for a minute. People are heartless killers by nature - survivalists, carnivores, thieves. Look within, Illy. There's a monster hidden in there somewhere.
-
Nah, that's just acid reflux and complaints. Now everyone definitely has complaints. :)
-
Dumb question. Does the idea of exploring space pique your curiosity or is it just the idea of being stuck on a space ship with lots of people to converse with that floats your boat?
-
Both, but as I learned while studying my major. I don't care about squat until you land again. Don't get me wrong, stars and nebulae are nice and all, but I'm more of a terrestrial person myself. I love geology, biology, botany and things like that, but I couldn't care less what frequencies of light are emitted from a star, or our bodies for that matter. I rather hated those last two calculations. :/
But even a fairly rocky barren planet would intrigue me more than just floating around in the great out there.
-
What would be an ideal find for you? :)
Given a scenario where you have no technological barriers, you are exploring and you suddenly find something awesome. What might it be?
-
Ideal find is an up and running civilization. I favor interaction over scientific inquiry, not that there isn't overlap. But, I prefer to talk with people to look for different perspectives and ideas. After all, that's how you learn and expand.
I've always been of the opinion that humanity is an ultimately social species, and that is our problem, we are too alone right now. Once we come in contact with others, we will have something else to focus on besides how much we irritate each other and it would ultimately bring out the good in us.
It's a common theme in sci fi. I always figured that was because in the face of someone truly different, we'd realize how much the same we are and that natural human tendency to pull together with "like" people could be harnessed for good. But at the same time, seeing others would constantly remind of us of our own failings, especially if we were to come around many other species, and in our need to tell everyone else were they are screwing up we'd have to tighten up ourselves so that we could sit properly upon our mighty high horse... er.. *cough* steed.
Not that there wouldn't still be bad elements to human society but getting exposure could both give us a whiff of ourselves and give us a sense of purpose that could be harnessed for good. After all, what's the likelihood that we'd all of a sudden develop a sense of minding our own business? ;)
-
Say you found in incredibly intriguing alien... ( or native, from its perspective), what might it be like? How much differently might it think?
I've often entertained that idea... how differently might an alien species think? In what ways might its reasoning and logic differ.
-
Depends really, the possibilities are infinite. However, you might be more interested in the concept of an alien with a blue and orage morality (as opposed to black and white). That is an alien that isn't necessarily evil but their sense of what is right and wrong lies on such a different axis that it has no real place within our normal sliding scale of morality.
For instance, for them, killing might be wrong if you kill without in some way replace the person that was killed so that the loss is "negligible", but as long as you have provided someone or something to take it's place you're golden for being such a considerate person. And in this scenario, the method of killing is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
I imaging that blue and orange morality applies outside of killing easily but that is the most dramatic and easily illustrated scenario.
I think an alien that I would be more interested in would be aliens with alternate, but still harmonious social structures. One of my favorite fictional races is the Perseids from Andromeda. They are so kooky and strange but at the same time adorable, to me at least. They don't have intimate social interactions like we do so friends are a foreign concept to them and even mating is not terribly intimate. They get each other pregnant and then turn the children over to the state to be raised and placed in society. I believe that parents only maintain nominal connection to the children, it's a highly bureaucratic society.
However, that doesn't mean they are anti social. They interact with other species and they aren't socially inept per se but I think certain quirks that are more common in other species eludes/is unimportant to them. For instance they have a habit of being brutally honest but not necessarily to be mean. Yes, they just told you that they "understand the limits of your primative intellect," but they weren't being mean so much as making a statement of fact. they might have even been attempting sympathy, graciousness, or helpfulness. As you can imagine this makes them rather trying to other races.
-
They get each other pregnant and then turn the children over to the state to be raised and placed in society. I believe that parents only maintain nominal connection to the children, it's a highly bureaucratic society.
Sounds like they might have something in common with Warren Jeffs. :devil:
This idea of blue and orange morality is interesting. You could easily have an individual with very different morality or a secluded village with such morality. Likewise, a character who lives by very different rules could provide some rather interesting interactions.
One of the things I stongly dislike about star trek is some of the non-humanoid alien races. For me, it breaks immersion when I see characters with lumps of play dough on their face.
-
Nah, I'm pretty sure the Perseids are all old enough and choose their own mates.
However, blue and orange morality typically leads to grave misunderstandings and wars due to each side assuming they are playing by the same rules and the other side keeps being a pain in the rear and breaking them. But it can definitely exist in non sci fi settings as well.
I don't mind the rubber ridges as the appearance is less important to me and sometimes I like those little rubber ridges. I don't like the original Klingons so much but I like the TNG Klingons just fine and I think the nose ridges on Bajorans are adorable.
But my main focus with sci fi is almost always the people, the social situation, the way that the people interact in other ways such as trade or governemental interactions. I like it when species take certain issues and more or less isolate them so that you can examine the impact that those particular sets of issues have. For instance, klingons and courtship. During courtship the normally very aggressive klingon male actually softens up in certain ways to court a female, often risking life and limb to recite poetry to her while she is hurling very large/heavy/hurtful things at him. But at the same time, if a klingon male just walks up to a klingon woman and pops her dead in the jaw, that could signal the begining of courtship. Both sexes find aggressive/assertive behavoir attractive. Now imagine how all of that would play out in a human context. Also they seem to be fond of poetry and opera. They really like Shakespeare, go figure.
Or in Andromeda, the Than (species) are sapient bugs. That being said they have a hive like societal structure, there are castes which are determined at birth (by color which mean Than are color coded for your convenience ;) ), and they have ridiculously large families. Mating is communal I guess you could say since many adults of the necessary sexes will come together as a breeding group and everything gets mixed up in a common pit so that it is usually unclear who the exact parents are. However, it doesn't matter as all the children are raised by all the adults who are all considered equal parents and there are easily like 10,000 siblings or something ridiculous like that to a batch who are all considered full siblings. Not to mention the complex family connections once you get into siblings from other breeding sessions, extended family, and so on. This is why the Than say Humans pursue love so desperately. It's because we are so lonely due to having so few people in our lives. ;) Now if that all isn't freaky enough for you, wrap your mind around this one. There are Humans that live in Than contexts and the human proceed to organize themselves in Than like social structures as well... and I always got the impression that they also managed to more or less imitate the breeding system... I do not want to contemplate how they went about that.
Overall, I like to see how people use fictional settings to organize people. :)
-
Even though religions and cults are exactly the same, cults are always conveniently stuck into the "them" group. Coinkydink? I think not.
-
Not all religions have you drinking poison kool-aid and laying out somewhere. Largely it slides into cult status once it slides over into killing all your members or all your members going out and killing other people.
-
Well, a good question to ask is, what exactly is a cult. Or perhaps a more appropriate question is, what characteristics do cults tend to have? Here's one organization's list of characteristics. Note that not all of these need to be present to indicate that a religious group may be cult-like.
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
-
Fair enough, but that is really good description of well any human "organization" that gets too insular. ::| To be honest, I spent the whole time reading that list thinking corporate america/businesses.
Probably applies also to politics, education, social clubs, etc. :/
A sad commentary on the nastier side of human nature. But, that is what I was talking about earlier. I always thought coming in contact with other species would help weed some of that stuff out since that revelation would blow the lid off a lot of petty little scams and worldviews.
-
A better and more detailed list, I found here: http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm (http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm)
I think what is important is not so much the exact list, but understanding the reasons why many folks would deem these characteristics as dishonest, manipulative or shady. When one is brought up in such a setting, they percieve these characteristics as normal. It is their norm by which they measure the rest of the world.
I agree with you in that we see these characteristics in many places. You may see some in your own family, place of work, religion, school or whatever. I think that seeing a few of these earmarks is one thing, but seeing a lot of them is another.
What's interesting about your idea of orange and blue morality is where it goes when group A and group B finally realize that their own personal morality is not universal, but rather local. I see a lot of good in that sort of conflict as it could lead to a more universal understanding of morality.
-
Well it is shady and manipulative because it is. :P You look at those same behaviors in a different, detached context and you can generally see your underlying feeling on the matter. But the thing that I've learned about such earmarks is that, often, where you find a few the rest are merely lurking since there is always someone that will take things a step further and a step further. Keep looking, you'll see others eventually. The thing you have to make your mind up about then is: Is this reflective of the people(change the people you interact with and the problem goes away) or or the organizational structure(built in will manifest in any context), is this dangerously harmful, is whatever this is connected to really worth it to me/what I want?
Also, there are two issues with the universal morality thing. Without an ultimate standard of morality, that idea falls flat in a writhing, morphing mass of infinite moralities. Two, that's the whole point for a god or head god. Somebody's got to be in charge and you know no one is going to just let some human standing on their own authority tell them what to, so... square one.
I see the possibility of a moral free-for-all as very dangerous though. Look how much screwing up happens once we half way agree to a standard, just take secular laws, now toss in infinite chaos. If everyone could be mindful, mature, respectful, and noble in their dealings then maybe it wouldn't be as bad... but take a look at the news and judge the likelihood of such a miracle. It's herding cats to try to corral the human tendency towards dissent and trouble. Thus why cults/dictatorships and such will always crop up given a chance. a strong arm technique is always seen as the efficient way of dealing with the problem.
-
Also, there are two issues with the universal morality thing. Without an ultimate standard of morality, that idea falls flat in a writhing, morphing mass of infinite moralities. Two, that's the whole point for a god or head god. Somebody's got to be in charge and you know no one is going to just let some human standing on their own authority tell them what to, so... square one.
So when human authority does not get you what you want, you create god-puppet. Teach people that the god-puppet is real and they will obey it. Put words in its mouth, and they will obey those words. If they disobey, punish them so that the rest of the community might not bear the weight of their disobedience. Now, when you need more authority to get things done, you work the god-puppet and people will do as you wish because they fear the god-puppet.
Look at the middle east conflict. There are three major political groups that are using their god-puppet to argue that they own a piece of land. Kind of silly, isn't it?
As for being dangerous, I would include healthy or harmful in that evaluation. What happens when a relatively benign religious organization takes a position on what medical procedures a person may have? What If they insist that a person may not receive a blood transfusion or operation that is needed to prevent them from dying? Its not a big deal until you or a loved one needs that procedure.
As for dangerous organization vs dangerous people, yes I agree. You can't judge an entire organization by a few wacko members.
-
While there are many god puppets out there, that doesn't mean it's mutually exclusive with their being actually deities. Admitedly, a deity that malicious and sadistic would present the same problems as a human with those tendencies.
I think the issue in the middle east is silly because after all these years they haven't resolved the issue. Religion isn't the real trouble, it's just a veneer for the underlying hate, distrust, and grief; honestly, you take away religion and something else will quickly get thrown in its place to keep the conflict going. There will always be a justification of some sort. But to be fair, every country and people have some sort of "trouble" that they somehow justify continuing by any means necessary.
Now about religions weighing in on medical issues and such, the problem is whether or not the person knew they were getting into that at the beginning and were ok with that and whether or not there wasn't an alternative or option than can compensate for potential damages. If the person is fully aware of a particular position and agreed to live by that then that is a matter of free will. Also, medicine advances, often times doctors pioneer new techniques due in part to working with people who have concerns over particular procedures.
I can live with religions endorsing practices at least to a point but the person needs to be informed and prepared to take the consequences either way, be that consequences from having a procedure or consequences for defying/leaving a religion. However, trying to work against religions endorsing a particular view gets into slippery territory. If one says that the religion is wrong and one tell the person to do the opposite, how are they different from the religion, especially when a lot of times the reason for hesitating to take a procedure is due to a person already being leary or scared of the procedure? Not all distrust in medical practices is rooted only in religious beliefs.
In the end you have the let the person use their free will, and if they are stuck in a cult you have to tread carefully lest you slip into the same tactics as the cult in the name of helping people.
-
While there are many god puppets out there, that doesn't mean it's mutually exclusive with their being actually deities. Admitedly, a deity that malicious and sadistic would present the same problems as a human with those tendencies.
Ok, I have to agree there, though I don't believe in deities.
I think the issue in the middle east is silly because after all these years they haven't resolved the issue. Religion isn't the real trouble, it's just a veneer for the underlying hate, distrust, and grief; honestly, you take away religion and something else will quickly get thrown in its place to keep the conflict going. There will always be a justification of some sort. But to be fair, every country and people have some sort of "trouble" that they somehow justify continuing by any means necessary.
I agree up to a point. The god-puppet is a tool used to keep people in line, and in some cases to make them ignore/defy reality. Look at the Kamikazes as an example. What made them so dangerous was their belief that if they die in war, they'll get rewarded for it in the afterlife. If you ask me, its better to bring people up on truth than on fiction.
Now about religions weighing in on medical issues and such, the problem is whether or not the person knew they were getting into that at the beginning and were ok with that
What about those who are born into a religion? They don't have much of a choice if not accepting this way of life means being cast out or shunned.
and whether or not there wasn't an alternative or option than can compensate for potential damages.
In the case of Jehova Witnesses, its no transfusion period. If you die, too bad. In the case of Christian Scientists, it USED TO BE that one had to just have faith and pray. They changed their stance since then.
Also, medicine advances, often times doctors pioneer new techniques due in part to working with people who have concerns over particular procedures.
I can't say if this is good or bad. I supposed more ways to treat an illness is good but that does not make the reason for having to spend money on an alternative good.
However, trying to work against religions endorsing a particular view gets into slippery territory. If one says that the religion is wrong and one tell the person to do the opposite, how are they different from the religion, especially when a lot of times the reason for hesitating to take a procedure is due to a person already being leary or scared of the procedure? Not all distrust in medical practices is rooted only in religious beliefs.
If the procedure is controversial, terribly new, or if there is logical reason to believe that it is flawed, then by all means once should consider whether or not they wish to have it. One does not need a religious body to make this decision for them.
In the end you have the let the person use their free will, and if they are stuck in a cult you have to tread carefully lest you slip into the same tactics as the cult in the name of helping people.
Sometimes one's free will is compromised because of their religious affiliation. Choosing against their religion's mandate can get them kicked out and separated from their family and friends. Not all religions are like this, but some certainly are.
What I find even more scary is what happens when someone who's brought up with fictitious beliefs is put into a position of power that affects me. Do we want a president who hears god talk to him? One who will obey god's every word? What if his *god* is satan? What if its his kooky, deranged imagination?
Do you want your dentist or surgeon making decisions based on what *god*, *angels*, or *demons* are telling them?
-
Better to bring people up on truth yes, but, trust me, you start unraveling the "fiction" that people are brought up on and you will unravel a lot more than religion. A great deal of human society is founded and dependent on fiction. Some people just exploit it better than others. Yes religion has been a good tool, but take it away and it will be replaced by another. People who use those basic methods will use any means that they can get their hands on; religion is just dangerous because people will lower their guard easier than in other cases.
You do have a choice about religion, though, in most cases, even if you were born in a religion. Whether or not you really believe is something you should stop and look in to; it would be very sad to take consequences for something you couldn't get behind. There is no opting out in life, there is only taking hits because of conscious decisions and taking hits because you didn't want to take on making the conscious decision. While it can be a very difficult thing if you start to come in conflict with the religious values you were raised with, you have to evaluate which is more important to you... your autonomy, your family, your personal beliefs, ect. Just like with everything else in life, turning your head doesn't solve the problem. Now if we talk about those where they might die if they leave, that is a completely different can of worms from the rest and an even stickier problem for a variety of reasons.
In the case medical stuff, refusing certain treatments but not all treatments is one thing, but refusing all is a completely different beast again. I personally don't support rejecting all medical treatment, but I would have to respect the wishes of someone that did. Remember, they have a right to make a decision and to stand up for that belief. The only alternative if they choose to support a belief like that is to force them against their will which is another slippery slope.
In general, advancing knowledge is always good if it can help people because you don't always have every option available to you. However, while you might not think that it is worthwhile to spend money on that particular medical path does your opinion outweigh the rights of a person who refuses blood transfusions? Should they be denied healthcare because you don't approve? What would you say if it were you in that position and someone wanted to cut funding for research into a medical procedure that you supported but they didn't? Quite truthfully, I believe that is the very issue at the heart of abortion rights and stem cell research except in that case the shoe is on the other foot.
However, a religion making an official statement does not inherently negate a person's free will if they share the same view. For instance, you can say that religions with dietary restrictions limit the rights of the people that adhere to them yet you can also say that people in those religions adhere to those restrictions because they have no desire to eat those things whether or not the religion makes a stand on it or not. The religion could change its mind and drop the restriction, many people would not in turn ignore the old restriction. I remember watching videos in my gender class that talked about the completely covering veils that some muslim women wear, and in it they were very upset about other people coming and trying to tell them what their identity was and how they should express it. They were very passionate about making their own choice about it and it wasn't just a matter of religion.
As regards politicians, in the US there is separation of church and state so you can pursue legal measures to regulate people like you are afraid of, but for others... *shrugs* Rather than worrying about scary religious people, I would say worry about people who exhibit bad judgement. There is a world of scary people with a variety of personal issue out there and you just have to live it to a certain extent. Most of the people that you would have disagreements with will completely fly under your radar unless very specific issues come up.
However, at this point I need to head to bed. I am making stupid typos now, I'm sure my ability to think will soon follow. :/ Nighty Rig o/
-
Good points... nn Illy o/
-
Getting off the topic of religions and moving to something related but different.....
SIMULACRUM (simulacra): Something that replaces reality with its representation.
So... the world as we understand it is just that - our understanding, or mental map of reality. Our mental map of the world has limitations: We can only see a small portion of visible light, we can only see those things that are in our line of sight, we can only hear some of the sounds that our world makes, and likewise, we are prone to misinterpreting what we sense.
For example: We watch the news to see what's happening in the world. The news is an example of simulacrum. Its not the world as it is, but rather someone else's interpretation of the world. Its accuracy has natural limitations such as the journalist's limited point of view, and possibly some deliberate distortions - the journalist or news company might deliberately put a spin on the story in order to boost ad revenue or for political reasons.
Sometimes you see this in business. Advertisers will try to warp your perception of their products in order to get you to buy them. Rather than showing you their product, they try to sell your on a number of other things like the fancy packaging, the jingle, or the belief that you would be happier if you had their product. I've had head hunters deliberately lie to me in order to trick me into accepting a lower paying job and on the other side, I've seen head hunters lie to employers about their candidates skills in order to shove them into jobs that they were no qualified to take on. ( in the end, the head hunter gets his fee for filling the job )
-
Simulacra? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLKlloWULGo)
-
I like how Agent K puts it in Men in Black:
"There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!"
The simulacrum, at least in terms of what our mind processes, is kinda a human defense mechanism that let's us get through the day without having to take on the grand sum total of everything we actually could be thinking about. As a species, I think we have an aversion to sitting down and dealing with things. I guess it's like epic procrastination or avoidance behavior on a species wide level.
-
Another way to think about it is like this:
In order to think about something, you need to first make a representation of it in your head. You can then work with that mental model. That model is probably far less accurate than we think it is but it serves the purpose. Ie. I can imaging you laughing only if I somehow represent you in my head first. I don't know what you liok like so I might temporary borrow a face from my memories and use that.
When you start to look at it like this, you start to realize just how crude our mental variables are.
-
True, but I suspect that is partially us not using the full capacity of our brains and partially us not making full use of the part of our brain's capacity we do have access to. Think of how much people tell you they are going to get you to "start thinking critically". We all know that most of the time it isn't very effective, but it must be necessary to keep trying to get people to think critically because apparently not everyone spends enough time thinking critically.
-
Well, here's another way to look at it.
I can't manipulate an Illysia within my head. I am forced to make a model of her and use that. My model of what an Illysia is nowhere near what a real Illysia is.. he'll, that's not even her real name... and for all I know the Illy could be male, shmale, neuter, or an AI program written in cobol by demented, masochistic programmers from the planet Abar.
This difference here is not due to mental limitations.
-
True, but if you met me in real life, your model would only be slightly more informed. That's just how our minds work; it almost doesn't matter how much information you throw at the model. We almost always seem to come back to an overly simplified model.
-
Agree :)
So if you wanted to bend the spoon, so to speak... how might one do it? :sorcerer:
-
The best I could come up with would be taking the time to consciously look for over simplified models then work at applying more information. For instance, I was doing a creative writing exercise where you had to stop and analyze a sensation or object that you took for granted so that you could learn how to describe things rather than simply rely on stuff like "she felt wind".
So rather than just look at someone, take time to actually study their face a bit. (within the bounds of reason... we aren't making creepers here. ;) ) Do they have a heart shaped face, brown eyes? a slightly crooked smile?
But, that being said, you really can't afford to overcome the simplified model in too many places. Our lives are just too short for that; you would never get anything done. So you would have to stop and prioritize what deserves more attention and what doesn't.
-
Another option is to replace the model with a similar one.
If you are craving lemonade, but I don't have any, I might be able to sell you on something similar.. like orangeade, a pinapple ice pop, or something else that has whatever specific things that you are *actually* craving. You might really be craving a combination of bitter and sweet flavors but in your mind, the closes representation that you have at hand ( at that moment ) is the memory of an orange. I wonder sometimes if we do that .
-
That's basically what happens with marketing in generally, but it doesn't help you to be more aware of what you are actually getting at. I think learning to be more mindful of yourself and your surroundings would help though. Might make you more sales resistant at least. XD
-
Hey, hey, hey... What if... What if I told you... What if I told you there are real theories made by real scientists regarding these real phenomena?!
-
Then I would think, welcome to the gap between natural science and philosophy.
-
I think the forum died again... it's like it can't keep going without the heat of flaming keeping it alive.
*starts a bonfire to warm the forum back up*
-
/me throws
Angelina's boobs some noobs into the fire. :)
Have a topic for today?
-
:P
I didn't have a topic in mind this time. How about we try awesome characters we like across fandoms or characters that just make you think?
I never played any of the Mass Effect games but that never stopped me from googling it to death. For me, Thane Krios, an assassin of the Mass Effect, series seemed pretty awesome... and he broke my brain. I can't remember if I was reading a synopsis of his personal philosophy on his own autonomy or if I watched a clip, but the whole I am just a tool used to kill people the same as a gun used to kill people thing broke my brain a little. Maybe that is the human insistence that we always have a choice and can take control talking. ;) But. I'm pretty sure I still don't fully get the point of what he was saying about his own autonomy; however, kudos to BioWare for actually making me have to stop and think about something a character said.
Also, he seemed to be a pretty rounded out character, at least in the second game. *cough*from what I can tell from stray clips and player commentaries*cough* I like it when characters are developed enough to where you can put down the greater story they are a part of and their story is still at least somewhat interesting, or at least their personality and character make up is still interesting. Sometimes good characters get bad backstories.
-
Hmm... I haven't really played any games ( aside from ps and minecraft ) in ages. Having bios for game characters must be something relatively new.
-
XD A lot of characters have backstories and there are characters in more than just games. ;) You probably like some twisted book character. :P
-
Does Kai the Hatchet wielding Hitch hiker count?
(Original Censored for TV version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckfBGdZoR_0
-
I was thinking the completely fictional kind. o.O
-
Well, my favorite to date would have to be Hannibal Lecter from The Silence of the Lambs, but I can't really say that he made me think.
-
I knew it would be a creepy person. :P The creepiest character I can tolerate is Scorpius from Farscapeand that's pretty much it.
-
My tastes have changed. There was a time when all the face putty didn't bother me. I now find it hard to take characters like that seriously for some odd reason. Its like a part of me just refuses to say, "Yes, it's fake. We'll ignore that for now and pretend its true."
I liked Dr. House from House. I found this character to be terribly intriguing because he was such a sociopath.
-
I could punch him sometimes, the character. I've heard "but House does it,"entirely too often as a justification for real life stupid behavior..
-
Ah, but what I like about this character is that he is quick to favor a logical solution, or a self serving solution over the "Right" solution or in other words, the solution that people expect you to choose out of *decency*.
-
And that would be what I hate about him. I probably would not mind so much if there weren't so many people like that in real life. When things are novel they can be funny, but people really don't realize how many people like that terrorize in real life.
-
I don't know. I can laugh at it easily as I keep him on the tv screen. I don't really have any problems like that with people in real life or anything. Perhaps if I did, I wouldn't find it so funny? *shrugs*
-
Yeah. A lot of humor hinges on novelty. I have too many dangerously selfish people around me, so such things tend to irk me a lot faster. That and I have a paladin nature as is often seen when I end up battling in a thread.
But I tend to favor characters that are witty, capable, and protect others so perhaps this is less a commentary on humor styles but rather a reflection of personal worldview or perception of the world around us. After all, people do say that we always have a bias no matter what.
-
Gotta go... take care for now o/
-
o/ see ya.
-
Rupert Giles. <3
-
I never watched Buffy so I can't say I know anything about him as a character.
-
Buffy? Him?
I don't think Buffy impales vampires quite like that. They literally use a wooden stake and hammer it into the heart ;)
-
Eh! Vampires are prohibited in PS! :P
-
Lol, what were you going for there, Rigwyn?
-
/me looks totally innocent. :whistling:
-
Ok here's a topic: Easy player quests that can be used to lure people into RPing with you.
Today I had fun RPing with a group of 7 to 9 most of whom I've never RPed with before. It started with only 3 people but as people saw the crowd more started to hang around. The way I did it was that put out an invitation on gossip for people to join me in Oja for a player quest and then it went from there.
The basic quest was Illy cooking in oja and she needed ingredients to finish cooking. She needed flour and lard and other players graciously volunteered to go get it without me having to push people into doing the questing thing. So there was crafting, hunting, and RP. Also, I wove in Illy's lagging personal story that she had recently come back from the dead and was working through the shock of it all. Bam, there was a story to backdrop the quest and it lead to good RP that actually overshadowed the questing as people tried to figure first what had happened then second what to do. *cough*and it let me finally advance her story after all this time*cough*
So, the lesson learned is that providing an NPC style quest while weaving in your character's story might be the fix for the problem of finding RP, keeping the depth, and getting a chance to advance your character's story . Now the issue is what other simple quests can be done to keep it up and to help others try it out to see if it works?
I imagine there are a few provisos here though. One, the story backdrop you focus on needs to be something not too blatant so that the players are compelled to dig into it. Two, the quest needs to be simple so that it doesn't hinder the chances of RP. Three, the quests need to be story relevant so it will probably break down in groups that go along with different RP genres (dark/romantic/suspense/ect). Four, location location location. Don't send people somewhere that it will take them 30 mins to get there and back if the whole group is not going together.
Here's what I can think of so far for really general quests and accompanying stories sketches:
Theives: I need you to get me Item X however you can, but if you buy it the cost is on you. Story - Thief with a heart of gold has to make ends meet for Loved One Y and this is the most efficient way for them.
Baddie: I need you to get me ingredient X for poison. Story - has a debt to settle with Baddie Y who is an even worse person.
A smith: I need you to help me get crafting materials so I can make a very special commission. Story - umm... something sentimental to the smith or the person the smith is making the thing for.
Doctor: I need you to get get me Herb X so I can make some medicine. Story - herb is needed to develop a medicine that may or may not cure someone of a very bad sickness. The doctor made a promise to help and is now racing to beat time and Dakkru.
Artist: I need you to get me items X, Y, and Z. Story: They are struggling and just need one great work to give them the break they need. They will take the items and then arrange them for a still life painting, a sculpture, or something.
Warrior: I need help downing Mob X. Story - that mob killed the warrior's friend and as a last act for the friend the warrior must get revenge. perhaps they must also retrieve and item from the belly of the beast.
Mage: I need you to find item X so that I can advance my skill. Story - the mage was a student that kicked out of classes for challenging the teacher too much and now they must pulls off their idea to make their way back into class.
Lover: I need you to get me Flowers X and Y so that I can send them to my love, but I need you to take them. Story - the lover for whatever reason can't get near the object of their affections so they have to throw people off by enlisting the help of others.
Old has been: I need you to stop and listen too my tale. Story, they used to be but now there is no evidence of that and they can't get any respect and no one will even listen to them.
What ideas do you have? Also, don't forget that the idea is to use something like this as a guide then weave your character's backstory and current situation in with the story being told through the quest. Each incident should come put slightly different due to different characters being involved.
-
I think the trick here is to do it as naturally as possible so that you are not perceived as a quest machine. Ie. very casually mentioning a need for something or suggesting that that it would be ideal if X, Y or Z happened.
We used to have job boards in the Outlaws guild for mercenaries(hit men), Economists(spies) and Rogues(theives). Some tasks were paid, others tit for tat, but eventually people lost interest in these. I think its a good idea as long as people are interested.
-
In the past, I would have agreed, but now being a quest machine might be a good thing. If people expect that they can come to you for something to do you are less likely to be left hanging. You can direct the quest to flow naturally, but you want to cut down on the effort required to get started. If you'll remember in the other thread, people are burnt out, they might not have energy at first for the extra efforts we hold ourselves too.
I think there is high interest for something to do, anything RPwise, so now it's a matter of both providing and lessening the load on those providing.
-
Funny, I was actually entertaining the thought of making a character who discusses his evil crimes with others regularly. What would be different is that I would not actually enact the crimes with this character.... just talk about them.. tell a story.
Its a novel idea and I'm not entirely sure I want to go with it.
-
Well you never know if you don't try. But you could just play a red herring character that just tosses stuff out there to see who he can lead on or just to get the goodies on the wrong track from the concurrent actions of another of your characters.
-
Well, you can't do that sort of RP without a crowd. It just doesn't work well with tiny groups.
-
That the thing about crowds. You have to build them. I started with 3 and by the end still had at least 5 left over by the time I logged out.
-
Well, keep it up.. If I have time, I'll hop on with my messenger and try to help out.
-
I'll try. :thumbup: Who knows, might find something for you to do when I catch you in game. ;)
-
Don't go acting like a Gm now xD
-
Why not? People want someone giving them something to do other than grinding. :D
-
Wow.. I log in and there's 16 people online lol..
-
I would log in and join you but I need to head to bed. I'm a little brain dead at the moment, maybe next time. However, I hope that by the time I check back here some other people will have some simple quest ideas. Maybe we can get this going as a way to bring the RP to us. ;)
But... nighty o/
-
nn
-
And us "leftovers" even stayed around a while. :P
-
Doctor: I need you to get get me Herb X so I can make some medicine.
Oh, yes, I remember. Zwenze needed some cough syrup, so one half of the Hammers went towards Ojaveda, the other half towards Gugrontid.
-
And us "leftovers" even stayed around a while. :P
Hehe... see. It works. :)
-
I'm tempted to get involved with this simple quest idea. It would be late at night (4am-6am US/Eastern), and I don't know if anyone would be interested or not...
-
maybe we can get some people to commit to trying to help out if they are online when you try such a thing. There are a few players that do play that late at night.
-
Meh.... I'll think about it. I wonder if capping it to 1 hour segments would help.
-
Probably. I just let them go as long as they go. But if that will help you then go for it. The idea is to give a stage for RP without requiring a lot of work so keep it simple and easy. :) I'm having ok success so far. I think i just need to be able to catch more bored people a time and then they'll give me a chance. ;)
-
Boo! Goodness the forum went dead... X-/
-
People must not be bored ?!
-
Get married already.
-
Screw that.. tip cows, play games, enjoy life before it ends.
-
And most important: Lass die Sonne rein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H1eKVbOW5U)!
-
Marriage is not a cure for boredom. Cows are messy and...
And most important: Lass die Sonne rein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H1eKVbOW5U)!
what is this? ::|
-
The first chart-relevant german speaking hip-hop band "Die Fantastischen Vier" (The Fantastic Four) with a song about optimism: "Let the sun in(to your life)", think positive — even in times of trouble.
-
I feel like I would like that a lot better had I known to speak German.
-
Ah. Well, for such a song I either listen to Aly & Fila feat. Jwaydan - We Control The Sunlight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ti0BFbEJNw) or Alyssa Bonagura - I Make My Own Sunshine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDPXcBBvWlQ).
-
Oh so funny! A spanish site presents an automatical translation (http://letras-de-cancion.com/canciones/show/1947600/die-fantastischen-vier/letras-y-traducciones-de-cancion-la-die-sonne-rein/) which is quite obviously not at all correct.
And I really wonder how they were able to translate the nickname "Smudo" to "Marvin"?!
Well, I would like to explain it with their lyrics of another song:
Könntest du nicht seh'n, und meine Sprache wär' dir fremd,
dann wär' ich irgend so ein Rapper und mein Mund nur Instrument.
If you couldn't see anything and didn't understand my language,
I'd just be any rapper, and my mouth just be an instrument.
To be honest, I hardly understand most of the american rap. But I am certain that the sum of it doesn't have half of the significance of the songs written by these german guys.
__
@ Illysia:
It's not about the sun in the sky. It's about the sun in your heart.
Rapped principles of Buddhism, I believe?
-
To be honest, I hardly understand most of the american rap. But I am certain that the sum of it doesn't have half of the significance of the songs written by these german guys.
What about such wise proverbs like
"Scooby snack jurassic plastic gas booby trap"
or "Never let me slip, cause if I slip, then I’m slippin."
Wait a second. I don't understand American rap either.
-
I remember saying the same when rap first became popular in the 80's... I really couldn't stand it, and still can't. Its one of those few forms of music that really irritates me.
-
Rap is not my favorite but certain kinds are ok. However, there are many forms. That's why it went around the world; there was a broad appeal since it started out being more thoughtful than the nonsense that most people think of as rap.
But the links I provided aren't about literal sunshine either. ;)
-
http://youtu.be/4nigRT2KmCE
This is the kind of hip hop I enjoy...
-
Ah... I'll have to take a look at these links a little later if time permits. Took a quick peek at Candy's link... bad nerdy dude playing Zork eh? Hmm...
-
By the way, like East vs. West Coast rap in the states, germany has several local productions too, but rather south (Fanta4: Stuttgart) and north (Fettes Brot ~ 'fat bread': Hamburg).
But they don't take themselves and each other too serious. Here a cooperation with James Last, a famous big band music producer: Ruf mich an (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOkdVyisnh8) (Call Me). Playing with styles, cross-over for fun.
Germany doesn't have such ghettos like in american towns where gang violence completely repelled the police. There is no need to describe a life of permanent fear and anger. But there are other topics which need to be told, and there are other music styles to emphasize their meaning, like Jazz.
__
P.S.: Well, yes, unfortunately there are german rappers who believe they have to represent the tough life, like RHP, Sido, or Bushido (who just got headlines for supposed Mafia connections). It still pays to be "cool", no matter what this term means.
-
Not all rap is gang related anywhere I imagine. In the united state there is rap that doesn't concern itself with that sort of stuff, but I do think it is less common than it used to be. It's viewed, I guess, as not being "cool" like you say.
-
Tech N9ne or A Tribe Called Quest. There you go. </discussion>
Edit: Rap is saturated by gang culture, but it is not about gang culture. There's good rap and bad rap. Good rock and bad rock. Good EDM and bad EDM. The music people think is "cool" are what we hear unwillingly every day. You have to sift through to find the real music. I once had a list of great, some obscure, rap artists on YouTube. Unfortunately I've lost it, but I wish I could link those songs. You'd change your mind very quickly.
-
It would be very hard to change my mind about it, V. I have a terrible dislike for rap in general. To me personally, its just not music, however I do realize that technically it is.. just as hitting a dead bird with a stick could be considered music...
-
Hello everybody. :)
-
*hits an Illysia with a stick*
-
>.>
*Chases after Rigwyn waving the Wooden Spoon of DOOM(tm)*
-
*logs off, waits, then logs back in* (tm)
-
*waits for Rigwyn to come back with smack marks since logging off while being pursued by a humanoid character often results in them getting you anyway*
-
/me Poisons Illysia's characters with evil cookies steeped with OOC information.
Take that.
-
*Illy's characters have been left forgotten on a shelf anyway and are not terribly concerned about getting on with it*
:p
*Sends cookies back to Riggy's characters with light, sugary, warm, fluffy, nobody harms anybody else goodness."
-
Aaaaarrrrrrgggggh noooooo!!!
*dies*
-
Checkmate.
*points the Wooden Spoon of DOOM(tm) at the lifeless Rigwyn in a triumphant end of battle pose.*
-
*attracts flies and one eyed rats* :(
-
*implements glassblowing and puts a glass bubble around Rigwyn to keep the rats off*
Can't do anything about the flies though...
-
I wish I could have witnessed that all in game...
-
That would require us to actually be there I'm afraid and I am now caught up in regular RPs elsewhere these days.
-
/me taps on the glass while gazing through with sad, puppy dog eyes.
Oh, RP elsewhere my ass. You are not. :P
-
No matter which RP, this or elsewhere, I wish I would notice them and could join them. But it seems that they always happen when and where I am not.
-
*looks around shifty like*
Well if you want to see some of my RP, I have two posted... here... (http://forum.storp.org/index.php?topic=460.0) and here (http://forum.storp.org/index.php?topic=437.0) but unfortunately most of my RPs are not up there. Most of my RPs are more casual and not part of a continuing story, but unlike most people I do bother to make logs of almost all of my RPs. That game unfortunately does not automatically make logs, but it does have a more customizable chat window and copy and paste. ;)
As I go along and get into more capers that lead into a story and not just casual encounters I will post more logs to that site. You should see the agenda I wrote up for the first Senate Meeting, it's going to be a real doosy when we hold it in game.
*plants her head firmly between her knees and waits until the meeting to kiss her behind goodbye*
-
*Sets a bear trap*
-
Riggy tryina set a bear trap
but dem trap-makin skillz is wack
Counter-movin, a knife in his back
-
*puts a shiny magic sword in the trap*
Forgot bait....
-
It's a trap so Riggy can't ignore
dat shiny azz sword. Sucka!!!
-
*impulsively swipes the sword*
Snap!
( does he get caught in the trap? you decide )
-
Yeah, yeah, the trap awaits
Swipin', Riggy takes the bait
The trap snaps, snap snap!
Now he ain't go no mo hand
And no mo fap fap.
Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
And there it dangles from the trap,
meat on bone with veins and fat.
A horrified Outlaw gasps in shock,
no longer able to shake the hands of his venerable friends and acquaintances.
-
Kull moves in fo da kill
breath stinkin' of that Oja swill
poppin caps in Riggys azz
till dat Outlaw goes out to pas
ture.
-
With the cunning of Qata,
He rose from the dead
Using magicks unspoken,
and all sparkely red.
He disabled the Kull
With a great blue way blast
He erased all his memories
Azure magicks, he cast!
A master of crystal,
brown, blue, and red
he could never be harmed
he could never be dead.
With a snap of his fingers
as if just a lark,
he left this poor fur ball
alone in the dark.
-
It was scawwy in dere
alone in da dark
not knowin, who's there?
tryin tah hit a mark
Kull popped a couple caps
And missed, like a sucka
Chorus:
Everyone knows use of magicks
has an inverse relationship
to the size of our sticks
Battle-sticks that is
Old-school, Kull's a whiz
Of smackin foolz
wit da wood weaponz
smackity smack
goes Riggy's whack back
Poppin dat spinal cord
Til he's flippin and floppin
All over da floor
*drops the mic*
-
*picks up the mic and burps into it.*
-
*cuts the lights on the battle*
Oh, in light of Riggy's sig I must post this:
http://www.indiana9fossils.com/coprolite/Coprolite-Marbles.htm
Techincally, you are wrong. It just takes a lot of time before you can do it... :whistling:
-
If those are what I think they are, then I am deeply impressed!
-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coprolite
Be impressed... 8)
-
What does one do with a polished corpolite marble anyway? Is it meant to be used as a conversational piece? A nick knack? Is it something you would put in your pocket and randomly fondle during casual conversation?
-
Typically it sits as part of a fossil collection. I personally have not gotten any but I've seen several for sale... not all of them polished and rounded though. :sweatdrop:
http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/fossil/coprolite/coproliteL.htm
-
If you packed it into a musket, and shot it...
-
...it would hurt.
They aren't soft anymore by the time they become coprolites. Generally I think they are just kept for giggles as most people aren't doing studies that require them to know what was in the diet of a dinosaur or what have you. Basically, just offer to show someone a fossil, hand them the coprolite... then tell them what it is.
-
I was thinking that you could say that you were "shoot'in the shit"....
Bah.. nevermind.
-
Well it is much easier to hit the fan with it in that form. ;)
-
If I had a time machine, I would travel millions of years into the future to collect my fossilized poops. Then I'd return to sell them on eBay.
-
I don't think Sarrasaurus Rex poops are as widely collected. ;)
-
If I had a time machine, I would travel millions of years into the future to collect my fossilized poops. Then I'd return to sell them on eBay.
I fear that if you did that, the nugget would disappear on the way back. The moment you travel back in time to the point before which you picked up the fossilized submarine, it would vanish from your hands. In fact, you would not need to wash your hands either. They would be as clean as they were prior to your adventure.
-
Apart from that, if you change anything in a different time, you will "return" to a different parallel universe which was created by your decision.
-
If there is separate a dimension for every possible outcome as suggested in string theory, then yes... but would it be a result of your decision, or would it have been spontaneously created anyway?
-
No, Rigwyn. Was that a serious question? Gawd.
-
Is this thread at all serious? ZOMFG.
-
It was serious at the beginning. :P
-
I personally did not think it was serious. At the time I presumed it was rather silly by nature. Later on I presumed differently. I presumed it was nonsensical, a more silly form of silly, that is to say, closer to absurdity. Then, at another point, specifically page 18, I presumed it to be absurd. Thus, the thread had reached the level of absurdity. This is the most extreme level of absurdity, silliness and nonsensicality. Or so I presumed. My presumption of this thread's silly, or rather, nonsensical, or rather, absurd, nature, was presumptuous to say the least. By page 26, the page I write on now, it had exceeded the descriptive word absurd, and had become something beyond that. My presumption now, as it were, is that this thread has become absurd beyond absurd. Such a level of absurdity is in part, arbitrarily designated, since such a level of absurdity cannot be fully comprehended, but certainly conceived of in part. This means my assessment is, better put, a presumption. At this point in time it is unknown if this presumption is, in fact of certainty, presumptuous. It would perhaps be reasonable to presume otherwise. Such an assessment is not beyond comprehension, but conceivability, since my mind holds an opposite presumption. One's mind cannot presume two opposites at the same time, since presumptions are rather intuitive by nature.
-
Ooooo k... since you three cared to shoot me down, would you care to explain what exactly I missed?
-
If there is separate a dimension for every possible outcome as suggested in string theory, then yes... but would it be a result of your decision, or would it have been spontaneously created anyway?
I explained string theory to you a year or two ago. And here you are recycling this old nonsense again. Stop it.
-
Back up what you are saying. If I missed something, point it out or shut up.
-
If you are bored....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjJsWu47yvU
-
It was on IRC, if I recall correctly, and you probably did not bother to retain the information since you were agitated with me for denying your scientific fantasies.
String theory has nothing to do with conscious decision-making or spontaneously created universes. (Note that they are called universes, not dimensions.)
Imagine that the fundamental particles of our universe are made up of vibrating strings. When the strings vibrate at a frequency (in the many postulated dimensions), its respective pitch is chosen (the type of particle). However, this is at a very small level. The fate of the universe is predicted by these vibrations. Not your daily life. There is no other version of you in any universe.
I am horrible at explaining complex ideas.
-
Let's see... when casually I said this:
If there is separate a dimension for every possible outcome as suggested in string theory, then yes... but would it be a result of your decision, or would it have been spontaneously created anyway?
I said it in response to this:
Apart from that, if you change anything in a different time, you will "return" to a different parallel universe which was created by your decision.
It was on IRC, if I recall correctly, and you probably did not bother to retain the information since you were agitated with me for denying your scientific fantasies.
Kindly substantiate your claim.
String theory has nothing to do with conscious decision-making or spontaneously created universes. (Note that they are called universes, not dimensions.)
No shit, Sherlock.
-
I did not claim to know the whole truth about this universe or any other; I may simply have exaggerated my incomplete and unreliable memories regarding different theories about the multiverse and time travels. Just to make this thread a little less boring, hopefully.
;D
-
ITT: People spouting non-science and raging for being called out. (More like one person, but whatever; it's going to happen.)
-
The oververse -- that being the macro universe made up of the infinity of our sized universes -- is made up entirely of grey blobs floating in an endless void. There is another level on top of it that contains nothing but cats. Beyond that I have no information, I suspect that the next level above that, the concatenation of cats, as it were, may be where the taxoplasmosis occurs.
-
ITT: People spouting non-science and raging for being called out. (More like one person, but whatever; it's going to happen.)
Well, this started out as a loose, half serious discussion. I wasn't trying to bust Ligh's balls or anything and no, I'm not %100 serious about this stuff either. String theory is just theory.
Sarras, if you were offended by the discussion that evolved from your scientific fantasy about traveling into the future to retrieve your fossilized turds, then I apologize. It was not an attempt to call you out on spouting non-science or anything. I was just having fun with the idea.
-
The oververse -- that being the macro universe made up of the infinity of our sized universes -- is made up entirely of grey blobs floating in an endless void. There is another level on top of it that contains nothing but cats. Beyond that I have no information, I suspect that the next level above that, the concatenation of cats, as it were, may be where the taxoplasmosis occurs.
And at the very top level, the biggest collection of collections of collections of universes, something so large that understanding it would make the human brain collapse in on itself...
yo mama
(Sorry I couldn't help it. This is not to be directed at you bilbous, I'm sure your mother is a wonderful lady.)
-
As the famous saying goes, "Its turtles, all the way down"... (read 'cats') :woot:
-
:sorcerer:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2116/2499825928_b3a86cc93b.jpg)
-
This picture slightly amuses me.
-
I've taken the liberty to name the middle one Kull. Cute, eh? \\o// ::| ::) ;D
-
You have made a similar joke before. This reduces my amusement. Also, I thought I had killed Roled. Why is he still existing?
-
You have made a similar joke before. This reduces my amusement. Also, I thought I had killed Roled. Why is he still existing?
Roled has finally learned the fine art of godmodding... :whistling:
-
You have made a similar joke before. This reduces my amusement. Also, I thought I had killed Roled. Why is he still existing?
Roled has finally learned the fine art of godmodding... :whistling:
...Finally? ;) *flees!*
-
/me takes out his necromancer's cape and magic underwear and performs necromancy !
:@#\ \\o//
-
Necromancy is bad... >.>
-
Yes, sometimes its best to let the dead rest in peace, but I couldn't resist.
Question: If you could raise one person from the dead who would it be, and what would you wish to say or do to them ?
-
I think that would be cruel... you'd bring people back just for them to see the mess things have become since they checked out. You'd just be putting them back in their graves... :P
-
There is hope for you, Illysia. :devil:
I would bring back Ben Franklin just long enough for him to see what a corrupt mess our leaders have made out of this fine country, then shove him back into the grave. :)
*Note to the clueless: This is a game, don't take it too seriously.
-
You are so bad. :P
-
I'd bring back a neanderthal to freshen up the gene pool, it has been getting a bit degenerated lately. Have you seen what passes for the cultural elite lately?
-
Somehow I don't think a neanderthal is going to fix that. ;) However, bring back people who got prematurely cut from the gene pool might. You know, like babies that died, people that got executed before they could have children, people who got wiped out in famines and such... Putting a few more branches on the family tree would help.
-
I'd bring back Thomas Edison and show him my freaking electric bill.
-
The kind of picture that History channel paints of him would suggest he'd laugh and only regret that he died before he got to collect that kind of money off electricity. But since most outlets use AC power and he only came up with DC, if I recall correctly, he might be a little angry.
-
I think it was Tesla who came up with the idea of alternating the current to reduce loss during delivery. As for Edison knowing that it was AC, I never said I would give him the chance to know that it was AC or to enjoy so much as a glimmer of the future. xD
-
Well the electric bill would probably be enough. It would prove his idea of getting it into everyone's house would work on scale he probably never imagined.
-
I don't know about you but I have a bunch of refrozen meat in the freezer I need to throw out because the electrical system is NOT reliable. Heck I should just build a big antenna array in my apartment and harvest all the EM signals bombarding me every day from cell, radio and tv broadcast towers or whatever.
I'd bring back Adam and show him what a mess he made by not keeping his first wife!
-
I would have liked Tesla's fill the air with electricity idea... Just grab the electricity from anywhere. :D
How about bring back Mufasa, Bambi's mom, and all the other characters Disney killed off just make sure that you cry at every single movie? Then I'd make Disney find another gimmick. :P
-
I'd have to bring back Marshall Applewhite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite) just to point out that he was totally wrong... but mostly for shits and giggles.
-
bring back, oh bring back, oh bring back my bonny to me to me!
Why can't I remember any more than that?
-
I'd bring back my 20 year old self so I could switch bodies with him and mis-spend my youth all over again,
-
I think it would be better to bring back the people he got killed and leave him behind Rig. :P
Maybe bring back Einstein and point out all the people that are making careers just rehashing the stuff he already stated. And make him take more silly pictures...
-
Good point.
One last one for me...
My third grade teacher. She was a total bitch. I'd bring her back from the dead just to slap her, then bury her alive. ;)
-
You like putting people back in the grave don't you? :p
-
Bleep bloop.
-
You like putting people back in the grave don't you? :p
Well, it was about necromancy, not freakin jesusism. What necromancer would raise someone from the dead so that they could just skip along and have a merry life in which they are oblivious to the fact that they will once again die and cease to exist forever? o.O
Perhaps they could be baited with a lie that leads them to think that if they are obedient and subservient to said necromancer, then they the will become immortal after they die and live in a land of cotton candy and pink unicorns with lots of like minded companions to meet their every need?
Deary me.. evil seems to come in many colors and flavors...
-
Didn't they already do that or what is the Hologramic Tupac?
And who stole Phillip K. Dick's robotic head???
-
I package my evil RP in common forms with colorful textures. A musical armed robbery. Or an assassination by cliche statements ad naseum. Yes I spelled that incorrectly. Deal with it.
Other things. Evil things.
-
Other things. Evil things.
(http://i.imgur.com/IG94t6b.jpg)
-
;D That looks so ... ReCaptcha.
-
http://imgur.com/a/tFQdo
-
Humorous, Phantomboy. Humorous.
-
*Looks around for someone to paint purple and dump sparkles on*
-
/me adds that to Illy's event ideas thread.
Event: Can't Stop Painting
Plot: For reasons unknown, a mad painter pops into existence and goes around painting people purple and dumping sparkles on them. She can't be stopped by force or any other conventional means. The use of magic on her bounces back and hits the caster twofold. Best of all, when tickled, she pukes rainbows and skittles.
Ending: When you say her name backwards seven times while turning around with your fingertip on your nose and your eyes closed, she will magically disappear.
To find out her name: Players must run all over the Dome doing menial tasks.
To find out the trick to making her disappear: Players must unanimously agree to politely ask her what it will take to convince her to stop.
Props needed from GM: Skittles, a special rainbow puking spell, purple paint, purple paint brush, special painter clothes, a little paint shop to be placed on the map, long-name swords to be given to all participants at the end to encourage them to play again.
-
My mind is blown.
-
Yes, we know. You've been making a lot of incoherent three word posts lately. ;)
-
They are coherent.
-
Addition requirement to Can't Stop Painting event: Purple People Eater!
-
:)
-
I did turn someone polka dotted once early on with Illy. But to be fair my event ideas never give a specific track like that and you know it. :p
-
So who'd roleplay the jerk that tries to feed people puked skittles? ;D
-
o.O ewwww....
-
Hi
I'm pretty new to Yliakum and to RPing in general, though I enjoy it. I'm not an author but I like to make up characters in my mind, so some of them found their way into PS. I make my characters' background story up as I go along and RP with others, so I'd have to think a lot to get into a deep discussion about genders. I post this because I believe many newbies are in the same situation, and I'd like to know, do you have the patience and take the time to lead them into an RP like you'd like it to have? It takes some guidance to the likes of me, but it'd be interesting!
Hope this isn't considered to be off topic....
-
I think the purpose of this thread is that any topic goes.
As for discussing gender and newbies: If you're new I suggest role playing the gender you identify with as it's significantly easier to get into those characters' heads. I know it took me a few tries to make a 'manly' character and as it stands I only consider two of my males particularly masculine. At least, I think that's what you were getting at.
With backstory, I do similar - except I usually have a few details worked out at first (I've noticed mine typically include some combination of a character-building event, a story for the character to tell, and familial connections to other, usually "off-screen" characters). But then I make things up as I go and tend to pick and choose what becomes 'canon' for that character as they develop further.
-
I think the purpose of this thread is that any topic goes.
It is.
I tried to make a character that was specifically created for the purpose of addressing issues of gender but it didn't really develop so I just sorta let it go. I don't mind leading people into an RP and helping newbies along, but I admit that I will only put so much time and effort into it these days.
-
Aww, I miss Danao!
-
Unfortunately, I couldn't really use Danao for the social experiment I created him for, so rather than just trying to make an otherwise plain character work, I just let him sit on the shelf with other rarely used characters. Since the gender thing alone could have been a really big issue, Danao has next to nothing else about his character to play with. He had a normal family, fairly normal life, no tragic deaths, no mysterious people, jobs, or events in his life... He is the most normal straight ahead in the whole of Yliakum. ;D
That really should make him stand out but even the normalcy of his story didn't quite pan out either.
-
I would have liked to explore the whole gender thing, though. I don't feel like I have enough of a handle on the issues to play it out myself; it would've been interesting to have one of my very cisgender characters end up discussing it in depth.
-
I thought it would have been interesting. A funny fact though is that despite other people mistaking Danao's gender he is very cisgendered. He may be "pretty" but he is very much male.
-
Either way, would've been nice to have someone a little more tactful than Momo come across him and get him talking :P
-
XD Yeah It would have been interesting. It would have embarrassed poor Danao to no end though. Although I do remember one incident where someone did sorta talk about the matter with Danao. And she was very understanding, however Danao chose to self identify she was prepared to recognize him that way. Mind you that both confused and irritated Danao since he wasn't just self identifying as male he is physically male as well and he comes from a context where that is considered the more determining factor.
One funny incident was where Eardastapa didn't recognize him at first and almost called him female but managed a nice last minute save. :thumbup:
-
Chays would've been a good choice. He's a pretty understanding kinda guy. Though I think most of my active characters are kinda going through their own stuff right now...of course as it all gets interesting real life suddenly starts pulling me away. Not that that's a bad thing of course xD
-
Yes and no. ;) It's good to have a life but when it interferes with your fun you have a conflict of interests. ;D
Danao liked hanging out with Chays. the issue was just we were often not on at the same time. I wished I could have done Danao's fishing trips more but I don't think as many people were willing to try it out.
-
Ah, but life IS fun for me right now! I'm finally in university and it's a ton of work but I love it. Don't know how I'll swing the program I'm using this one to get in to, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it
-
Well that's good to hear. :)
-
30 pages, lolwut?
-
it's only 9 pages if you change your look and feel profile settings to display 50 posts per page instead of the forum default 15.
now if I only could remember where i can change that setting to go back to using my nice blue and light blue theme rather than this silly dark brown one so my eyes would stop hurting trying to read text.......
i miss my old account already. well, my other old account. i supposed this one is old too....
[edit]
well, 10 pages. this post put it to that. damn forums out to get me already. i see we are picking right up where we left off.
-
Ah look who it is. Welcome back. :)
-
Sarras's first experience with Danao, and her first experience with jewelry, apparently.
(21:07:51) Danao turns and says "Hello there."
(21:08:11) Sarras waves to the dermorian lady at the stand. "Hello."
(21:08:35) Teeleh says: "Then I say I can do it, quite easily."
(21:09:30) Kaerli says: Good. How much do you wish?
(21:09:42) Kaerli says: Greetings ma'am.
(21:10:01) Eleese slowly face palms behind the kiosk. She slips her way easily beneath it, hoping to remain hidden while the others converse.
(21:10:24) Teeleh says: "I'm unsure what would be reasonable, but as its wood and quicker work, probably a hundred a piece."
(21:10:39) Sarras hops off Snorti and makes her way to the stall, too interested to know what is for sale to greet anyone.
(21:11:00) Danao points to the stuff on the stand "There's jewelry if you are interested and some ingots left as well."
(21:11:39) Kaerli says: Sure, two then please.
(21:12:05) Danao says: Hello.
(21:12:18) Firke says: Hello.
(21:12:25) Teeleh says: Do you mind if I keep this to make sure I understand how it's made regarding the pattern?
(21:12:40) Danao looks at Firke and says "On one side there are ingots and on the other jewlery."
(21:13:14) Danao says: "However, if you want better jewelry than I can make, you might want to talk to the dermorrian to my right. " he smiles
(21:13:27) Kaerli shakes her head "If you could make your sketches and notes now, that would be greatly appreciated."
(21:13:55) Sarras glances up to Danao, looks to her right, then to her left. "Who?"
(21:14:01) Danao pushes his bangs out of his face
(21:14:15) Teeleh hums thoughtfully, and walks his way over to another kiosk, moving to bend over the parchment and draw out one of hs own. He begins sketching carefully the design.
(21:14:19) Danao says: He's the expert here.
(21:15:15) Sarras's eyes move to inspect Teeleh, but she remains rigid. "Nooo thanks... What is this here?" she asks, pointing to the cuff.
(21:16:56) Danao says: "Ulbernaut bone carved into an arm cuff. I was so sick of carving it after awhile that I just put Enki claw marks on the top. That stuff is like carving steel." he frowns
(21:17:37) Sarras raises her eyebrows at the cuff. "What is a cuff, exactly?"
(21:17:41) Eleese doesn't make a sound from beneath the booth, but she flicks some swear off her brow with a finger and mouths swearing to herself in nolthrea.
(21:18:17) Sarras says: [wait, eleese is hiding under there? o_O ]
(21:18:18) Teeleh finishes with his sketching and wanders back over to Kaerli, holding the pendant aloft for her. He doesn't seem to notice Sarras' strange reaction to him. "There you are. I'll have it in a week's time."
(21:18:28) Kaerli says: Good, thank you.
(21:18:40) Kaerli takes the necklace and puts it back on.
(21:19:05) Danao lits an eyebrow "Well it's like a bracelet that isn't completely enclosed" he holds up the cuff and point so the C shape "But you wear it on your arm like a bracelet. You can wear it on your forearm or arm depending on how big the cuff is.
(21:19:37) Sarras nods softly. "Does it... do anything?"
(21:19:57) Teeleh dips his head, pocketing the design after folding the paper with a studious, almost obsessive neatness. A chuckle sounds in his throat as he observes the interaction between Sarras and Danao, but he doesn't say anything.
(21:20:39) Danao shakes his slowly and look at sarras oddly "Nothing other than sit there fall off tables."
(21:20:58) Danao says: *and fall off
(21:21:59) Sarras closes her mouth, pretending to understand. "Alright, then, miss. If it's really useless, I'll take it off your hands for... fifty tria."
(21:24:07) Danao makes a face at the "Miss" comment and says rather dryly " 'Fraid not... Ulbernaut bone is a bit harder to come by than that and the effort alone is at leasat 100 tria. I'll sell you one for 150 tria."
(21:24:28) Eleese runs a finger along her hairline, and straightens her mask, leaning her head back slightly and rolling her eyes beneath her mask.
(21:26:24) Danao shifts his weight to one side and wait's for Sarras' response
(21:26:26) Sarras's left eye narrows as she turns her head in a dubious manner. "Hmm... Hard to come by? I happen to hunt ulbernauts. And I think that a hundred fifty is low for an item like this. Should be at least five hundred."
(21:27:05) Danao shrugs "You want to pay five hundred for one then be my guest."
(21:27:39) Eleese's lips form an astonished 'what?' motion, listening to the conversation going on above her with astonishment. She has to use quite a bit of self control not to burst out laughing, but manages well.
(21:28:52) Danao stares back at Sarras through his red bangs which have fallen back into his face and partially obscures his bright green eyes
(21:28:57) Teeleh slowly raises a brow at Sarras' statement. He covers his mouth with his hand and coughs into his palm, trying to disguise his laughter.
(21:29:28) Sarras blinks. "What? No, that's not what I'm... I mean, that price..." She grows visibly frustrated, then says, "Do you buy ulbernaut bones?"
(21:30:44) Danao says: Not looking to. Awful lot of effort goes into carving these things. I got the bone for these cuffs for free so you get a lower price.
(21:31:53) Sarras tries to hide her disappointment. "Oh. Well, I'm not looking to buy one, sorry."
(21:32:16) Danao shrugs "That's fine. Anything else?"
(21:32:53) Eleese rubs her hand along the bottom of her jaw. Her eyes roll again, and she looks upwards, happily visualizing beating her forehead against the bottom of the kiosk, but refraining with a great feat of self control.
(21:33:26) Sarras takes a step back, her legs now in a position to burst into a run if need be. "I've a question."
(21:33:41) Teeleh just appears to look more and more confused by the entire interaction. He folds his arms over his chest slowly, and then unfolds them again.
(21:33:57) Danao just responds "What?" he seems less concerned with making a sale than with others
(21:34:23) Sarras cannot help but smile as she asks, "Are you a man?"
(21:35:08) Danao seems to tense up instantly and yet for a few moments seems eerily calm
(21:35:25) Sarras just waits for a response.
(21:36:17) Danao unconsiously takes in a big breath and yells "What kind of question is that? Of course I am. I'm flatter in the chest the you!" he glares at Sarras
(21:36:17) Eleese grimaces under the table. 'Ouch,' she mouths, glancing over at Danao's feet. She seems to be pondering to herself if they're really all that particularly girly.
(21:36:43) Kaerli laughs "Don't worry, I managed to make that mistake the first time too."
(21:37:47) Sarras self-consciously cups her own breasts. "Hey, no offense! I called you a miss. I retract my calling of you a miss!"
(21:37:57) Danao starts into a rant "What is it with people?! What do you care! Besides how many women have a voice as deep as mine, or is that just something about the women in this city. And where to do you getoff anyway. How would you like it if I someone kept asking you if you were a guy?"
(21:38:35) Danao glares over at Kaerli as well "It's not funny. At least I don't look like a mobile armory!"
(21:38:47) Danao folds his arms and starts to sulk
(21:39:03) Sarras bites her lips so hard it turns as white as the bone cuff.
(21:39:17) Eleese grimaces at the ranting. She tips her head, now looking for the soap box, looking ad when she doesn't actually find one underneath the elf's feet. She lets her eyes roll for the third time, then shakes her head in disbelief.
(21:39:25) Kaerli says: I was simply trying to make the Dermorian lass feel better about her mistake by laughing at my own.
(21:40:12) Danao says sarcastically "Oh yes... We'll I'm glad she feels better about the whole thing." Sarras' comment seems to have really struck a nerve with him.
(21:40:29) Sarras makes her own attempt at soothing Danao. "If it's any consolation, sir, plenty of women in this city adore feminine men like you."
(21:41:11) Danao snaps a bit pitifully but still quite loudly "I'm not feminine!"
(21:41:54) Teeleh puts up his hands, making a low whistling sound. "Let's not start a fight now," he offers. "No need to get too...angry over the situation. We all have our differences in appearance...one's no better than the other."
(21:42:22) Sarras retorts with, "How many have mistook you for a woman in the past week?" She glances to Teeleh, but takes not heed of his words.
(21:43:06) Danao says: "Better question... How many mistook YOU for a woman in this last week?" he glares daggers at Sarras
(21:43:23) Eleese listens to the argument. She breathes out quietly, and then extends over the edge with her gloved hand, the pale color blending slightly with the wood as she makes a cat-quick flash of grabbing the pendant-necklace and leaving a small, tightly folded note behind.
(21:44:11) Teeleh clears his throat. "Hey!" He says, throwing in a clap of his hands. "That's enough goading. There's no reason for that, he's not done anything to you."
(21:44:25) Sarras's mouth is slowly pulled into a wide grin, then Sarras nearly falls backward as a cacaphony of giggles erupt from her body.
(21:46:24) Kaerli attempts to cast a Brown Way spell on the thief, that if successful, would lock her in place by twisting the stones around her. [Stone Warp btw, 2 BrW]
(21:46:50) Sarras says: [pretty sure you'd destroy the stall with that spell, yo]
(21:47:05) Danao glares at Sarras laughing "Go ahead and laugh... I hope you suffocate."
(21:47:36) Eleese manages to wrench her hand free of the spell, though there might be a popping sound, it's hard to tell. She swears brilliantly, and casts up her hand, sending out a sudden blinding flash of light just before she fixes her eyes on some point and beelines for it with a surprising accuracy round the corner.
(21:47:47) Kaerli says: [what?]
(21:48:15) Teeleh blinks at the spellcasting, unable to see anything from the angle he's standing at.
(21:48:20) Danao looks over at where the pendant and the woman were "What? What's going on here?!"
(21:48:25) Sarras throws up an arm to block the sudden flash of light to her right.
(21:48:30) Kaerli says: [back up here. there's a problem]
(21:48:37) Sarras says: [what?]
(21:48:49) Kaerli says: [Eleese's reaction to Kaerli's spell is complete WTF]
(21:48:57) Danao rubs at his eyes while he tries to adjust
(21:49:15) Danao says: [let it slide Kaerli. ;)]
(21:49:18) Kaerli says: [although I am able to figure out where I went wrong, there's a failure to communicate here]
(21:49:19) Sarras says: [...you didn't even rp noticing the thieving taking place. how do you expect her to react?]
(21:50:14) Danao look back and sees note that he reads before he yells again at the top of his voice "I am not Pretty!"
(21:51:07) Sarras's eyes follow Danao's line of sight. She hardly leans forward before laughing once more.
(21:51:11) Teeleh places his hand over his mouth and tries desperately not to laugh.
(21:51:34) [Tell] You tell Kaerli: [can you please not go after eleese?]
(21:51:50) [Tell] Danao tells you: [I should have warned her about stealing near kaerli... I knew there was a 50/50 chance of this happening.]
(21:51:56) [Tell] You tell Eleese: [kaerli is chasing you, better run]
(21:52:06) Danao tries to shoo Sarras away from the note "Go away!"
(21:52:27) Teeleh's eyes glitter with amusement.
(21:52:45) [Tell] Eleese tells you: [Is this fellow usually so annoying?]
(21:53:08) Sarras grasps at a stitch in her side. "Oh, sir, being pretty isn't the end of the world."
(21:53:32) [Tell] You tell Eleese: [yep. someone should've told you. sorry.]
(21:53:43) Danao frowns "Yeah well... how would you know?" he shoots back
(21:54:01) Teeleh steps closer. "Danao. It's perfectly alright," he says. "I've been accused of being gay on more than one occasion, you learn to let it slide off your shoulders."
(21:54:26) Sarras sticks her tongue out at Danao playfully.
(21:55:56) Danao glares back at Teeleh but it it obvious that his anger is not really directed at Teeleh "It' not just that. It' the fights, and then jokes, and the pranks." he lifts up the note, shakes it angrily in the air then throws it back down on the stall. It being paper, it just sorta flutters down which irritates Danao even more. "I bet Roled doesn't have to go through this and he is gay!"
(21:56:39) Danao seems greatly agitated now
(21:56:49) Teeleh grimaces slightly. "Oh, now calm down, Danao. She's grinning because she's getting your goat about it. Just...relax. It's not worth the argument. Nobody's going to fight you."
(21:57:18) Sarras pulls her lips together, watching the exchange between prettyboys.
(21:58:30) Danao says "I don't even care! She can go laugh the green off her tunic! I don't care!" he huffs and looks at Sarras "Go away!"
(21:59:11) Teeleh runs his fingers through his hair in relative futility.
(21:59:56) Danao looks quite upset at the recent turn of events
(22:00:09) Sarras slowly spins on a heel and approaches her rivnak, likely intending to leave, but she casts a look back.
(22:00:35) Sarras says: [nooo snorti! he's gone :'( ]
(22:00:37) Danao looks at werase and unintentionally snaps "What do you want?" he then tries to catch himself and just says "Yeah?"
(22:00:50) Danao says: [thief got that too! XD]
(22:01:08) Werase flinches
(22:01:42) Werase says: Just taking a look...
(22:02:11) Danao mumbles a "Sorry." and glares at Sarras
(22:02:34) Werase scans over the contents on the table
(22:02:45) Sarras climbs onto her rivnak and sends Danao a wink in response.
(22:02:59) Danao looks over the thing's he's selling and he remembers something so he goes into a crate and pulls out a piece of jewelry different from what is already out.
(22:03:32) Danao mutter something about "stupid women" and "laughing themselves to death."
(22:04:14) Sarras chuckles silently and gallops away! [on an invisible horsegoat!]
(22:04:25) Danao seems a bit surly still
(22:04:33) Teeleh says: [Sorry. My alt had to run all over Hydlaa and try to avoid the repeated /challenges.]
(22:07:00) [Tell] Eleese tells you: [OH MAI GAWD.]
(22:07:10) [Tell] You tell Eleese: [what? where are you?]
(22:08:40) [Tell] Eleese tells you: [Hiding in a nook behind some building now.]
(22:08:58) [Tell] You tell Eleese: [i'll kill it]
Then I killed Kaerli. The end.
-
Ah look who it is. Welcome back. :)
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm definitely not someone that did any thing good for this game, nor should any one should remember who I am.
just pretend I'm not here. once I fulfill a promise I made to someone a long time ago, I'l be gone once more. and I certainly didn't download the game client and log in to see a buddy list filled with red names.
And I certainly didn't find my character in the middle of a never ending field of nothingness, with no real clue or remembrance as to where I could have last logged out at. and I certainly don't have any remembrance as to why I would be in said field, holding a mug in 1 hand and a platinum ore in the other.
-
Uh huh... sure..... ;)
(21:53:08) Sarras grasps at a stitch in her side. "Oh, sir, being pretty isn't the end of the world."
(21:53:43) Danao frowns "Yeah well... how would you know?" he shoots back
(21:54:01) Teeleh steps closer. "Danao. It's perfectly alright," he says. "I've been accused of being gay on more than one occasion, you learn to let it slide off your shoulders."
(21:54:26) Sarras sticks her tongue out at Danao playfully.
(21:55:56) Danao glares back at Teeleh but it it obvious that his anger is not really directed at Teeleh "It' not just that. It' the fights, and then jokes, and the pranks." he lifts up the note, shakes it angrily in the air then throws it back down on the stall. It being paper, it just sorta flutters down which irritates Danao even more. "I bet Roled doesn't have to go through this and he is gay!"
(21:56:39) Danao seems greatly agitated now
(21:56:49) Teeleh grimaces slightly. "Oh, now calm down, Danao. She's grinning because she's getting your goat about it. Just...relax. It's not worth the argument. Nobody's going to fight you."
Poor Danao... no respect.
-
/me takes a few pieces of transparent tape and adheres it to his cheek and eyelids - pulling them down, and his nose and forehead - pulling it up.
"What? I'm bored."
-
...
>.>
-
Haven't you ever done something like that out of boredom?
-
I think the closest I came was sticking tape on my cat's head so I could watch him "crawl from under it."
-
I don't listen to Pantera.
-
Come fly with me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO8HI884_zI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO8HI884_zI)
-
Really now? ::|
I'll stick with commercial airlines thank you.
-
no thanks to any of youssss, i found my way back to my room in the tavern from the wastelands, even after you decided to move map positions around on me.
mishka helped.
FL is best guild always and forevers.
-
What's this? Mishka's wandering out into the woods to pick up strange men? :)
-
pft, i wish. all i got was tells. better than the other 15 people that were online did at the time at least.
so much world, so little filling it. /sigh
i'll stick to my little corner of the tavern, which it seems no one uses any more but the roof.
-
Even the roof has gotten empty-er.
-
I don't know when you last played, but for a while the RP was so horrible in the tavern that people avoided going there. You might recall the pokemon battles... yes, pokemon. It seems there's more RP going on at the forge and in the plaza. Funny how thing change.
-
i want to say the last time i actually logged in, was circa 2007-ish.
i take it that's why my ring of familiar doesn't do anything any more?
-
Yep.. that would certainly explain it. Many changes since then.
-
give me a rundown and i'll give you this healing pot i have in my inventory. i don't see an expiration date on it so it's probably still safe to drink. :innocent:
i figured the rp stuff has been relaxed when i logged in and found a menki with fishbreath or some such for a last name running around. course, when i'm only seeing avg 20-25 peoples online, the forums go hours without any new posts made, and the overall general atmosphere to be kinda gloomy and downtrodden I assumed as much.
ah well, i made a promise to a certain some one a long time ago, and since i'm apparently still alive and in good enough health to type I aim to get this off my bucket list one way or another. regardless of the fact she seems long gone from here as well, i'm a man that keeps his promises.
-
The tavern still gets used, probably just not at the hours you're on. But I agree about having too much world.
I wasn't there for the Pokemon battles at that exact moment, but I remember having something of a grasp on the game and roleplaying in MMOs at that point, and hearing the complaining about them. 'Bout the same time, there was an RP that I did catch - maybe four people were in one tavern room, roleplaying having tanks and guns in main. Myself and a few others managed to convince them that this line of RP was better suited to a group. This was also during the tail end of the whole Epic Tavern Battle thing (and yeah, I participated in a couple of those, myself >_>; )
I don't know, I think it's a quality-quantity thing; there was bad RP, yes. There was also LOTS of RP. You could hardly move anywhere within the cities without running into someone roleplaying. The more people there are in-game at a time, the more leeway there is for "bad" RP; just take a look at the retail version of WoW for that. I haven't been on there for months but I'll bet there's even worse with the Starter Edition free to play version now...and I'm talking even worse than Catgirl-Demon-Ninja-Vampire-Night-Elf-High-School. I'm not even exaggerating, THAT was a thing (if I recall correctly, night elves and vampires were the only officially canon parts of the lore, but even the vampires were just some low-level mobs for one little quest - unless I'm thinking of another game). It's just a fact of gaming. If you don't like to see what you consider bad roleplay, that's what the /ignore feature is for (people often boasted to me about how many others they had blocked. Knowing what I do now, that'd probably land them on my own list).
-
Epic Tavern Battle
(http://i.imgur.com/psdUkax.gif)
-
xD
I think those folks left too. Anyhow, there's a bulletin board behind Harn's that might be of some use for getting in touch with what's happening in the game. Good luck.
-
so to recap:
the RPer's and the nonRPer's finally squared off in an epic battle that encompassed both game world and forums in a battle to the death over who would have superiority, and after many long, hard years of fighting, with several attempts to end the war peacefully, (eg splitting of the masses into 2 realms, one for each type of player), ultimately both sides nearly destroyed each other into oblivion, leaving behind the now broken and long forgotten planes of existence to be found by generations later that had somehow survived the fallout; the pieces of what was a grand idea for a community and game scattered to the winds, with only a small handful remaining that really knows what awful events unfolded so many years ago, and even a smaller handful that still grasp onto the hope and dreams that some day, when all the fallout has subdued, there will come a time of the great renascence, where the community will unite once more, both RPer and their nonRPer brethren, where peace and harmony rule the land, where each player works together to build the community to beyond the greatness that even the founders had dreamed of; the day when the game would be stable, the day when the movement and camera controls weren't designed like we were still in the 90's, where the skill leveling system made sense and the GUI didn't make your eyes hurt, where all the main features were working and balanced, where the world was full of interesting places and things to see, and the day when the forums had a thriving community where people helped each other and trolls were locked in their cages.
-
Yeah, that sounds about right. Condensed it into a single paragraph like that almost makes it sound like an epic storyline. Sadly, its been more like a crippling disease that refused to go away. Anyhow, that's all behind us now. There are some very good players on now. Enjoy.
-
I'm pretty good at being able turn the mundane into exciting. That was just one sentence, btw. paragraphs require at least two :P
I won't be around for long, however. Just don't have the strength to be able to devote the appropriate time that it would require. RL reasons. I'm no spring chicken any more.
I'm here to finish that story that got started oh so long ago and put those characters to rest with proper justice. Once done, I'll be on my way to work on crossing more items off the list while I'm still around to do them. But hey, we always got the memories of days past to cheer us up. Well, until dementia sets in, but I'm not completely there just yet!
-
Don't forget the unicorns laying golden eggs that hatch into mouseketeers!
(http://web.ncf.ca/cr502/blue kitty.png)
-
*pricks Rirenil's dream bubble with a pop*
Gotta pop it before someone ruins it.
But, one correction here:
so to recap:
the RPer's and the nonRPer's finally squared off in an epic battle that encompassed both game world and forums in a battle to the death over who would have superiority, and after many long, hard years of fighting, with several attempts to end the war peacefully, (eg splitting of the masses into 2 realms, one for each type of player), ultimately both sides nearly destroyed each other into oblivion ran off most of each others supporters, leaving behind the now broken and long forgotten planes of existence to be found by generations later that had somehow survived arrived long after the fallout had settled.
I think that the community could probably revive on it's own with a fresh influx of people but it's hard to manage that and the numbers grow too slowly to sustain a noticeable increase.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Condensed it into a single paragraph like that almost makes it sound like an epic storyline. Sadly, its been more like a crippling disease that refused to go away. Anyhow, that's all behind us now. There are some very good players on now. Enjoy.
Even a pandemic can be epic, but, to be fair, I think the community is too chill to have the same problems it used to have. What passes for a flamewar now isn't even enough to cook a few hotdogs.
-
What is this thread about?
-
Ah, the dramatic flame wars and the silence that was left in its wake. Glad that's over.
Seriously, I've been hopping on a little at night and enjoy the RP that I've been running into. There's some good players running around and I intend to spend some more time here assuming that real life is not too demanding.
You should not return Illysia, there is nothing here that would be of interest to you. Just dark, conflict RP and killing and torture and stuff. Stay on that nice, safe federation ship of yours ;)
-
What is this thread about?
Its just for jabbering with fellow forum members. Feel free to join in, Choppa.
-
What is this thread about?
Let me direct you to the original post. ;)
You know this forum used to have more player to player interaction, I mean aside from Holy Flame Wars. People used to talk about stuff in general and relate to each other aside from the IC and IG interactions. Looks like the community could use this and I am currently bored so here is a thread for that.
You should not return Illysia, there is nothing here that would be of interest to you. Just dark, conflict RP and killing and torture and stuff. Stay on that nice, safe federation ship of yours ;)
Well there is also my stint in a Romulan Senate and that is also conflict RP but it involves less torture and more dealing behind people's back. ;)
-
romulans, less torture? must be new canon, they were never at all squeamish about that sort of thing.
Neko and Karyuu hosed down many a firepit in their days. Must have almost been like torture coming here at times.
-
Yes well there's been a lot of changes and less harsh tactics are needed to keep up withe Kumbaya new Romulan Republic. ;D
I trust it was torture putting up with the rolling battles though. It was pretty bad for the combatants even.
-
I got quite annoyed a time or two, myself. Burnt off some useless feelings that were just dragging me down, there was a bit of cross chatter between the forum and real life, I'm sure.
-
Well even when there were more players PS was/is an amazingly close knit community and sometimes that caused friction but overall we were way more interactive with each other than what I have seen elsewhere.
-
...I notice I start typing like a schizophrenic when I've been awake too long.
When I start typing a thought, I must be entering a micro-sleep, because somehow I begin typing something out of a short dream or some eerie paranoid delusion.
-
xD
/me offers Volki some mystery pills.
-
I'll just take a shower and go to bed.
-
There was a dead gecko in the shower. q__q
-
That's life. Strange, unpredictable, but senseless... ;D
-
God only knows what sickness it died of and whether or not humans can catch it too.
-
are you sure it wasn't some klyros you killed come back to haunt you?
-
What's this? Mishka's wandering out into the woods to pick up strange men? :)
It's almost as if you didn't know Mishka.
On a side note, I'm working on retexturing the male Enkis that aren't Akkaio or Kore. They just look so old! Is my enterprise one doomed to fail, or will I succeed?
EDIT:
FL is best guild always and forevers.
He knows the deal. Join Felines Lair.
-
What if you're not a feline? >>
-
Do furries count?
You know... as in Ylians who like to wear fluffy Enki costumes with little ears and long stripy tails... and pretend to purr and prowl around?
-
Someone please make that epic character. I'd try but I don't think I could do it justice.
-
I will do it!
-
xD
-
Oh goodness... ::)
-
I nominate Illysia for the job too! \\o// \\o// \\o//
-
I shall do nothing of the sort... >.>
-
But but but... you could be a fenki in a fenki suit <3
-
...
no...
>.>
-
You could be a fenki in a man suit.
-
I don't think Savile Row does fenkis so no.
-
you could skin some fenkis and ship their fur off to Saville Row for a bespoke outfit!
They'll do anything if you pay them enough.
-
No problemo. Good Lucky, come here...
-
/me makes a voo doo doll starts sticking pins in it.
-
Forum Dive!!!
Looky What I found.
Moon's sneaky leaving thread http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=28392.0
Rizin's Cult Thread http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=32687.0
Xillix's Cult Thread http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=34423.0
And a list of birthday threads from before they got corralled into one thread! http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?board=19.500
-
...You people were once very weird.
-
Volki, you are weird too... But in a good way.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HizDfLubD-c
...You people were once very weird.
were?
-
We're all quite weird.
+1
-
The question is, do we trust what neko says? I mean, he's not even around. Plus, if this is how it works, then my characters are too old.
And necro.
[A note from Lilura: I moved a number of posts to this thread, including this post i hijacked because bloodedirishman is good at derailing threads.]
-
What you didn't see him posting as minoxodil or whatever last week?
-
I was hoping to draw him out. ;D
-
sounds hair raising to me.
-
I'm bored bilby.
-
there was a day and time i'd be forced to clean this thread up. i love having no power or the care or the will to really do anything about it any more.
carry on!
(my wayward sons)
-
Every thread derails these days. It's how the forum is kept alive.
-
they don't derail, they just carry on where muggles can't see
-
Hey Lilu. Didn't you get the memo? No krans allowed! :@#\
:)
-
i do what i want!
-
<3 lilura
-
<3 lilura
Who doesn't?
-
Someone's getting an ego. No more love for you. From now on, everyone direct your love to me.
-
/me smacks his rivnak on the ass, then points to Bloodirishman. You hear 'em Black Spirit, go give it to 'em!
-
Anyone else find it ironic that while Riggy is sending his Rivnak to Irishman, he's the one doing the smacking of rears? ;D
-
/me gives Illysia a rivnak costume complete with fake hooves, ears and muzzle. ::| :woot: \\o//
-
...
>.>
...
*watches Rigwyn closely to make sure there's no more smacking going on*
-
Yah, I say strange things sometimes... its a creative thing.
-
Almost all of us are creative around here, that was just rivnak smacking. :P
-
I must resist.. the urge... to take this... joke... farther.....
So..
Hows things no the Enterprise?
-
I would like the joke to go farther. ;D
-
Not blown upy? However, as I am not on the Enterprise I cannot say much more, I am only an expert on my ship. However, on my ship OOCly there it is more blown upy, ICly I have female Ferengi trader who wears clothes, an exocomp that wears cat ears, an Andorian Engineering Chief who likes to prank people and a grudge to settle with a Vulcan captain on another ship. And only the people familiar with Star Trek have any idea what any of that means. :)
I would like the joke to go farther. ;D
Hush you. :P
-
I WONT BE SILENCED.
-
*takes the muzzle Rigwyn gave her and puts it on Irishman*
Yes you will. And why aren't you in game? :p
-
/me puts rivnak ears on illysia's head, then picks up a 'taiil' from the table near by.
"I should just leave this here and be on my way. Yall can figure out the rest."
-
...
>.>
-
Lol.
-
[A note from Lilura: I moved a number of posts to this thread, including this post i hijacked because bloodedirishman is good at derailing threads.]
Hehe... Didn't see this note at first but I figured that lilu did this. ;D See, my thread has utility.
-
The utility to hold those posts which have no utility. Is that really the kind of utility you want, Illysia? IS IT????????????
-
Well that was the purpose of the thread.... The stuff that comes out of your head when you are bored. :P
-
earwax?
-
This is in fact very useful. There are people who collect it and use it e.g. as polish or grease...
-
Why don't we make a reddit for PlaneShift? That way I could get my daily dose of PlaneShift and Imgur at the same time.
-
This thread is Planeshift reddit.
-
I believe I'm responsible for the Star Trek obsession afflicting you all. Sorry.
-
don't forget to count the rings in your pet whale's ears
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6apCbUnSZ0o&list=SPEEC5C055DCC425BE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6apCbUnSZ0o&list=SPEEC5C055DCC425BE)
-
hello moderator, hows the legacy we, those who suffered before you, have left you? i'll be in and out for a little while as i work on the story; feel free to poke me away with any questions you may have. i don't mind sharing my knowledge with the newer generation.
i never cared much for krans though. rock beings always felt so standoffish to me. unfeeling, uncaring, slow moving, patient, passive, long living... i suppose it is good you are a kran. the forums won't eat your soul as quickly. however, i guess the long history of the enki domination has come to an end.
enkis are much better though. we have energy!
-
Let's start a flame war. I'll be the PLer side. Everyone else pick sides, then begin.
-
whats up fuzz bucket? So far the forum moderating thing is not that bad ..I have less p0wa than you sir so i can shift blame and what not to others like Venalan >.> I tend to hang out with a bunch of Enki. So far my plan to steal their energy has not worked...
yet
-
I have less p0wa than you sir
correction: HAD
I'm a nobody now. just one of the peoples. fighting against the man.
Let's start a flame war. I'll be the PLer side. Everyone else pick sides, then begin.
I'll be teh 4chan guy. here's a video i made to depict how this is going to unfold: http://youtu.be/xSBSxZzRfyE
-
I believe I'm responsible for the Star Trek obsession afflicting you all. Sorry.
I probably started playing Star Trek Online before you started the latest round of watching episodes so at least one person you need not have on your conscience. ;D
whats up fuzz bucket? So far the forum moderating thing is not that bad
All of the combatants are gone, there is hardly anything left to moderate. ;) The big fuss was surely the old drop of a hat flamewars. But if this post (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=39714.msg466699#msg466699) did not flare up into a large umm... excrement storm *clears throat* then it's finally done and gone. It didn't take much kindling in the past to really get a good blaze going, just certain topics or words, so that means all combatants have either laid down their arms or have left the field... It really should be basically smooth sailing now.
Let's start a flame war. I'll be the PLer side. Everyone else pick sides, then begin.
I only ever have one side in any argument/flamewar... Lecture everyone on what they are doing wrong or telling people where they get get off... in a lot of words. :P
-
It's nice to have a peaceful, quiet forum without dramatic people. I wouldn't mind a little Perriwinkle though.
-
I would. >.>
-
a peaceful quiet forum, or a busy one, filled with activity?
a game with vast openness to explore to your hearts content, devoid of other players, with only the occasional MOB to attack, and even less an npc to interact with, or a small world, teaming with players, MOBs and npcs alike?
to each their own. they both have their strong points, they both have their weaknesses.
i'm just a relic from a time long since past; it's the current and future gamers, developers, and general community to make the decisions on what this game will ultimately shape into.
-
Look. A Kran.
(http://i.imgur.com/dj926aj.jpg)
-
I wonder what gemma's name would be?
-
lawl
-
Looks like an unfortunate case of kran obesity. Probably the result of a sedimentary lifestyle.
-
Witty.
-
Looks like an unfortunate case of kran obesity. Probably the result of a sedimentary lifestyle.
This made me let out a sensible chuckle.
-
/me scribbles a note, folds it into a paper airplane, and throws it to Illysia.
It reads, "I'm bored."
-
*takes the paper, folds it into a crane, scribbles something on it then sets it on Rigwyn's head*
It's reads: "I'm working on a blog now."
-
Cool. Ever have any success making ad revenue on blogs, or do you just do it for fun?
-
This would be my first one but I'm taking a cue from Jacula or Mellas one. It's just a place where I can safely archive my RPs. Although this one is for my Star Trek RPs. I might go back and do one for PS one day though.
-
Have pictures of lasers and people with clay stuck to their heads on there? :p
/me hides a dopey grin.
-
Clay? :p
-
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120329231624/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/2/28/Quark%2C_2375.jpg/292px-Quark%2C_2375.jpg)
(http://www.whattofix.com/images/Worf.jpg)
-
Foam or Latex I shall have you know... And it's most likely to be pictures of pixelated people. :P
-
(http://i.imgur.com/mtjM88t.gif)
...Nerds.
-
^ Sensible post. :thumbup:
-
(http://replygif.net/i/198.gif)
-
sooooooooo.....
>.>
<.<
what does.... a fox say?
:detective:
-
sooooooooo.....
>.>
<.<
what does.... a fox say?
:detective:
Oh God. Not you. Not you too.
-
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/09/what-does-the-fox-say-ylvis/
-
obviously a fox says "is that a banana in your pocket or are you just excited to see me"
-
Some foxes have something to say (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/4895945/Absolute_Beginner_featuring_Samy_Deluxe_Fuechse)
-
Es tut uns leid. Aus rechtlichen Gründen ist dieses Video in deinem Land nicht verfügbar.
This video is not available in your country. :(
-
Foxes should say, "Why are you bothering me?"
-
or I just ate a wascally wabbit
-
http://orteil.dashnet.org/cookieclicker/
click it. you know you want to
-
Why did I click that ?!
-
Because you are easy to bait? ;D
-
Ah feel duhmb...
-
Unabashedly....
:offtopic:
Gotta say for the past two, three, even four weeks, I have NOT BEEN BORED! ::| The rping community here is really really growing and emerging, the ongoing plots are intricate and highly charged and full of surprises. One of our megastar rpers said to me, "Its the dynamic of real rp!" And it is- I freaking LOVE being surprised in these stories and I thank everyone for creating this explosion of creativity!
So this is my addition to the not bored, "I'm Bored" thread. I see in many of us the real effort and achievement of opening our rps, to include new people almost all the time, to welcome newer players and draw them in if they wish to be drawn in. And lots of returning players! Oh yeah!
Huzzah! \\o// \\o// \\o//
OK I am admittedly overly enthusiastic right now but I just had the FRICKING HONOR to rp with two oldbies and a relative newbie tonight, and It makes me wanna ... well, .. you imagine!
RR :thumbup:
-
Oooh. That is good to hear. I suspect PS may have hit a turning point.
However I find it funny that at the same time you are not bored in RP I'm not either in a completely different game. ;D I finally have a place where I can do my social RPs without getting bogged down or stuck in "how's your mother" RPs. \\o//
I transitioned from idle chatter to plotting revenge to plotting how to execute a minor scale quarantine and ICly solving a medical mystery. Although, for my purposes the medical mystery will only be mysterious to my character and any others involved as I already know OOCly what the issue is, how to solve it, and more or less that it will be solved. But, it will still be fun as the point of the RP is not other characters solving the mystery but rather reacting to/interacting with the scenario as it slowly unfolds. :detective:
But I will concede this point, I wouldn't have gotten to the latter DMy-Doctory kind of RP if I had not been flexible and let the revenge part of my RP get taken down a completely different path than I was expecting and had initially prepared for.
Ah feel duhmb...
I generally don't click Neko links. I just assume they are all kitten video in disguise. ;)
-
So, Illy. How's your mother?
-
She's ok... >.>
-
100 million cookies per second.
so
many
cookies.
-
I'm going to puke.
-
/me offers Volki a thimble to barf in.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/euwy1.jpg)
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6va8vl6SB1rarteio1_500.gif)
-
(http://i.minus.com/iLVZIeSIeBlGQ.gif)
-
Y'all can go and... Oh gosh.
/me threw up a little in her mouth
-
Ninja'd !
-
Interesting pre-going to bed thought: Actually we aren't roleplayers. Yes, you can think of yourself as playing a role, but there comes a time when you will have to bend, prevent, or somehow alter the role or course your character is taking for the sake of telling a better or more reasonable story. So really you are the author of a joint story and you must use a character, an individual, as the means and pawns for weaving your story. You know everything they know, you know many things they do not. You hold their lives in your hands, you are gods for their purposes.
But some of you meanie pantses are sadistic gods... Your poor characters need a reroll :p
Goodnight. *shuffles off to bed with addled thoughts*
Ninja'd !
:P
-
/me rolls Illysia :)
-
Interesting pre-going to bed thought: Actually we aren't roleplayers. Yes, you can think of yourself as playing a role, but there comes a time when you will have to bend, prevent, or somehow alter the role or course your character is taking for the sake of telling a better or more reasonable story. So really you are the author of a joint story and you must use a character, an individual, as the means and pawns for weaving your story. You know everything they know, you know many things they do not. You hold their lives in your hands, you are gods for their purposes.
But some of you meanie pantses are sadistic gods... Your poor characters need a reroll :p
Goodnight. *shuffles off to bed with addled thoughts*
Nope, still counts as roleplaying.
-
If you're playing a role and there's no predetermined plot, you're a roleplayer.
This is why I refuse to participate in "roleplays" with predetermined outcomes. I think people forget that they are one person in a joint effort. You cannot direct a roleplay like how an author writes a book or how a director... directs. A lot of people do this, even many considered good roleplayers. I often find myself cringing at my computer screen.
Basically, you're all horrible and need lessons.
-
Chit chat passively? Is that what you are saying?
Jeez, you're starting to sound like illysia.
... But without the railroading :)
-
...What?
-
Meh... I think I misinterpreted what you were saying before. Ignore...
-
rp'ing is easy to do if you think about it as an extension of yourself, in a different universe. think of your character like yourself; go about your day, doing the tasks you normally do, and react with what unfolds before you. put yourself into the shoes of the character you have given life to.
that's why my character was a grumpy old menki who stayed in a dark lit corner of the tavern, cursing at life in general and drinking heavenly. when people would approach, i'd mumble and say things like "damn kids are stepping on my lawn again"
-
Well, I think that might be why it is harder to pull off a wider variety of characters in PS now. There aren't as many people trying to tell overall stories as well as play their character's roles. What I mean by overall story is the interlinking of stories across various genres(not necessarily play styles) to tell the story of Yliakum as opposed to just the stories that are driven by either an individual or a handful of characters.
For instance, some characters may be tailors, bakers, theives, and Rivnak trainers, and periodically, people would do RPs that let them drag these other professions into their RPs but not just for the sake of having those characters have something to do. Those characters provided needed roles, so if you needed a new dress and a new rivnak in a bid to forge a marriage alliance, you could simply go to those characters. Interconnected stories. ;) Even though none of my characters classified as baddies, they still came in contact with and interacted with say the Outlaws or Duraza's characters. It still happens even now but I think there is just a lesser focus on it. The stories now definitely work and I think they often interconnect with related stories but I think they don't blend across genres as well. I think they work at the expense of other aspects of Yliakum life. *shrugs*
I remember when I started playing, I was encouraged to play a character that fills a niche in the whole rather than make a character for running plots. I've been RPing for over 5 years or so and I didn't start bouncing from story to story until more recently, I just sorta found myself in the middle of things. The way I remember it, you could have a character that you went through the world with, and you could occasionally do plots, but for the most part you would be just interacting as part of the greater goings on of the city or the Dome and it was still entertaining. Now this is not to say there weren't snags, disputes and plenty of hard feelings, but I think there was a greater continuity between the stories of the various characters in the world. Admittedly though that was probably where the troubles started, people were having difficulty with some other characters being in the same story as their own... Oh well.
I shall leave you all to it, whatever it is that is working in PS now. I have finally found a place where I can go for my RP fix. For now I have RPers that I can rely on to be able to transition from small talk to interesting scenarios and an RP grudge match to work on. So far it has been a rotten stalemate. :thumbdown:
-
Glad to hear you found something you like \\o//
-
well i was trying to be humorous, but if we want to be super serious, i'l throw out something to think about. refer to the D&D playbook; rp'ers and their dungeon master. the dm sets the tone, but its the rper's that bring the story to shine.
when i started my traversing through the PS scene I thought the GM team was going to be the DMs of the world. to an extent, they were. all the people rp'ing moved around the world, being the little busy bees they were, and the GMs hung around the plaza and moved around as needed to keep the flow, and spicing things up every once in awhile with their own touches. The famous incident with Drey and the ulber onslaught of the city, as example.
but then the times of change started to unfold. GMs went invisible, the still existed, but were "behind the scenes" the DM was removed from the eyes of the world and put into a new "police force" role. the RPer's were left to fill the shoes, without the tools to do so. their ideas had to go through screening processes to be "approved" before "the official GM team" could even think about getting involved. and like everything else, it all needed the stamp of approval by the head guy himself, so that it wouldn't conflict with the grand story he has envisioned.
later GMs regained some freedom; they could make "events". now official little tidbits of fun to spice up the world. good intentions yes, but executed poorly. not enough GMs, not enough events, large crowds whispering all thier friends whenever they'd see the special colored character names appear in the world. all to collect the possible shiny rewards they may collect for participating, regardless of whether or not their character they have made would ever do those such actions. they did it as a player to get an award, not as a RPer, acting out their character they made. the role of player and DM still was not balanced.
i have been away for many the past years yes, so I can not speak as to where the wheel of change rolled on towards since my departure. all i can do is to reflect on the major changes that I have seen back in my day, that i believe started the change of the tide. and for this conversation, we'll just ignore the day before when there wasn't any official GM team, or when all there was to do was collect crystals, or even before when all we had was the forums to act out things.
to recap my badly worded ramblings into somewhat coherent speak. to RP proper requires players fulfilling the roles of the characters they have dreamt up, and reacting to situations thrown at them in character, but there also needs to be a DM to make the world and help create the situations. the players can't do it all by themselves, although many a good one have tried and succeeded for quite some time at the cost of all their free time, logging in every chance they could for hours on end to keep it going. Or if you go the other route where the DMs are restricted in their ability to be the DM, you swing the other way, where whenever they do act, you as a person fell that you must participate in some way, as it is a limited chance at being involved in something.
I place no single blame at anyone or side for what happened. everyone is a little at fault in my mind. the players complained about people that had silly non-RP esque names or billy complaining that his sister pulled on his hair or poked him and the GMs had to threaten to turn the car around if they couldn't behave properly. but at the same time they were also limited as to what they could do, like i was limited to what i was allowed to say, or the conversations i could par take in on the forums, as we where the official body for the PS team, so we needed to be more PR nicey nice, or the GMs could only do little things because we wouldn't want to do something that would effect the cannon story line.
but maybe i'm just an old fart wearing his rose-tinted glasses again. PS will continue to be developed regardless. Players will continue to come and go. Life moves ever forward. I just wish that back when there was really a hustle and bustle around here, that the game would have been developed a little more balanced around providing new and exciting things for the player base to do, with the side of things that let the GM team become more truer DMs as well as being given a little more free will to just spice up the world as they saw fit; without the complaints or fears of complaints that they'd be showing favoritism for certain players and "their RP stories" from the player base or fears that what ever actions they did would now be cannon and cause issues down the line when more of the backstory of the world was released officially. I wish the player base would have been more respectable to those that didn't want to be all super serious RP all the time, and instead just wanted to come try out the game and mine or fight monsters and whatnot.
but hey, thats jsut me rambling again.
-
The whole saga of how things came to suck and why I cannot role play anymore never seems to end. It's temping go there, but it just seems to keep going in circles without a drain to plummet into. I'm quite guilty of stirring that pot in the past and currently refusing to pick up the spoon..
What I see working now is that some players will take an active lead ( acting as a DM or just an active character ) and others will play along if they like. If people don't enjoy the way a player leads, they don't follow. This is working nicely at the moment. There is no power ( other than what players freely give ) to be abused or authority figures ( other than those who the community adopts ) to repress people.
This might not work well on a larger scale, but its working nicely with small numbers right now.
It would be nice to see PS grow once again and if it does, I can only hope that the lessons learned do not get lost and repeated. They were costly.
As for GM restrictions, one of the awesome things about being a player is that you are not encumbered by them. Relying on blue tags and the ability to make items and change skins is just bad form. If the rp is not fundamentally good, then this is like white washing a crumbled building or trying to polish a turd.(tm)
-
Glad to hear you found something you like \\o//
Yeah. A couple of nights ago, I had a lot of fun developing a character. I haven't really been that able to get into development that deep in years. She is a businesswoman out on field research for new company offerings and this brings her into blatant and harsh culture clash. So we got to play out trying to communicate cultural conventions across vastly different cultures, trying to overcome translation issues, and even conflict after he assaulted her... just to to grab and work on her universal translator since he was tired of getting misunderstood. XD
Her culture doesn't have a distinct linguistic or cultural definition for "exhibitionism", it is all swept under a blanket term of "inappropriate" behavior. It is a very private culture, so people going to resorts and engaging in various very public forms of recreations such as parties and all the other various things people get into on Risa, was quite the shock. Trying to convey that was fun as it is very different from all other characters I've ever played.
to recap my badly worded ramblings into somewhat coherent speak. to RP proper requires players fulfilling the roles of the characters they have dreamt up, and reacting to situations thrown at them in character, but there also needs to be a DM to make the world and help create the situations. the players can't do it all by themselves, although many a good one have tried and succeeded for quite some time at the cost of all their free time
Since I have no pen and paper background I had not thought of it in these terms, but I agree at least basically. I don't know that you always need a designated DM, but someone needs to periodically take up the role. the issue across games seems to be that it always falls to the same players to take this role and they burn out as you described. It's too much to try to manage everyone else's fun all the time without someone to stop and address if you are still having fun. It would be better if more people stood up to periodically take a stab at it and help out. But, as it stands, they are more likely to get chewed out for trying than helped and encouraged.
I just wish that back when there was really a hustle and bustle around here, that the game would have been developed a little more balanced around providing new and exciting things for the player base to do, with the side of things that let the GM team become more truer DMs as well as being given a little more free will to just spice up the world as they saw fit; without the complaints or fears of complaints that they'd be showing favoritism for certain players and "their RP stories" from the player base or fears that what ever actions they did would now be cannon and cause issues down the line when more of the backstory of the world was released officially. I wish the player base would have been more respectable to those that didn't want to be all super serious RP all the time, and instead just wanted to come try out the game and mine or fight monsters and whatnot.
Yeah, that stuff was unfortunate, but I see similar things across MMOs. It comes with having so many people that are not really invested in each other hanging around, players and staff really. I am blown away about how many RPers there are in STO but they are all too disjointed to come together to make a really outstanding RP community which is a shame since the developers are not completely adverse to making small accommodations. I just hope that PS doesn't get like that again, but I suspect that with any large influx of people those kinds of behaviors follow.
...If the rp is not fundamentally good, then this is like white washing a crumbled building or trying to polish a turd.(tm)
Ok, now we've covered polishing the turd. (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=41234.msg465854#msg465854) ;)
-
You got me on that one. I'll have to order some of those morsels.
... I'll just have to make sure its not a sarrasaur dropping.
:whistling:
-
Well you may be able to polish them but you can't make them anything less than what they are until several million years or what have you old. To be honest, a million years from now, even bad RPs may find worth and people may seek them out. Why? Who knows... proof that people in the past were crazy, proof of long desputed theories about RPing, some crazy guy with a lot of money just needed some lines of text to display on his wall? We will never know. ;D
-
Ha! People looking to tap into glorious "old school" RP.
-
More like prehistoric school as we are talking millions of years here. ;) They may just find a sarrasaurus if they dig hard enough.
-
I predict that before then, there will be a cataclysmic digital event that wipes out all data and hence, the vast majority of our knowledge of the past. It could be a severe NSA mishap, some freaky electromagnetic disturbance, or just a mere script kiddy who just wanted test out a new tool.
*shrugs*
Well.. it might make for an interesting story...
-
Or a really bad rewriting of history books. :(
Ok class, today we are going to learn about the Enkidukai. While we no longer know what become of them we still have some historical fragments of the folklore that they created to explain how they came to live here. In fact, folklore surrounding Talad and other early prehistoric gods are all that we have left of the other races that used to inhabit the planet with us.
-
xD
Whether it's accidental or deliberate is an entirely different story :)
-
Not really, it's the same story except one is offered on a pay to hear it basis and one story is given free and people are forced to sit and listen. ;)
-
Hard to imagine what things could be like a million years from now...
-
Oh it's simple. No one speaks your language anymore, everyone is convinced you were stupid because you lived so far back, and everyone thinks they are an expert on your because they've seen a few fragments of the stuff that remains from you. :P
-
Seriously... a million years is a long ass time. Just imagine how advanced people might be if they continued to advance... That is.. assuming we don't die of sheer stupidity or greed before then.
-
There are always setbacks where all the major civs die out and everyone has to rebuild. More than likely they wouldn't be terribly much farther than we are now. XD But maybe by then they won't know the moon people are actually distant relatives.
-
More than likely they wouldn't be terribly much farther than we are now.
Why do you say that?
-
Well, we aren't entirely sure that people didn't have things like simple computers in the past. I'm still curious what they were using batteries for even if they were simple clunky batteries. And look at what happened in europe during the dark ages. As advanced as people like the Romans and Greeks were, Europe lost a lot of ground. Not to mention the fall of civilizations lead to lost information as well. We still don't know how some structures were created with extreme precision since the cultures that built them are long gone and the ones that came after didn't have that tech.
All you'd have to do set back current society is take out our electronic systems or wipe societies out with several really bad natural disasters and then we get set ridiculously far back very quickly. In the course of a million years, the cycle of building, getting set back, and starting over has a lot of time to repeat. Given that humans don't learn as well as they ought it is likely it would happen a lot of times before anyone could successfully mount a working system to stop the cycle. If nothing else there are bound to be greedy business people in the future who make good and sure that doesn't happen so they can try to sell you stuff that will "help you survive".
I can easily see the future being entirely too close to our own time in key ways in a million years. >.>
-
Well, we aren't entirely sure that people didn't have things like simple computers in the past. I'm still curious what they were using batteries for even if they were simple clunky batteries.
o.O Eh... what do you know that I don't know?
And look at what happened in europe during the dark ages. As advanced as people like the Romans and Greeks were, Europe lost a lot of ground. Not to mention the fall of civilizations lead to lost information as well. We still don't know how some structures were created with extreme precision since the cultures that built them are long gone and the ones that came after didn't have that tech.
Yeah, par for the course. I would expect progress to follow a jagged line. Look at the bigger picture. 10,000 years or so ago, we were in the stone age, 100 years ago, the victorian era. Look at the bizarre progress that's been made in just the last 50 years or so.
All you'd have to do set back current society is take out our electronic systems or wipe societies out with several really bad natural disasters and then we get set ridiculously far back very quickly.
Hurricane Sandy was a bit of an eye opener for me. One week without power and the threat of no gasoline made me think of just this.
In the course of a million years, the cycle of building, getting set back, and starting over has a lot of time to repeat.
Yes, we could reduce ourselves to a sad dystopian society. Technology of the past could be mistaken for magic xD
Given that humans don't learn as well as they ought it is likely it would happen a lot of times before anyone could successfully mount a working system to stop the cycle.
Hmm?
If nothing else there are bound to be greedy business people in the future who make good and sure that doesn't happen so they can try to sell you stuff that will "help you survive".
This scares me. This is what I mean by, "If we don't die for stupidity or greed"
On a more positive note, We've come this far in maybe 10,000 or so years time? A million years is a hundred times longer than that. In a million years, mankind could be reduced to cave dweller status several times with plenty of time remaining to get things right and succeed. Also, just because the US dies of sheer stupidity does not necessarily mean that other continents will too.
-
They used to speculate that the Antikythera mechanism was an analog computer and the battery theory is supposedly still holding for the Baghdad batteries so far.
Humans should learn from their mistakes better than we do. We typically just keep repeating them over and over and over. Which means we'd likely continue the cycle of loosing civilization and whatnot over and over.
However, human stupidity is planet wide. Different issues will get different people but it brings down everyone eventually. ;)
-
Meh.. I'm a bit more optimistic about the future. If you look at the big picture, we are trending forwards and have been for quite some time. That's not to say that we will not crash and burn at some point. If I were to take a wild stab in the dark, I'd guess that in a million years, modern humans and present day humans might be about as different as a modern human versus a chimp or neanderthal.
Who knows... maybe one will find our DNA and bring us back from the dead just for shits and giggles. ;D
-
Who knows... maybe one will find our DNA and bring us back from the dead just for shits and giggles. ;D
And then promptly regret it. ;)
-
The Antikythera mechanism was an "astrological calculator".
The Baghdad Battery is more mysterious, but considering what it does, it isn't enough to postulate that past civilizations were as advanced as we are now.
It's likely that there were many inventions like these that have been lost to time. But due to a lack of communication, not many of these inventions would have a large enough impact to advance society to our level. The rarity of educated persons would have limited their use, as well.
Sory, my keyboard is having isues.
-
I was bored, so I decided to restore this photo of my old doggie. How'd I do?
Original (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/30504.png)
Restored (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/30505.png)
-
Well that's just it, we don't know exactly how far people developed tech, or how far around people were able to communicate. We have some concept of more recent cultures like Greeks, Romans and Egyptians but we have more intact records for them. There were cultures farther back that did some pretty amazing stuff and too much is lost for us to know how they did it. There is even a chance that they weren't as isolated from each other as people later were. Before the batteries and the mechanism there was no reason to believe that any of those cultures had advanced that far and finding those things doesn't mean we found the most advanced technology they had. If someone finds a telegraph machine a million years from now, that doesn't mean cell phones never existed.
But even in more recent times people often don't know how far people of other cultures got. I imagine most people have no idea who Zheng He is and the fact that he almost blew Christopher Columbus out the water for making it to the Americas... Petty emperor squashed that expedition though. :/ But he did make it as far as Africa on another expedition. What people know about the advances and achievements of people they have no connection to is typically very spotty.
But, yes, we have fabulous technology; yet, in many ways it is not allowed to affect society nearly as dramatically as it should. Yes we have the internet and can communicate around the world, but most people just use that to post cat pictures or argue with people in the comments section. That's not going to prove intelligence in the future if it even survives. Yes, we have advances in medical technology, but cures got blocked in favor of letting people stay sick so they have to pay for treatment. So when they examine the bones they are going to find a lot of people who could have been healthy but instead were diseased. True we can travel around the world, but that doesn't necessarily make people embrace and adopt elements other cultures any better. Which for all intents and purposes will make cultures look far more isolated than they were. A million years from now, the fact that you could Skype around the world could easily be lost with no trace of the infrastructure supporting it or the videos. Records and evidence can get lost at any point and the same thing could have already happened many times.
But I just have a hard time believing we invented being inquisitive and solving problems through advancements in knowledge within the last several centuries. If it occurred to us, chances are someone before us probably say something similar and had a similar idea whether they fully pulled it off or not.
I was bored, so I decided to restore this photo of my old doggie. How'd I do?
Original (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/30504.png)
Restored (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/30505.png)
Looks good.
-
The fact that technology would follow a bumpy path is no surprise. In the case of your machine thing there, it sounds like it was a nifty invention that just didn't take off. Perhaps there wasn't enough demand for it or someone to market it... *shrugs . I would call this a short lived spike - one of many.
To see where the trend is going, you need to step way back and ignore the little ripples, spikes and fluctuations and focus on the long term pattern. If you look at how things improved in the last 5 years, you might say that the word fell on its ass in many ways. Step back and look at the last 100 years, and you see a clear improvement.
What is deceptive about this is that you can't really predict where we will go based on the past. You can say that its likely that we'lll continue on our upward path, but we really don't know for sure.
-
While you can't predict the future, human natures does present challenges that tend to be consistent. But sometimes it's overcome.
-
There is no evidence that past civilizations were more advanced than us. There is evidence, however, that they were not.
To be honest, Illysia, it sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about. Your agenda is seeping through. Your modern cynicism, lack of appreciation for our recent advances, and willful ignorance is a plague to humanity. And it's not a new thing. This type of cynicism has been around since our beginning.
People are oblivious to all of the amazing things around them. Ignoring temporal continuity, I would not be able to exist even fifty years ago.
We would be advancing much quicker if people would stop entertaining ideas as fantasies and start thinking of them as possible realities.
-
I think we have a couple of key things going for us.
1. We are physically different than we were a million or so years ago. In the event of a knowledge wipe, I think we could rebuild what is lost a good bit faster than a primitive gorilla-like human would have.
2. Say there was some terrible cataclysmic event that wiped our ability to power our computers and things got so ugly that our language and ability to read was lost. We would still have structures standing and an abundance of processed materials. We wouldn't be discovering Fire, Bronze and Iron all over again. We would see these things and be at minimum that much closer to knowing that they exist. We could learn from what already exists and attempt to reverse engineer it - which I think would go a lot faster than the discovery process.
-
possible realities? you've seen the intenet right? you sure you want those things becoming possible. not to hate on any particular deviate group that make the internet their home, but are you sure you care to bring second life to real life?
a whole new meaning to a guy saying "shake that tail, gurl"
also, i like to refer to my buddy carl sagan and the subject of the future. http://youtu.be/K1NqBEWS8DA
-
Inventing a way to get along with each other and live comfortably would be nice.
-
Yes, we have advances in medical technology, but cures got blocked in favor of letting people stay sick so they have to pay for treatment.
Out of curiosity, is there a particular case that you know of where this happened?
-
Inventing a way to get along with each other and live comfortably would be nice.
Done. Next problem you need solved?
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/223/658/130021081692.png)
-
A warm place to shit?
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/223/656/Facehoof.jpg)
inb4
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/223/657/don%2527t_feed_the_parasprites-(n1294124668501).png)
:P
-
See it ain't all kittehs, its bronides too!
-
Muy funny Rirenil
-
i am in love with this little indie game and it's amazing soundtrack. http://www.electronicsuperjoy.com/
here's a taste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttX7Ui_eNmA
the music composer is a young kid whom you might remember from this overly popular vid when the skyrims were the big things http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js1H73QjXOo
he's had his music in a few other popular small time games as well. the track used above is the third level of "the impossible game", which is another little fun yet frustrating game i enjoy.
-
There is no evidence that past civilizations were more advanced than us. There is evidence, however, that they were not.
To be honest, Illysia, it sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about. Your agenda is seeping through. Your modern cynicism, lack of appreciation for our recent advances, and willful ignorance is a plague to humanity. And it's not a new thing. This type of cynicism has been around since our beginning.
People are oblivious to all of the amazing things around them. Ignoring temporal continuity, I would not be able to exist even fifty years ago.
We would be advancing much quicker if people would stop entertaining ideas as fantasies and start thinking of them as possible realities.
You say that anyone that disagrees with you knows nothing Sarras, nothing special. It's no more a lack of appreciation on my part say it is possible that people have always been capable than it is conceit on your part to assume that we couldn't possibly make huge leaps in understanding until the last hundred years or so. Believe what you will but I can guarantee I won't be setting up for a drawn out argument with you.
I think we have a couple of key things going for us.
1. We are physically different than we were a million or so years ago. In the event of a knowledge wipe, I think we could rebuild what is lost a good bit faster than a primitive gorilla-like human would have.
2. Say there was some terrible cataclysmic event that wiped our ability to power our computers and things got so ugly that our language and ability to read was lost. We would still have structures standing and an abundance of processed materials. We wouldn't be discovering Fire, Bronze and Iron all over again. We would see these things and be at minimum that much closer to knowing that they exist. We could learn from what already exists and attempt to reverse engineer it - which I think would go a lot faster than the discovery process.
Possibly with regards to Gorilla like people but there are advanced cultures that we have scant records on that were most definitely what we know of as humans and we simply don't have enough info to reverse engineer how they did what they did. We don't know everything from spotty records.
As for rebuilding from what is around, knowing helps but I don't think that the recovery process always works much faster than the initial discovery. Look at the Dark Ages. Some of the pre-dark ages structures still stand right now and the some of the information was intact the whole time in places around but outside of Europe. A cursory look into how long it took Romans to develop concrete seems to point to some centuries. Now fast forward a couple millenia, we are just now starting to reverse engineer the concretes that they made and we have scientists, historians, engineers, archaeologists, and modern infrastructure to put on the task. Quickly reverse engineering stuff is largely the work of TV shows that have 30 mins to keep you hooked, although being able to reverse engineer technology like in SG-1 would be awesome. However, if there was a cataclysmic event that took out reading too... yeah that would be a way longer, not impossible. But I think that would be a bit much to bounce back from in say a few centuries.
Not to mention look at people now. If people continue to be dependent on technology with little clue how it works that will get in the way. You can't ask the average person now to reverse engineer a phone even though they are in common use. If there was a bad enough event that took out the people that actually have the knowledge of the systems, it would take a long time to build up enough people with knowledge then there is the time they would need actually poking around rediscovering stuff. Overall, I think recovery is as unpredictable as discovery, but at the same time I just don't think it would happen in say a century or so unless only one area was hit that hard. For instance, after World War I Europe was torn up pretty bad, some places looked like there was nothing left, but about 100 years later it is still has first world countries.
Yes, we have advances in medical technology, but cures got blocked in favor of letting people stay sick so they have to pay for treatment.
Out of curiosity, is there a particular case that you know of where this happened?
The information source that stated this was years in my past so I will admit to not remembering details if that source even gave a specific incident. In doing a cursory look on the internet though it turns up fox news for that line of thought so I'll concede that it may or may not have any backing *cough*leaning towards not. However there does seem to be a little more solid evidence for pharmaceutical companies neglecting to develop or ignoring potential cures. Not sure, I am not looking to get into a night long research session here.
See it ain't all kittehs, its bronides too!
True, now imagine what someone with little to no context on the pony fad might think or how it could be interpreted when far removed from the time when it was current. ;) Toss in spotty availibility or relics or artifacts of other things and that could give people some strange ideas about these times. ;D
-
As for rebuilding from what is around, knowing helps but I don't think that the recovery process always works much faster than the initial discovery.
Scenario A:
People have never been exposed to metals so they have no clue that they exist or what use they are. They have absolutely no idea what an advantage such a material would give them. They have clumsy stone tools to work with.
Scenario B:
Scruffy Ted who survived the apocalypse is surrounded with things like 21st century goods, tools and materials. They are everywhere. He can take things from garbage dumps and abandoned stores and use them as opposed to digging with his fingers. He quickly learns that these materials exist and realizes how valuable they are through his use of them. When he is ready to try to figure out where they came from or how to make them, he will be starting his search with tools and materials made by a superior generation. This is a significant advantage. Also, if one day, someone figures out how to decipher English ( or whatever language was used locally ) and there are still books around, they will have access to a tremendous amount of knowledge that might have otherwise taken a few thousand years to amass.
Look at the Dark Ages. Some of the pre-dark ages structures still stand right now and the some of the information was intact the whole time in places around but outside of Europe. A cursory look into how long it took Romans to develop concrete seems to point to some centuries. Now fast forward a couple millenia, we are just now starting to reverse engineer the concretes that they made and we have scientists, historians, engineers, archaeologists, and modern infrastructure to put on the task.
I think we are far past this. With the materials and building technologies we have now, roman concrete and pyramid building specifics are not really needed. Yes, its a lost recipie just like great granda martha's fart producing fruit cake... oh well.
I'm not saying that people could just look at something and instantly know how to make one, but they would be starting out with an idea of what is possible and some tangible hints to go on. Looking at a busted open radio, you might see copper coils and start experimenting with them. You might see magnets and other curious things in there. With a coil and a magnet, you can create electricity. That's not to say that you will suddenly make a transmitter and receiver, but you would be well on your way.
However there does seem to be a little more solid evidence for pharmaceutical companies neglecting to develop or ignoring potential cures. Not sure, I am not looking to get into a night long research session here.
Pharmaceutical companies invest *tons* of cash and take financial risk in hopes of developing a profitable product. If there is no financial incentive in a particular medication or cure, then no, they are not going to bother. I think its one thing to turn down an unprofitable project but another to actually hold back the cure or deliberately release inferior derivatives of the cure.. xD
-
There is no evidence that past civilizations were more advanced than us. There is evidence, however, that they were not.
To be honest, Illysia, it sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about. Your agenda is seeping through. Your modern cynicism, lack of appreciation for our recent advances, and willful ignorance is a plague to humanity. And it's not a new thing. This type of cynicism has been around since our beginning.
People are oblivious to all of the amazing things around them. Ignoring temporal continuity, I would not be able to exist even fifty years ago.
We would be advancing much quicker if people would stop entertaining ideas as fantasies and start thinking of them as possible realities.
You say that anyone that disagrees with you knows nothing Sarras, nothing special. It's no more a lack of appreciation on my part say it is possible that people have always been capable than it is conceit on your part to assume that we couldn't possibly make huge leaps in understanding until the last hundred years or so. Believe what you will but I can guarantee I won't be setting up for a drawn out argument with you.
(http://i.imgur.com/N8WXLu9.jpg)
-
Love that pic, but I don't want to get involved in this little lover's quarrel <3
I think the advances that we are seeing lately ( last hundred years ) has far more to do with the compounding of knowledge than it does with humans beings being neurologically superior if that is where you were going, Illysia.
-
As for rebuilding from what is around, knowing helps but I don't think that the recovery process always works much faster than the initial discovery.
Scenario A:
People have never been exposed to metals so they have no clue that they exist or what use they are. They have absolutely no idea what an advantage such a material would give them. They have clumsy stone tools to work with.
Scenario B:
Scruffy Ted who survived the apocalypse is surrounded with things like 21st century goods, tools and materials. They are everywhere. He can take things from garbage dumps and abandoned stores and use them as opposed to digging with his fingers. He quickly learns that these materials exist and realizes how valuable they are through his use of them. When he is ready to try to figure out where they came from or how to make them, he will be starting his search with tools and materials made by a superior generation. This is a significant advantage. Also, if one day, someone figures out how to decipher English ( or whatever language was used locally ) and there are still books around, they will have access to a tremendous amount of knowledge that might have otherwise taken a few thousand years to amass.
Look at the Dark Ages. Some of the pre-dark ages structures still stand right now and the some of the information was intact the whole time in places around but outside of Europe. A cursory look into how long it took Romans to develop concrete seems to point to some centuries. Now fast forward a couple millenia, we are just now starting to reverse engineer the concretes that they made and we have scientists, historians, engineers, archaeologists, and modern infrastructure to put on the task.
I think we are far past this. With the materials and building technologies we have now, roman concrete and pyramid building specifics are not really needed. Yes, its a lost recipie just like great granda martha's fart producing fruit cake... oh well.
I'm not saying that people could just look at something and instantly know how to make one, but they would be starting out with an idea of what is possible and some tangible hints to go on. Looking at a busted open radio, you might see copper coils and start experimenting with them. You might see magnets and other curious things in there. With a coil and a magnet, you can create electricity. That's not to say that you will suddenly make a transmitter and receiver, but you would be well on your way.
But see, this is what I mean about Ted. So Ted saw some copper? Unless Ted has some knowledge intact, that it's not shiny string holding parts together, and he doesn't do something crazy with the copper wire experiment that makes him a candidate for that year's Darwin Award, it's just a guy with some really thin copper. There is nothing to say that Ted will inherently understand what makes that wire unique. See what you are describing is no different a process from starting a discovery from scratch. Having more materials only helps if you have more understanding as well; otherwise, you trial and error from square one or close to it just like someone discovering for the first time. The materials being more refined probably just means Ted will also have to spend time trying to figure out the refining process as well, but refining takes infrastructure that will bog down the time it takes to learn due to each part needing it's own intellectual exploration.
For instance, I can hand you a lump of pure sodium, you can see it and what not... but looking at it does not inherently tell you that the thing is going to blow up if it comes in contact with water. Nor does looking at it necessarily tell you that pure sodium is going to blow up like that but not many other silver colored metals you may find. It doesn't even tell you that Salt has sodium in it if you look at either. If some ancient person found a way to make pure sodium, they would go through the exact same process as someone that was handed the pure sodium outright. They might even be ahead since learning a refining process would likely teach them more than being handed a lump to work with. The only way to skip a few steps in the discovery process is to already know, but if you've lost the knowledge, you are back at the starting gates with the ones who haven't run the track at all yet.
I also stick out that many people have speculated and we have made advances based on their speculations, but often the people speculating had no examples whatsoever. When all is said and done, you can't really inherently peg recovery of knowledge or discovery of knowledge as being inherently faster. I just think that it is more likely that recovery will take longer as people haven't exactly been paying close attention to why and how things work. In a recovery situation, many, dare I say most, would be looking just as cluelessly at the inner workings of modern things as say an ancient person.
And as for losing recipes, it doesn't matter whether we need that particular discovery or not, although roman concrete that cured better underwater was still relevant. The overarching recovery process will be largely the same no matter what the technology is. There is method and the methods do not guarantee any faster learning because the are largely the same as the methods for discovery.
However there does seem to be a little more solid evidence for pharmaceutical companies neglecting to develop or ignoring potential cures. Not sure, I am not looking to get into a night long research session here.
Pharmaceutical companies invest *tons* of cash and take financial risk in hopes of developing a profitable product. If there is no financial incentive in a particular medication or cure, then no, they are not going to bother. I think its one thing to turn down an unprofitable project but another to actually hold back the cure or deliberately release inferior derivatives of the cure.. xD
Well, unprofitable is why some cures are not pursued since there not enough people with the issue to turn a decent profit. That's well known. But, I have mixed feelings about that. To the person who has the disease, profit margin is not as important as struggling to live. For the person that dies, no amount of money can bring them back even though a Pharamacuetical company can find other ways to get money to repair their profit margin.
But the suspected problem is not inferior derivatives, but rather keeping people on treatment as a steady source of income and sadly it does happen on smaller scales. I even caught a doctor doing it to me just recently and I was not happy. Once you cure a disease, you may get a big influx of money as medicine can often be marked up quite a bit, but once the person is cured, they don't need to make that expenditure twice. However, if people are under constant treatment, as soon as they stop taking the medicine they are right back where they started. They still need it so they will eventually have to find away to start paying for the medicine again. Now imagine you can pay a few hundred bucks upfront for a vaccine or cure once, or you can pay 20 bucks a month on treatment injections for years on end. That is what makes for profit medicine a bit worrisome at times.
Love that pic, but I don't want to get involved in this little lover's quarrel <3
I think the advances that we are seeing lately ( last hundred years ) has far more to do with the compounding of knowledge than it does with humans beings being neurologically superior if that is where you were going, Illysia.
She always posts a shaking her head and leaving gif and then hangs around to argue on something else, so I figure there isn't a big enough grain of salt to take it with.
I think it's a certain amount of chance that has lead to the major advances of recently, a well timed accident here or there allowing for breakthroughs that people could run with. Now that's not to say that people aren't making genuine discoveries, and there is probably some compounding as fields started to overlap, but I think it could have easily just passed us by for another century or so too. For instance, as soon as someone figures out a better battery technology will apparently have another spurt, but even with people working around the clock on it, we are making slow progress. But one needed accident later and we could have the new battery tech and then we just start making tons of advancements down that path. But no battery boon and we just keep plodding on not really making the dramatic progress.
-
On Ancient Roman Concrete:
http://www.history.com/news/the-secrets-of-ancient-roman-concrete
The question to ask here is: Is this pozzolan concrete exceptional because the Romans were so terribly clever, or is it just that theirs happened to be the best blend? I would imagine that they had no idea how long their blend would last - that they made it from what resources happened to be available to them.. but that's just speculation on my part.
-
I suspect that that they did in fact realize it but probably not initially. After all, you could have also made concrete from materials available in other places, they spread out pretty far, but it was the concrete made with certain local materials that were extensively used and those were in fact the ones that stood the test of time. But often, it's the cultures that were able to do precision cutting without power tools that tend to really catch people's attention with "how'd they do it?"
Although, they are starting to figure it out in some cases. The Greeks at least were able to wear down stone within fractions of a millimeter using a trick that involved a metal bar, being used on top of sand, getting dragged around the surface to wear it down a little bit at a time.
-
I suspect that that they did in fact realize it but probably not initially.
Are you really saying that you think that they knew that their concrete would last 2000+ years?!
How would they have known this?
-
the indigo children told them it would.
-
Well, unprofitable is why some cures are not pursued since there not enough people with the issue to turn a decent profit. That's well known. But, I have mixed feelings about that. To the person who has the disease, profit margin is not as important as struggling to live. For the person that dies, no amount of money can bring them back even though a Pharamacuetical company can find other ways to get money to repair their profit margin.
But the suspected problem is not inferior derivatives, but rather keeping people on treatment as a steady source of income and sadly it does happen on smaller scales. I even caught a doctor doing it to me just recently and I was not happy. Once you cure a disease, you may get a big influx of money as medicine can often be marked up quite a bit, but once the person is cured, they don't need to make that expenditure twice. However, if people are under constant treatment, as soon as they stop taking the medicine they are right back where they started. They still need it so they will eventually have to find away to start paying for the medicine again. Now imagine you can pay a few hundred bucks upfront for a vaccine or cure once, or you can pay 20 bucks a month on treatment injections for years on end. That is what makes for profit medicine a bit worrisome at times.
OH MY GOD.
LOLOLOLOL
I know a few of those people who are working on those cures. The reason we don't have them? SCIENCE IS HARD. Okay? These people who work in these positions, in research and pharmaceutical companies, do it because they want to help humanity. Many of them have friends and family who are afflicted by the diseases they are trying to cure. Unfortunately, it's hard to fight biology, so what we have now are treatments. That is the best we can do.
This is why I say you know nothing. You argue conspiracies and don't realize just how offensive your words are.
-
I suspect that that they did in fact realize it but probably not initially.
Are you really saying that you think that they knew that their concrete would last 2000+ years?!
How would they have known this?
2000 years no, but I do think they knew it was more durable than other forms of concrete they could make. That's why they used it over making the concrete from sources more local to their building projects. No one knows exactly how long anything will last, but the Roman's were not just dumb ancient people. People were still intelligent and observant even thousands of years ago. And I don't know why people now have such a vested interest in trying to categorize humans of the past as not possessing the same capabilities even if they didn't possess the same knowledge. They could have easily speculated on durability just like we do with out materials today.
-
pharmaceuticals will never cure a dis-ease. the only cure is preventative medicine. preventative medicine is a lifestyle choice.
-
I trust pharmacueticals can cure, but the problem is the structure of companies. Whether individuals go into the work to help people or not we are talking big companies that have profit margins to watch. The individual is only a part just like in any other kind of company. The people at the top can make harmful decisions and I think that is the place were you have to be on the look out.
-
And I don't know why people now have such a vested interest in trying to categorize humans of the past as not possessing the same capabilities even if they didn't possess the same knowledge.
I'm not sure who these people are. Do I think that people from 1 or 2 thousand years ago were neurologically inferior? No, I don't think people evolve that quickly, but then again that's not my field of expertise. As stated before, I really think the more recent advances have a lot more to do with the compounding of knowledge. My guess would by that advances in writing and an increase in literacy were probably responsible for much of this. That's just a guess.
They could have easily speculated on durability just like we do with out materials today.
Here's the thing. How many years does it take to make observations like that. If today's commercial concrete lasts about 50 years in marine use, then you would need a significant amount of time to see the effects of weathering. Sure you could say after 30 or 40 years, "Ah, its wearing.. lets try to improve it." But its going to be hard to predict the rate of change unless you have sufficient knowledge to calculate this.
-
And I don't know why people now have such a vested interest in trying to categorize humans of the past as not possessing the same capabilities even if they didn't possess the same knowledge.
I'm not sure who these people are. Do I think that people from 1 or 2 thousand years ago were neurologically inferior? No, I don't think people evolve that quickly, but then again that's not my field of expertise. As stated before, I really think the more recent advances have a lot more to do with the compounding of knowledge. My guess would by that advances in writing and an increase in literacy were probably responsible for much of this. That's just a guess.
They could have easily speculated on durability just like we do with out materials today.
Here's the thing. How many years does it take to make observations like that. If today's commercial concrete lasts about 50 years in marine use, then you would need a significant amount of time to see the effects of weathering. Sure you could say after 30 or 40 years, "Ah, its wearing.. lets try to improve it." But its going to be hard to predict the rate of change unless you have sufficient knowledge to calculate this.
I often have conversations with people about ancient people where they seem to have a notion that people before like the 1800s were practically doing good to have fire even though they know about things like the Coliseum and the Pyramids. Something I noticed in classes where we were expected to come up with technological solutions was that people kinda treat technology like it just happens with time. You go X amount of years in the future and newer better technology is there waiting for you and if you look back people couldn't possibly have had things we'd recognize as fairly advanced. They don't seem to keep a firm concept that technology is more a matter of the work being put in and the right knowledge coming to light at the right time. If the right knowledge comes to light, even people in the past can come up with some things we think of as modern.
in the past, like now, the primary knowledge of things like engineering and what passed for material science was still in the hands of a few. Those few people working on things then would have had compound knowledge as well, they just didn't have things like factories as we know them, as far as we know. All of these processes we use to advance are largely the same. As I have said before, we can't say for sure what they did and did know or did and did not have since we have incomplete records. But I do figure that if people would give them credit as thinking human beings, archaeologists wouldn't keep being surprised when they find out people made more advances than they previously thought.
And the Roman's had centuries to observe their concrete in action. They used it for a very long time. As far as our advances, most of them have been since the 1800s while the Romans had more centuries. If we are just going by observational time, they already have a jump on us in terms of being able to speculate. But formulas were not unknown to them, many formulas we have to learn in school came out of the classical period and when all is said and done, some kind of formula or another has always been the lifeblood of the engineer, even back then. Even in the past people could conceive of needing orderly and organized ways of keeping track of useful relationships which is all a formula is.
-
I trust pharmacueticals can cure, but the problem is the structure of companies. Whether individuals go into the work to help people or not we are talking big companies that have profit margins to watch. The individual is only a part just like in any other kind of company. The people at the top can make harmful decisions and I think that is the place were you have to be on the look out.
They make decisions based on profit. If there was a cure or a better treatment, they would certainly go for it. Remember that these companies compete against one another. If they were one big monopoly, then everyone would be suspicious. But that's not the case. The only reason these conspiracies exist are because 1) ignorant people love to fear and 2) money is involved. Unfortunately, nothing happens in this world unless there is enough funding for it. So the real conspiracy is in the nature of our species.
And regarding the intelligence debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Illysia, it seems like you are thinking of people in the past as a whole civilization. They were not. They were warring, disputing, and sometimes hardly surviving. Civilizations like the Roman Empire were only pieces in a large puzzle. Just as they took and improved on the discoveries of the civilizations before them, we now take their knowledge and improve upon it. The same might happen to us.
No one is saying that ancient humans were incapable of learning, but they were definitely not as knowledgeable as modern humans. Intelligence follows. If the average ancient human were to take an IQ test, he or she would probably score in the range of "mentally retarded".
Rigwyn, if you don't think evolution can occur in the span of 1 or 2 thousand years, I suggest you take a look at this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog)
-
Whether they are competing or not I still think that more vital resources like medicine need to be clear of profit since chasing profit often causes trouble. That is why people get worried.
The Flynn affect article says clearly from 1930 onward. It has not even been studied a full century and it's long been debated whether IQ tests are even useful for actually testing intelligence.
Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.
This straight from the article would also suggest that it is neither continuous nor an inherent increase.
IQ tests do measure acquired knowledge true, but the knowledge that people are required to learn changes. For instance, an 8th grader in the 1800s probably had a better grasp of English than your average college student now as English proficiency was a bigger deal then. But that is not a clear indicator of who is more intelligent. Or for instance, in the 1700s I think, knowing geometry was a big deal and it is something the learned people and mathematicians held in high regard. Now, you start learning that stuff as a child and most people don't bother to pay it much attention. The focus shifted making it an unreliable measure of intelligence. And you are in college know, you should have had plenty of time to observe that having knowledge does not mean for sure baing intelligent. There is a lot of knowledge on a college campus... and a lot of idiots as well.
Further, it's not that ancient civilizations were one and the same, but their warring and whatnot is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They were still humans capable of comparable rates of advancement even if they did in fact start with less knowledge. I still stick out that the right knowledge coming through at the right time would allow ancient people to develop things much more advanced that people give them credit for.
Take for instance the Saqqara Bird. There are theories that with a missing piece it could fly which would point the Ancient Egyptians have some concept of the principles of aviation, even though we have no clear records of them having anything like airplanes. Say it is definitively proven that they did understand aviation, imagine how shocked people would be. But if you give ancient people credit as being equally capable and advancement merely being a function of the right information at the right time, this would not be so jarring to one's view of the ancient Egyptians. We simply are not sure what they did and did not know for sure. We have incomplete records and no access to people from the time.
And as a side note, no evolution like you're thinking doesn't happen on the order of a thousand years. Dog breeds are specifically not examples of evolution. The difference in breeds are just phenotypic, that is appearance and behavioral. It makes them no different from each other or from wolves for that matter than differences in skin or eye color makes humans different. These are variations that were represented in the genes all along but certain traits were selectively breed to be more obvious. They are all still the same species and if you stop the selective breeding process, the differences will get lost as there is nothing to keep forcing them to stay distinct. Not to mention, I believe that the selective breeding process often creates dead ends due to over inbreeding and what not to force sets of traits to appear more prominently at the same time.
-
Regarding the bit about evolution, I'm going to shy away from that topic for now as I don't really know much about it. Perhaps when I've had some time to read up I'll return.
Something I noticed in classes where we were expected to come up with technological solutions was that people kinda treat technology like it just happens with time.
I don't think Volki and I ( or anyone else here ) are viewing intelligence/advancement as a mere linear function of time. That would be rather silly. We all know that growth happens unevenly and things are gained and lost with time. Also, such avdances are the combined work of a population - not one person.
I am getting a strong impression, Illysia, that you have a firm belief that people from long ago were smarter and more advanced than people today? At least, that appears to be where your points are leaning.
I want to make a few points here.
1. Today's buildings, vehicles and materials are solid, irrefutable proof of our state of advancement. These things will likely be here for thousands of years after we get wiped out by the next cataclysmic event or whatever. In the future, people will be able to look back, dig these things up and say, "Hey, these people were advanced enough to make x y and z." In the same way, when we look back in time, we simply do not see any great concentrations of stuff that would suggest that people were all that advanced. Ok, we have concrete, huge stone buildings and an astral clock or two. Those are nice, but they are absolutely NOTHING like what we have today.
2. Just because our society as a whole is greatly advanced does not mean that everybody is equally advanced. That's true both today and in the past. The Romans make awesome concrete... That says something about the squints who made it but not about every single person living back then. If you look at some of the dummies that you run into day by day who use the internet to share pictures of kittens and assume that people from ancient times were smarter because they had pyramids, Stonehenge and a Philosopher or two, then you are wrong. I'm sure those early civilizations had their share of folks who were as intelligent as the stone that shaped their lives.
-
Also, regarding the Flynn effect, its been a very long time since I visited that topic, but as I recall, it was an observation that people were scoring higher on IQ tests over time - defying the popular notion that this should NOT happen because people DON'T get smarter or whatever...
There are different reasons why this could happen. It could be due to changes in the test - which presumably would have been accounted for ( after correcting the test so that males score as high as females *cough* ), changes in education, the population sampled, perhaps even changes in diet or environment over time. Is it possible that those who are not as intelligent are failing to reproduce and as a result, we have a population with better brains? ( define that as you will ). I don't know.
-
No, what I believe is that they have equal intelligence and ability. They may or may not have been as advanced but they were not incapable of making such advancements given the same knowledge. Also, what we have as a knowledge base is not firm measure of intelligence. That is the point I made with the IQ test. Many intelligent people would not have done well on IQ tests, but it did not make them any less intelligent.
Also about solid irrefutable proof... no it's not. Things now can be lost just like the artifacts of ancient times were lost. Look at this.
Joplin, MI (http://columbian.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/croppedphotos/2011/05/24/Midwest_Storms.JPEG-06a4b_r770x495.jpg?e13abf78c5373145db895a72bc651d1d4e1d8b6f) and
A cities in Japan after the tsunami and the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366126/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Chilling-echoes-Hiroshimas-destruction.html)
Is that intact or is it a bunch of twisted stick and rubble? Now imagine an event like that happens and then people can't rebuild there for some reason. That rubble will deteriorate even more. Sites that underwent catastrophes like this without option to rebuild are often what we are pulling knowledge of ancient cultures from. At one time, what is ancient ruins for us, might have been an up and running, bustling city. A city whose people likely thought everything they knew was equally irrefutable and enduring too. This is why I say you don't know what was lost and you can't assume all the pertinent artifacts have already been unearthed. Even what we think of as permanent now can be made unrecognizable and wiped away. Because you are familiar with what we have now, you over estimate it's enduring qualities, but all it takes is enough time and issues passing over the land to bury, efface, or just outright destroy evidence of everything you knew.
And if both people then and now have people that are intelligent and those that are dumb as stone then it proves the very point I am actually making. We are equal, they were still people with mental faculties just like our own. But I'm not focusing on the individuals, I keep talking about the civilizations as whole and their achievements. The point of I have been trying to make is avoid assuming that ancient peoples were incapable of learning and using what they learn to make impressive achievements. Don't assume they couldn't possibly do X because you assume they couldn't have possibly known about Y. I keep stressing, stop assuming you know everything they knew based on what has been uncovered currently. Yes we see the Pyramids and stonehenge, but they didn't stop uncovering artifacts after that. People are constantly shocked to learn that people were more advanced than we thought because they keep making the mistake of assuming we have the whole picture even after each new shocking discovery.
And even aside from what isn't unearthed, how many people do you think have paid this any attention even though it was unearthed?
(http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7gpl2.jpg)
-
Do you think that folks who made the pyramids also had the technology to put communications satellites into space or to make computers like what we have today ( I'm not talking about gear driven clocks or lunar calendars ).
Cute golden spaceship, btw.
No, they were nowhere near this. To do so, they would have had to make advances in a number of other technologies. We would see some evidence of this mixed in with the rest of their crapola.
Is it possible that some prehistoric civilization could have had technology equal to ours but it all got flattened out and buried under the earth?
That's a huge stretch with no evidence whatsoever to support it. That's as far flung as saying that we should entertain the thought that the great flying spaghetti monster created the universe with his great noodley appendage. Here, both ideas are unsupported and thus belong in the same "unsupported ideas" drawer.
When we see huge globs of intelligent Spaghetti and meatballs floating though space and making things at will, then we can start to theorize about what other things he may have created in his spare time. ( And of course, we can start to argue the all important question - whether our mysterious overlord is male or female )
As for those nifty pics, I'm not saying that everything we made will last forever. Yes, over an ENORMOUS amount of time, our metal statues and sky scrapers will be worn to nothing by wind and rain. Yes, a planet may crash into the earth and turn it into a molten mess destroying everything... but to say that is to miss the point. Right now, there is so much evidence on earth of where mankind as advanced, its foolish to think that future generations would not be able to look back our remains and see the clear difference between our junk and say the Roman's junk.
Don't you watch CSI? You can't just destroy every trace of evidence.. there's always a goddamn pubic hair or some other seemingly innocuous iota of evidence that brings the big picture to the forefront ;D ( Don't read into this last line too deeply. Yes, there's some humor mixed in. )
-
No, they were nowhere near this. To do so, they would have had to make advances in a number of other technologies. We would see some evidence of this mixed in with the rest of their crapola.
Riggy, that was the exact point I just made in the previous post. No one has unearthed everything, unearthing something does not guarantee recognition of what it is and the significance it had, and no people won't just recognize the difference automatically. Archaeologiests disagree, fuss, argue, and change their minds about what they have found all the time. The little gold thing I posted has a million different theories floating around. Some say it's a plane, some say it's a bug, some say it's a bird. Some say it means precolumbian people also has some concept of aviation, some say it's just a nice decoration. For all we know it's proof of aliens or something like your spaghetti monster :P; but as I said earlier, just looking at something doesn't give you all the pertinent details and the records of what exactly it is are long lost. As a side note, to the people who made the thing it should have been painfully obvious what it was at the time, so your recognizing what you are looking at around you now does not magically transpose onto people in the future.
You say it is far fetched that we could be missing something that big, but less than 100 years ago it was mind blowing that he Egyptians built the pyramids without outside help. However, far fetched is relative to the amount of knowledge about a civilization that is currently uncovered and like I said, we do not have a FULL record of ANY ancient culture. 100 years ago, the structure DNA was unsupported, curing polio was unsupported, modern aviation was unsupported, mag lev trains were unsupported, the internet was unsupported, pluto was still a planet ;D, world wide communication was unsupported, space travel was unsupported, etc... So if someone were to only find artifacts from a hundred years or so and further back, it looks impossible that we eventually accomplished the things we eventually accomplished. It's a result of limited records both in the future and now. So did people walk on the moon in prehistoric times? I wouldn't bother to speculate that far. If was proven would I go to pieces shocked? No, I'd shrug say "That's awesome! how did they do it?"
I think people nowadays feel it diminishes current achievements if they weren't truly the first, a matter of ego, and that's why they resist so hard the notion of Ancient people being potentially more advanced than we suspected. But the truth is it doesn't matter. If we both accomplished then we simply both accomplished. Being first at it is just a petty distinction, the real import is in the achievement.
But we really don't have enough information to assume we know everything about the technological situation in ancient times, even if we are fairly confident. Assuming you know the whole situation is not the same as actually having solid backing for assumption. ;) For now all we can actually say definitively is that we don't know of anything that points to it. We can't actually rule things out. It's ruling things out that causes confusion when it gets proven that you couldn't rule something out.
As for those nifty pics, I'm not saying that everything we made will last forever. Yes, over an ENORMOUS amount of time, our metal statues and sky scrapers will be worn to nothing by wind and rain.
See that's the point of the pictures. It didn't take years. Each of those pictures took only one incident to scrape all the evidence down and over the course of a lot of time a lot of those kinds of events can take place. That which you are thinking would take a long time to become unrecognizable could suffer a severe hit right now and be unrecognizable long before time has a chance to touch it. Our artifacts, with the exception of maybe those plastics that don't degrade, are just as susceptible to being destroyed, and even the plastic can be lost and twisted beyond recognition. The plastic should be warped beyond recognition long in the future; it's just the basic material that is hard to destroy by natural processes.
Also, the further in time you get removed from something, the more distinctions get hard to place. A couple thousand years from now, archaeologists could easily have a hard time placing exactly the stuff from our time, the distinctions between decades are clear now but in the future with say a limited record it could look like more aesthetic differences between concurrent groups. Stuff will be in odd places, disfigured, poorly preserved, etc. Now would they be able to tell the difference in Modern Rome and Ancient Rome, likely yes but that is as much a matter of dating processes rather than just eyeballing the difference.
You can't predict what discoveries are made and what artifacts are unearthed over time. Really, the stuff you see as impossible now can in the future become laughably plausible.
And I'll have you know that this discussion is interfering with my daily game playing. :P
-
All I know is that you all should be thanking me and my kind and I also wonder why it took you all so long to figure out that we are the superior species. If you would just adopt your lives to be more like ours, just think of all the wonderful possibilities we could dream up. And don't worry, we'll have the dogs build whatever we think up. More time for us to nap, err think of more great ideas and discover further breakthroughs.
http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/news/2013/10/cats-may-be-key-human-hiv-vaccine#.Uky2hySUjCY
-
growing human T-cells with cat HIV virus bits... ::|
-
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/movotoblog/2013/07/Images/home-buying-gifs/4.gif)
-
This is the last time I go around on this merry go round.
No, they were nowhere near this. To do so, they would have had to make advances in a number of other technologies. We would see some evidence of this mixed in with the rest of their crapola.
Riggy, that was the exact point I just made in the previous post.
NO, you keep insisting that we would not recognize their crapola.
No one has unearthed everything, unearthing something does not guarantee recognition of what it is and the significance it had, and no people won't just recognize the difference automatically.
See? You did it again.
The little gold thing I posted has a million different theories floating around. Some say it's a plane, some say it's a bug, some say it's a bird. Some say it means precolumbian people also has some concept of aviation, some say it's just a nice decoration. For all we know it's proof of aliens or something like your spaghetti monster :P;
Having thought up something does not mean that you invented a working copy. Anyone could have made one of these things. In hindsight, it matches modern air planes and rockets. That's a coincidence.
but as I said earlier, just looking at something doesn't give you all the pertinent details and the records of what exactly it is are long lost.
That's not the point. By analyzing the material found, you can figure out what level of technology was needed to make it. We don't care if its a paper weight or a device for picking your nose.
You say it is far fetched that we could be missing something that big, but less than 100 years ago it was mind blowing that he Egyptians built the pyramids without outside help.
If you were on the aliens-helped-the-egyptions bandwagon ,then I'm sorry for you :)
100 years ago, the structure DNA was unsupported, curing polio was unsupported, modern aviation was unsupported, mag lev trains were unsupported, the internet was unsupported, pluto was still a planet ;D, world wide communication was unsupported, space travel was unsupported, etc... So if someone were to only find artifacts from a hundred years or so and further back, it looks impossible that we eventually accomplished the things we eventually accomplished.
Whoa, sister.. step on the brakes.
If I see that an ancient civilization made nanotubes, then I don't go assuming that they made a space-lift. What I DO infer is that they had the technology to make these nanotubes. I hypothesize about how they may have gotten to that point - not where the went afterwards.
I think people nowadays feel it diminishes current achievements if they weren't truly the first, a matter of ego, and that's why they resist so hard the notion of Ancient people being potentially more advanced than we suspected.
I'm not so sure I agree with this. Again, there's this idea of ancient people being brilliant and advanced popping up. Were they as capable as us? I don't know.. that's more of an evolution/biology question. I'm not saying yes or no. Did they achieve as much as us in terms of technological advancement? There is no evidence to support that notion.
But the truth is it doesn't matter. If we both accomplished then we simply both accomplished. Being first at it is just a petty distinction, the real import is in the achievement.
I'm not sure where this "being first" thing came from. I know I didn't introduce it.
But we really don't have enough information to assume we know everything about the technological situation in ancient times, even if we are fairly confident. Assuming you know the whole situation is not the same as actually having solid backing for assumption. ;)
Of course not.... ?! But that does not mean that we should fabricate some fanciful story for them either.
For now all we can actually say definitively is that we don't know of anything that points to it. We can't actually rule things out. It's ruling things out that causes confusion when it gets proven that you couldn't rule something out.
We can't rule anything out? Are you messing with me or are you being serious? No, you can't disprove imaginary things. Its not because they are real or because they *could be real*, its because there is nothing to disprove to begin with.
If someone told you not to flush your turds because they "could" be more valuable that gold, would you flush them or would you keep them arguing that you can't rule out the possibility that they might be worth more than gold?
Yes, there could be a planet in the distant universe where human turds are priceless, but the odds of that are staggeringly low. At some point, you need to cut it off and say this is close enough to zero for what I am doing.
As for those nifty pics, I'm not saying that everything we made will last forever. Yes, over an ENORMOUS amount of time, our metal statues and sky scrapers will be worn to nothing by wind and rain.
See that's the point of the pictures. It didn't take years. Each of those pictures took only one incident to scrape all the evidence down and over the course of a lot of time a lot of those kinds of events can take place.
Point completely missed. Refer back to why I said about analyzing the materials and determining what it would have taken to make them.
-
Ok, let me simplify since you keep seeing everything but the point I am actually trying to make.
It's not a matter of creating a fanciful story. I'm pointing out that your version has just as many holes as what you have misinterpreted as the point I've been trying to make. This is not an evolution issue, too short a time period, this is not to say that ancients have for sure matched us in technology, this is not about other irrelevant theories. None of that is what this about.
You keep focusing on me saying something like "they were more advanced than us or for sure as advanced" and I never said that so to argue that point is just avoiding the point I am making. If you are going to bother, at least address the point I am making not an interpretation or strawman of it. Let me make it clear:
Thesis: You cannot say that ancient cultures did not have advancements that we may offhand categorize as modern since we don't have a complete enough record to know what they for sure did and did not know and what they did and did not make.
Let me clarify further, to categorize something as a modern advancement does not mean it actually is something that could have only happened in modern times if it is just an assumption without proof that it was for sure impossible before now. Saying "we haven't found it" is useless as I have been saying the whole time. You lack enough information, artifacts, proof for that statement to carry any real weight.You talk as if we have a copy of every single thing they ever made which is the very point I keep making about incomplete records... I can't say it enough apparently. You can't pull data and understanding from thin air. It doesn't work like that and never has. If you don't have proof that it doesn't exists it is merely an inconclusive result the same as not having proof that it does exist.
-
Ok, I see your point.
I think I'm stuck on your definition of modern. What do YOU mean by modern?
You talk as if we have a copy of every single thing they ever made which is the very point I keep making about incomplete records...
I didn't mean to give that impression. I do realize that they would have things other than what has been discovered. To say that they had things that were reasonable for their level of technology is plausible, but to give any serious thought to say Romans or Aztecs having things that would require space-age technology is a major stretch and out of the ball park, as far as I am concerned. Possible perhaps, but highly unlikely.
You can't pull data and understanding from thin air. It doesn't work like that and never has.
My original point was not that you could just pick up a microchip and figure out what it was. My point was that in a post apocalyptic world, you would have a serious head start for reasons that are not worth explaining yet again. You would not just pick up where others left off, but you would have both tools and scavengeable resources to aid you on your way. You would also have many hints as to how to do things. One could look at an existing bridge and learn about how to make a good bridge as opposed to just taking wild guesses and seeing what works. I won't explain this part again. its dead.
-
I mean in modern in the since that it gets used colloquially. Things we have technologically now that people think can't/didn't exist before now. It is a nebulous concept because it varies from person to person. But nailing it down past the person by person definition is irrelevant for my point.
Like you said, advancement is zig zag so we can't predict the path ancient peoples for sure had to progress down without definitive proof one way or another. Which is why I say we can't just assume what they did and did not have. Also one thing I've learned from the fact that that they can make CDs out of corn, so they can degrade and not be around later btw, is that "space age tech" isn't the point. The important thing in terms of ancient advancement, and often modern advancement, is the understanding of the basic underpinings of say laws of physics or engineering.
And while you are right that people will see enough to rebuild right after a apocalyptic event, in the example you gave with Scruffy Ted it lends itself to much farther down the road context where those things won't help because the people existing are too far removed from the time when such things were understood. The point I was making there is if you are so far gone that even reading is lost, they are so far removed from the proper context that they might as well be reinventing from scratch.
I could show you some cool space gear but having an idea that it exists doesn't mean that figuring out how to duplicate it will be any faster than the process that made it in the first place. The baseline is the underlying knowledge, the key. History has shown that that can be gained and lost in wacky unpredictable patterns.
-
So what are you going to be for Halloween this year?
-
Not a thing. I will likely be sitting around trying to figure out how people get piece of food on their cat's heads. I do wonder that though. How do people get their cats to take that? I couldn't leave my cat's collar on his head like that.
-
Sillicone glue, perhaps?
-
Nah because the cat should still be twisting around like someone's yanking on it's spine if it were just glued on. Maybe that cat is stoned on catnip. In which case, they may be perfectly unaware of what is going on and/or in love with the world.
-
Whether they are competing or not I still think that more vital resources like medicine need to be clear of profit since chasing profit often causes trouble. That is why people get worried.
Too bad. I like having people not dead.
The Flynn affect article says clearly from 1930 onward. It has not even been studied a full century and it's long been debated whether IQ tests are even useful for actually testing intelligence.
Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.
This straight from the article would also suggest that it is neither continuous nor an inherent increase.
It was food for thought. I am never going to link you to "irrefutable" proof. That's nearly impossible. When I linked you this page, I was expecting you to think critically about it, not critique it. Think that intelligence flourishes in certain environments (which is an accepted theory). Environments like we have now, where we are not constantly worrying about our basic needs.
Also, I don't think you understood what you just quoted. It is basically saying that intelligence increases to a point, then levels off. If a developed country reaches its maximum intelligence, countries still in development will eventually catch up.
IQ tests do measure acquired knowledge...
They do not.
For instance, an 8th grader in the 1800s probably had a better grasp of English than your average college student now as English proficiency was a bigger deal then.
No.
Or for instance, in the 1700s I think, knowing geometry was a big deal and it is something the learned people and mathematicians held in high regard.
And here I'll explain why both of these statements are wrong. You are describing a small group of people. They were just beginning to explore education. It was nowhere near as rigorous and competitive as it is now. If you look back at the writings of the people from the 1800s, you will find spelling and grammatical errors everywhere. They did not adhere to a specific set of rules. Those rules didn't exist yet. Even some of the greatest men you know from history have writings filled with errors. Abraham Lincoln couldn't spell for ****, but nobody cares since he's Abraham Lincoln.
And as a side note, no evolution like you're thinking doesn't happen on the order of a thousand years. Dog breeds are specifically not examples of evolution. The difference in breeds are just phenotypic, that is appearance and behavioral. It makes them no different from each other or from wolves for that matter than differences in skin or eye color makes humans different. These are variations that were represented in the genes all along but certain traits were selectively breed to be more obvious. They are all still the same species and if you stop the selective breeding process, the differences will get lost as there is nothing to keep forcing them to stay distinct. Not to mention, I believe that the selective breeding process often creates dead ends due to over inbreeding and what not to force sets of traits to appear more prominently at the same time.
Sorry, but it is literally the definition of evolution. Even Charles Darwin thought that proving that all dogs came from one common ancestor was enough to back up his idea of evolution. And phenotype is a form of evolution. I don't know where you get the idea that evolution halts at "species". What do you even mean by "stop the selective breeding process"? The differences will be lost as this type of evolution is not natural. It is "artificial selection".
People are constantly shocked to learn that people were more advanced than we thought because they keep making the mistake of assuming we have the whole picture even after each new shocking discovery.
They're shocked because they haven't been paying attention. What I learned in school and in my own time, mostly reading mythologies and Greek history, led me to believe ancient people were very intelligent. In fact, one of my favorites was this short book on philosophers. (Probably because of the story with Pythagoras and the bean field.)
And even aside from what isn't unearthed, how many people do you think have paid this any attention even though it was unearthed?
(http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7gpl2.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ae55m.png)
-
Since you were just complaining at me about long posts Volki, does that mean I should ignore your post now since long posts are bad?
However, one a different note. Want want want... :woot:
(http://www.jared.com/images/products/0232/023205204_MV_TB_JAR.jpg) (http://www.jared.com/en/jaredstore/gemstones/diamond-flower-ring-1-10-ct-tw-round-cut-10k-rose-gold) (http://zales.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pZALE1-10616819t400.jpg) (http://www.zales.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11998629&ff=PAD&ff=Taxonomy&ff=PAD&fd=Metal+Type&fd=Taxonomy&fd=Rose&fv=Metal+Type%2FGold&fv=2109136&fv=Metal+Color%2FRose)
(http://zales.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pZALE1-6911099t400.jpg) (http://www.zales.com/product/index.jsp?productId=4343523&ff=PAD&ff=Taxonomy&ff=PAD&fd=Metal+Type&fd=Taxonomy&fd=Rose&fv=Metal+Type%2FGold&fv=2109136&fv=Metal+Color%2FRose) (http://zales.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pZALE1-10074828t400.jpg) (http://www.zales.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11669872&ff=PAD&ff=Taxonomy&ff=PAD&fd=Metal+Type&fd=Taxonomy&fd=Rose&fv=Metal+Type%2FGold&fv=2109136&fv=Metal+Color%2FRose)
(http://i2.jtv.com/loadimage.aspx?btype=.jpg&cgid=2898783&img=1&h=300&w=400) (http://www.jtv.com/stratify%28tm%29-2.24ctw-morganite-with-diamond-accent-18k-rg-over-sterling-silver-ring-eav-%24184.00/1257152.html) (http://i4.jtv.com/loadimage.aspx?btype=.jpg&cgid=2863495&img=1&h=300&w=400) (http://www.jtv.com/cor-de-rosa-morganite-2.40ctw-pear-shape-with-diamond-accent-round-10k-rose-gold-ring-erv-%24429.00/1214735.html)
(http://i5.jtv.com/loadimage.aspx?btype=.jpg&h=400&w=533&cgid=2934145&img=1) (http://www.jtv.com/stratify%28tm%29-1.75ctw-pink-morganite-%26-white-top-accent-18k-rg-over-sterling-silver-ring-erv-%24137.00/1344851.html) (http://static.nahoku.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/763447_1.jpg) (http://www.nahoku.com/collections/designer-collection/kabana/pink-mother-of-pearl-inlay/rose-gold-inlay-ring-with-diamonds-763447.html)
(http://www.diamondsinternational.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/320x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/3/9/3964422_zm_1.jpg) (http://www.diamondsinternational.com/kabana-pink-mother-of-pearl-diamond-bangle.html) (http://static.nahoku.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/13277_1.jpg) (http://www.nahoku.com/jewelry-type/rings/rose-gold-floating-plumeria-ring-13277.html)
The second to last one is actually a bangle though even though I was googling rings. >.> But that does explain the 13k price. X-/
-
Illysia, I went through the trouble of finally replying to you. I have been writing and typing all day. My wrists are sore. If you can't come up with anything, I will assume that upon seeing my amazing post, you brushed up on all of the relevant subjects and, once you realized you were wrong on every count, decided to pretend none of this ever happened. I would be alright with that. However, I do suggest that you edit the conspiracies out of your previous posts if you want to maintain any semblance of logical reasoning. Right now, they stand as monuments to irrationality.
-
I've been missing out on 46 pages of fun... granted, I only read the last few posts. Hm.
-
/me kneels in front of Illysia and opens a small box in front of her (https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4986489856/h5504C434/)
-
Ok, Volki I suppose I'll bite since you still think you know everything.
The for the Flynn affect to be relevant to the conversation where you brought it up it would have to be clear proof of increased intelligence over a large period and it doesn't even take a full reading of the article you proposed to see that there is some debate about that. Either way, the Flynn affect has only been studied since 1930. If you don't understand why generalizing something that recent over the course of thousands of years gets to stretching then I'm not going to bother.
Yes IQ test measure acquired knowledge, if you think people are born knowing certain words and how to do math on paper then you are still in no position to criticize anyone else's ability to work stuff out. I say still, because it doesn't change the state of that sentence whether you do or don't believe that.
Yes an eight grader in the 1800s had a better grasp. I didn't say the general populace so I'm not wrong you are arguing a irrelevant point, so debating with you is pointless as my point stands.
And no, evolution is not the change in hair color from one individual to another. It is the change in species over time as expressed gentically. Apparently, unlike you, I've had to study it specifically. You are wrong, Dogs are just selectively bred but without human intervention there is nothing to keep those breeds up because the change is superficial. You need to do some more research as I don't feel like trying to correct you on every wrong point when you just start talking without knowing what you are talking about.
/me kneels in front of Illysia and opens a small box in front of her (https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4986489856/h5504C434/)
I dislike you Mishka. >.> ...getting my hopes up and trollfacing me. :p
-
Ok, Volki I suppose I'll bite since you still think you know everything.
The reason I continue to learn is because I'm afraid I know too little.
The for the Flynn affect to be relevant to the conversation where you brought it up it would have to be clear proof of increased intelligence over a large period and it doesn't even take a full reading of the article you proposed to see that there is some debate about that. Either way, the Flynn affect has only been studied since 1930. If you don't understand why generalizing something that recent over the course of thousands of years gets to stretching then I'm not going to bother.
If you think that an effect that has been observed since the 1930s is not... I don't know... legitimate, then that must mean you don't trust half of the studies in existence. IQ tests were not around long before the Flynn effect was beginning to be observed. I should probably drop my criminology class since a running theme is "Statistics and reports have only been recorded since the 1950s, so the data must be read understanding that patterns may not continue in the same fashion." You can make some pretty good theories in the span of 60 years. We don't expect all of them to be true, but when one holds consistently no matter how many other variables there are, we can conclude that there's a good chance of correlation.
I am not saying there is proof, either. Proof is incredibly hard to come by. And if you were a true scientist, you would not be looking for proof anywhere but mathematics. Especially not in psychology or sociology. It is generally accepted by psychologists that intelligence may increase over time.
Yes IQ test measure acquired knowledge, if you think people are born knowing certain words and how to do math on paper then you are still in no position to criticize anyone else's ability to work stuff out.
IQ tests measure fluid and crystallized intelligence. Crystallized intelligence is misunderstood as acquired knowledge, but it's not exactly that. It's more the ability to retrieve knowledge and how much knowledge you have acquired, as I understand it. I have no idea what you mean by "born knowing" things. But if you believe that intelligence is acquired environmentally (like you should), then you can agree that it makes sense that future generations would be more intelligent than their ancestors.
Yes an eight grader in the 1800s had a better grasp.
Source?
And no, evolution is not the change in hair color from one individual to another. It is the change in species over time as expressed gentically. Apparently, unlike you, I've had to study it specifically. You are wrong, Dogs are just selectively bred but without human intervention there is nothing to keep those breeds up because the change is superficial. You need to do some more research as I don't feel like trying to correct you on every wrong point when you just start talking without knowing what you are talking about.
It sounds like whatever you were forced to study was completely wrong, or you simply did not understand it. A very lovely biologist who does not want to get involved in this debate gave me this link. Please read it.
http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/01/26/evolution-the-curious-case-of-dogs/
Edit:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/dog2.htm
She did not read the first article. Neither did I. (Well, we skimmed it.) The last one might be better. Just read both. :P
-
so, my little story, which i figured once upon a time, 4 years ago, that would only take a few posts to wrap up endings for the characters i and a few others played in game, continues to grow as it gets fleshed out. funny how that works.
at this point in the story, i'm at least getting back to events that actually occurred in game. not that there's really anyone left around that still plays to maybe remember them happening first hand. but hey, the way the tale is being told, i think that's actually more fitting.
anyways, there's my off topic random posting in this thread for the night. enjoy debating civilizations.
-
I found an interesting article touching on this.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091124-origin-of-species-150-darwin-human-evolution.html
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091124-origin-of-species-150-darwin-human-evolution.html)
-
Disclaimer: I'm unsympathetic. I guarantee you all I am far more sick of reading this post than you could ever be. I've read it and reread many many many times. :P But this needed to be addressed with details.
@Neko Rirenil: It will keep growing until you can never finish it. ;)
@Volki: I had some more to say about the rest of your post Volki, but I'll leave it at this: at least have the decency to not strawman what I said if you really insist on debating. I have no reason to debate your inventions on what I am saying and so far you are largely too focused on making up weird extrapolations to pay attention. Now, I'm going to focus on this dog thing for rest of the post and keep in mind that the length of this post is your fault. You started this.
Here's the rub with the dog breeds. Lets start with the basics.
Introduction:
People who say it takes a long time never disputed the rise of diversity. They are pointing out that diversity is too small a step to quantify it as evolution. Yeah, they say it plays a role, but don't stretch the concept too far. No one is debating whether dog breeds show different traits, but they will never truly be anything but the same species for ever more unless there is enough change to the genes. That takes time without directly tinkering in the genetic code. If the set of genes contain alleles for light brown fur and black fur, you have done nothing special by selectively breeding for the black trait as you never eliminated the brown trait from the genes. The brown trait may not be often expressed, but it is still a part of the series meaning no net change. You haven't done terribly much more evolutionarily than someone that just dyes their dog pink with food dye. This is why breeds can still have members that have traits other than the desired ones you didn't eliminate the other possibilities. Now here is one thing to consider on this topic, apparently some dog breeds have lost genes even though they are all still able to interbreed. Interbreeding is why they are considered one species, but there is an issue with how the dogs come to loose genes. I'll get to what's wrong with that loss and why it's not evolving dogs a little further down.
Let's work this through logically. Evolution is supposedly the process that lead to the rise of new species, and it is supposed to have done this by the passing on of useful genetic traits to the next generation which let them survive better than others of the species. Superficially selecting sets of preexisting traits without a sustainable genetic component goes against this model. Those dog breeds may not revert to wolves, but they can't pass on a self sustaining uniqueness; at best they still require deliberate human intervention. They and their descendants will always be the same species as wolves until you produce a large enough, again sustainable, change in genes which does not happen quickly without specifically tinkering in the genetic code. That is why scientists say evolution takes time. It's a heck of a lot more complex than selectively breeding in snoopy spots.
Now, that being said, this post took so long is because I decided to dig into dog genetics research--the things I do to make a point -_- --and what that means for breeding as evolution and here's what I got. First, I found that people like to dance around and state things but do not like to quickly get into the important info at the heart of the issue unless you look at scientific papers. This is frustrating since that meant several searches were less than informative. But I got somewhere eventually.
The Research:
Let's start with some defintions for reference. You can double check your own sources if you like or skip if you already know this stuff:
Polymorph: when two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species — in other words, the occurrence of more than one form or morph.
Phenotype: the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
Genotype: The entire set of genes in an organism.
Allele: An allele is an alternative form of a gene (one member of a pair) that is located at a specific position on a specific chromosome.
Genetic Bottleneck: In which the genetic variation within a population and the potential to adapt to a changing environment decrease.
Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1524871/)
Now you can find bits of specifics here and there, but here is a paper that actually gets some of the more useful information in one spot. There is a lot of stuff related to methods that someone in that field would better understand, but here's what I got out of it:
Dogs are in fact polymorphs of each other and the breeding that went into creating specific breeds produced a lot of differences in genes in the breeds; however, it also caused lost genes producing genetic bottlenecks by things such as inbreding. Further, the majority of the current dog breeds were not the products of the long history of humans breeding dogs but rather they were developed in the 19th century. This means that most dog breeds are a far more recent occurance than I was previously thinking. now one thing that I wish I understood better about this paper is what they mean by wide difference in genes. Do they mean the individual genes are different from each other or are the genes they found just in occuring in a variety of different partterns. I suspect it is the later and I suspect that if you understand the methods part better that you'll know what they mean clearly. Oh well.
These findings may indicate that most breeds were somewhat homogeneous prior to being officially recognized by a breed registry. Indeed, breed clubs have to demonstrate a well-documented history and a well-described conformation standard prior to recognition of their breed by a registry. However, forces such as founder effects and bottlenecks (as a result of popular sires, severe changes in population sizes, and intense phenotypic selection) will continue to contribute to a decrease in genetic diversity after registry recognition.
Now I believe what they mean by homogeneous here is with reference to allele occurance. But here we get into why I think dogs were said to not be evidence of evolution. Yes humans have forced selection here, but it's not producing viable genetic pathways, but rather genetic bottlenecks. You are reducing genetic diversity. As I said earlier, the whole evolution bit relies on passing on useful adaptive traits, but the introduction of these bottlenecks work directly against that. It drops genetic diversity. These breeds may allow for artifical preservation of weak genes, and are still dependent on Humans to maintain breed purity. This makes a bad case for dog breeds as an example of evolution, not even artifically aided evolution.
Now this of course begs the question, "is this really an issue?" and like it, "How common are genetic disorders in dogs?" So let's explore that. Here's a paper:
Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases 1995–2010) (http://animalbiology.ucdavis.edu/Accomplishments/Inherited%20disorders%20with%20dogs.pdf)
Wow... now this was an interesting paper and not at all what I was expecting. There is a really nice, neat summary of relevant info at the beginning but I'm going to pull some more than that too. But here is the nice and pretty of it:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of mixed-breed and purebred dogs with common genetic disorders.
DESIGN: Case-control study.
ANIMALS: 27,254 dogs with an inherited disorder.
PROCEDURES:
Electronic medical records were reviewed for 24 genetic disorders: hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, mast cell tumor, osteosarcoma, aortic stenosis, dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, mitral valve dysplasia, patent ductus arteriosus, ventricular septal defect, hyperadrenocorticism, hypoadrenocorticism, hypothyroidism, elbow dysplasia, hip dysplasia, intervertebral disk disease, patellar luxation, ruptured cranial cruciate ligament, atopy or allergic dermatitis, bloat, cataracts, epilepsy, lens luxation, and portosystemic shunt. For each disorder, healthy controls matched for age, body weight, and sex to each affected dog were identified.
RESULTS:
Genetic disorders differed in expression. No differences in expression of 13 genetic disorders were detected between purebred dogs and mixed-breed dogs (ie, hip dysplasia, hypo- and hyperadrenocorticism, cancers, lens luxation, and patellar luxation). Purebred dogs were more likely to have 10 genetic disorders, including dilated cardiomyopathy, elbow dysplasia, cataracts, and hypothyroidism. Mixed-breed dogs had a greater probability of ruptured cranial cruciate ligament.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE:
Prevalence of genetic disorders in both populations was related to the specific disorder. Recently derived breeds or those from similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain disorders that affect all closely related purebred dogs, whereas disorders with equal prevalence in the 2 populations suggested that those disorders represented more ancient mutations that are widely spread through the dog population. Results provided insight on how breeding practices may reduce prevalence of a disorder.
OK, so the conclusion tells the some of the story. Some of the disorders are more prevalent in certain purebreeds and related breeds, and some were found equally between purebreeds and mutts. Apparently the occurance of the issues in either mixed or purebreds depended on the condition. But I do find the combined amount of genetic disorder between the two unfortunate. It was roughly 30% of the dogs in the study; there were a little over 90,000 dogs' records checked. Quick note, if you want to understand the limitations in deciphering the data you can go read the discussion section of the paper.
Dogs are second only to humans in the number of hereditary diseases identified in the population.
A quick googling says roughly 350 genetic disorder for dogs. :/ Apparently with great diversity comes great diversity of problems. I'd say that this starts to answer the question of is it really an issue, but I will concede here that I do not know the relative prevalence of genetic issues in the animal kingdom.
It is likely that with breed refinement for specific tasks and morphology, some mutations accompanied selection for those traits. Rigorous selection pressures to refine the breeds by inbreeding and bottlenecks would contribute to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby increasing the likelihood of recessive disorders within a breed population.
This section was talking about proposed reasons why purebreds might be seen as more prone to disease, but what I wanted to point out here is that it specifically references inbreeding and genetic bottlenecks. Now we all know that dog breeds can be inbred but this is a clearer statement that breeding practices also produce genetic bottlenecks which could lead to increased occurrence of recessive genetic issues. That means that it is more likely that mom and dad dog are likely to have the genes for a disorder that could be prevented in the pup if only one parent had the gene for it. There were two citations in this section as well, didn't follow those either for the record. But it's those genetic bottlenecks that are noteworthy in this issue of dogs as evidence of artificial selection.
Of the 24 disorders assessed, 13 had no significant difference in the mean proportion of purebred and mixed-breed dogs with the disorder when matched for age, sex, and body weight (Table 2). ...
In contrast, 10 disorders were more prevalent in purebred dogs, compared with those found in mixed-breed dogs. ...
This is just a more specific breakdown of the findings, but I do find it sad that in 13 disorders, essentially both kinds of dogs were susceptible. Now there are a few reasons why this could be, but the paper kept coming back to common ancestors carrying the trait and small breed gene pools due to low amount of individuals to breed. Now bear with me here, if you have few individuals that fit an ideal you want for a breed, and you try to create a whole breed from them, that presents a potential problem with a low gene pool. With that scenario, you are setting up for a problem right from the beginning.
Disorders may be associated with breed derivation or with breed bottlenecks. Such an example is the Irish Wolfhound, a breed with relatively few dogs registered annually. In the mid-1800s, the Irish Wolfhound underwent a population bottleneck so severe that the breed was thought to be extinct. The reduced effective population size suggests a relationship with the concomitant increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy in Irish Wolfhounds. Indeed, as many as 1 in 3 Irish Wolfhounds may be affected with this disorder.
The disorders they are talking about in the first sentence are the ones associated with a purebreed. What this is saying is genetic bottleneck or a breed being related to a breed with this predisposition is likely the reason you can more or less expect this issue in that breed. Now if creating dog breeds is contributing decently to producing genetic bottlenecks, it's also increasing the risk of non useful or even outright harmful genes.
Conclusion:
Now let's just skip along to the point I want to make about dog breeding and evolution. Now if we take the definition of evolution I stated earlier: "passing on of useful genetic traits to the next generation which let them survive better than others of the species " not the colloquial definition of "its changed", and we compare this to the information in the two papers, and please feel free to go through the papers and make a counterpoint here, then the rise of dog breeds doesn't count.
One, the process by which we selectively breed for traits to make current dog breeds is actually contributing to genetic bottlenecks which run counter to the supposed process of evolution. No not every dog is broken hipped and having heart attacks, but these genetic disorders often seem to be connected to traits that we have been selectively breeding for in various dogs. Even in the last paper they speculated that some of the disorders found in both mutts and purebreds could come from a common ancestor and,
Perhaps the same desired traits that made dogs a favorable species for domestication were linked to alleles for hyperadrenocorticism, hypoadrenocorticism, cancers, hip dysplasia, lens luxation, and some cardiac disorders that were not found to be different between purebred and mixed-breed dogs.
Pointing to selective breeding possibly bringing along the genes for those disorders
Two, the genetics for the dog breeds we have seems to be questionably sustainable. Even if a dog breed is somewhat unique, it looks like the more you selectively breed for a trait the more risk you run of also trapping harmful genes in with the desirable trait due to things such as inbreeding, low population to begin with, and not checking the genetics of the starter dogs carefully enough. You accumulate enough harmful genes and you've shot that endeavor in the foot entirely.
Three, this process started with human intervention and it seems will require humans to stay on it to maintain it. Without humans to maintain pure breeds, dogs should just start to blend again. After all, for a dog, one mate is as good as another, so gains in isolating breed traits should start to fade without intervention. Breeding is also typically not done with trying to create an evolutionary pathway in mind, so more than likely breeding as we do it now shouldn't produce anything but more of the same species. Supposedly it's the environmental pressures that will shape that process of evolution, but we know that humans are artificially tampering with that environment. Humans skew the whole picking off less viable members by keeping dogs as pets, even some with severe genetic issues, and in some cases they breed dogs past a safe point in terms of producing genetically viable offspring.
All of this seems to work against standing definitions of evolution. Dog don't really count. They can't just due to how it's defined.
-
Congratulations! You just showed us plenty of evidence for why the breeding of dogs is considered evolution. I didn't have to say a thing this time. Thanks.
-
BTW interesting link Rigwyn. I especially like how the evolution is dead section ties in with points I was making in the above post. Not to mention, it proves that in science there are always at least two opposing sides to pretty much every issue. But I'll pass on the transhumanism thank you. ::|
Actually read Volki. Your skimming is why your links aren't very helpful to your point. At least try since you make such a fuss over needing someone to argue with.
... I went through the trouble of finally replying to you. I have been writing and typing all day. My wrists are sore. If you can't come up with anything, I will assume that upon seeing my amazing post, you brushed up on all of the relevant subjects and, once you realized you were wrong on every count, decided to pretend none of this ever happened...
Irony is sweet when it throws the other person's words back in their face.
-
I read all of your text. I'm too hungry to read your links. I have to eat.
What you're doing is like looking up at the sky, denying it is blue, explaining why it is blue, and then concluding, "It's not blue."
And Rigwyn's link does not tie in with your points at all. Don't pull him into this.
-
From Rigwyn's link"
Natural selection, as outlined in On the Origin of Species, occurs when a genetic mutation—say, resulting in a spine suited to upright walking—is passed down through generations, because it affords some benefit. Eventually the mutation becomes the norm.
The definition of evolution like I said
The human population will become more alike as races merge, he said, but "Darwin's machine has lost its power."
That's because natural selection—Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept—is being sidelined in humans, according to Jones.
The fittest will no longer spearhead evolutionary change, because, thanks to medical advances, the weakest also live on and pass down their genes.
Skewing the environment, especially to preserve the weaker individuals, messes with the process. Like I said.
Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, said Darwinian evolution "is happening on a very slow time scale now relative to other things that are leading to changes in the human condition"—cloning, genetic enhancement, robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, for starters.
Scientists say Darwinian evolution is slow... like I said. You have to directly tinker with the genetic code to speed it up like I said. But even with arguing on artificial selection... dogs don't cut the mustard here.
But if you want to prove your point, provide evidence that dog breeding is providing viable new evolutionary pathways.
-
You misunderstood practically everything in that article.
And I don't need to provide any evidence because you've provided it for me. You seem to think that evolution is inherently for the benefit of a species. You seem to believe that it is directed, but it is not. It is manipulated by the environment. It is considered adaptation, yes, but it is not orchestrated. It just happens because certain traits were "chosen" by the environment. In the case of dogs, humans manipulated evolution.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+theory+of+evolution
In the strange definition of evolution you hold, we haven't evolved since we became Homo sapiens. I do not understand how you can continue to deny a definition that is so widely accepted. Evolution ranges from domain to phenotype. How else do you think evolutionary changes occur?
I'm probably evolutionarily different from you. We probably have different hair, different skin tones, different skeletons, different... everything. Dogs are an example of how these differences came to be. When we look at each other, we see the result. But when we look at dogs, we see the transformation.
-
Ok, see here is the problem. You seem to be using the "it changed" definition of evolution and that is not going to work on a complex biological system. It's too simple. That definition works for your phone not an organism, but I'll get to that in a minute.
If there is no specific benefit aspect for the species then why would the trait be preferentially selected to the point of it becoming a hallmark of a species? If there is no concerted reason, like benefit, for the genetic herding then it should bounce around aimlessly not forming neat groups that we can use to tell creatures apart from each other. The only reason to preferentially choose big ears to the point of becoming common is because the one that hears farther gets off the scene faster leaving the little ears to get eaten. Otherwise, some might have big ears and another a long nose, one less foot, an extra eye. see what I'm getting here? Randomly chosen traits make no sense and even if they all got the same random trait it still doesn't explain the presence of enough preferential selection to allow the trait to take root and become fixed. Maybe a few get by with an extra foot, but that foot better be helping them or the ones that are better suited to the environment should have an advantage.
Adaptability is a main point of evolution. Now yes you could look at it as just changing because something around you changed. But if it is not changed to be better suited to the environment, beneficial change, what's the point? Why did it change if it was already sitting pretty or why was a maladaptive trait not weeded out? If it is a neutral change, what is the mechanism for making it spread through the species since there's nothing special about it? If it's just randomly mutating then there is high chance that there will be a bad or useless mutation and natural selection is supposedly going to root it out since it's supposed to prefer what is advantageous. But you can artificially select you say! Well, as I was saying with the dogs artificially selecting a species creates, at least in dogs, those lovely genetic bottlenecks which specifically reduce adaptability and could potentially lead to being genetic inviable. How are you going to get speciation, the forming of new species, like that? Speciation is a big deal since you know evolution is supposed to be there to explain how that happens. However, I will give you a break on plants since plants do seem to be a lot more receptive to such artificial measures than animals.
By the way, those definitions on that website are aren't going to cut it.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
The first one is how it is used in common speech, like in describing the evolution of computers. It's a loose definition that could be used to describe an ice cube as easily as an animal, and more importantly, it is not the biological definition. The second is overly simplified and lacking key elements. Your children will differ from you in morphological ways. Your son will differ from you physiologically as a male. That doesn't mean his state is an evolved state of your own. In the case of you and your son, your son is still human and he is only expressing the traits that were included in the human genome not a true change in species or even down that path. And if he in turn has a daughter who also differs from him physiologically and in morphological ways that is not evidence that evolution went backwards.
Further, describing hair color difference as evolutionary makes no sense. I have brown hair and you may have red, but I could have a gene for red hair too. Even if I don't it's still in the human genome even if it isn't expressed in me as an individual. That's not an evolutionary difference between us. Especially since the smallest group evolution is supposed to happen on is the population level, not the individual level. You are still human and so am I with much variance in appearance but not true difference, and there is all the evidence in the world to support this. Especially as race has been proven to have no biological based. The reason I bring up race is because culturally we typically define race by groups of phenotypic traits like skin, hair, slight changes in shape of body parts, ect. Biologically we are all human meaning presenting phenotype as a true difference doesn't make sense as genetically we are just human.
But lets get back to the dog thing. Yes, Humans manipulated the changes in dogs, but they are still the same species. Now species is a funky definition to make. Sometimes it feels almost as bad as trying to define life but here's a definition and notice it already has some more details than your free dictionary definitions.
According to the biological species concept, a species is defined as a group of organisms that are able to breed with one another to produce viable offspring that, in turn, can also produce viable offspring by interbreeding. Species can also be defined by how many traits organisms share, how many genes they share, or by common ancestry.
Came from here (https://www.boundless.com/biology/speciation/defining-a-species/definition-of-a-species/)
Now to artificial selection. Yes, people have played with the phenotype and they have even encouraged some genetic loss, but so far that path is leading down the build up of unhelpful genes not the potential path to a new species that will eventually be able to only breed within its own population. To give an example, lets think in terms of humans, say you have a human breeding program where you select preferentially for blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin and while you are executing this breeding program you increase the risk of these people having hemophillia. Now bear with me and ignore some of the blatant ethical issues because I want you to think in terms of humans so this stays familiar to you.
Now as you go on, you get a group of people who have blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin, and some have hemophilia. Did you make a change yes, but remember change alone can't be used as a definition of evolution. The ice cube changed from solid to liquid, it did not evolve from solid to liquid. These people are all still human. Now, this is your breeding stock. So you keep on your breeding program and to keep from getting variance you can only introduce people into the program that have the necessary requirements of blonde, blue eyes, pale. This limits your breeding pool but creates isolation, and that is supposedly one of the necessary tools for speciation but let's look at this.
Now you have an artificially isolated population; your breeding pool is limited. You have certain traits that you are breeding for, the hair eyes skin bit, but those aren't the only traits that are getting reproduced through the population. You've also got hemophillia and now you've also managed a cancer gene due to mutation. Now if you had a wider pool and you weren't artificially selecting, you might be able weed out the cancer and/or the hemophillia in time, but you don't have a wider pool, so you actually end up concentrating it. Or maybe you'd think, well just don't let the people who have those traits have kids, well that's still a problem. The more people you take out of the breeding pool, the smaller the gene pools becomes and the more likely you are to concentrate new genetic issues.
Well, you still continue your program but those genetic disorders are cutting into the participants who are in position to breed on their own but since you are artificially selecting, you are working to make sure that as many of them as possible can still breed. Those genes are getting passed on and you are deliberately inhibiting natural selection from intervening so you continue to concentrate less than helpful genes.
Now, I shouldn't have to continue the example for it to be clear that while you are affecting a change by limiting which traits get passed on, you are not creating new species nor are you going to anytime soon. They are human just like the rest, can interbred with the rest, and if they go on the future to mix in the general population that unique set of traits will blend into the whole and will no longer be expressed in their children to the exclusion of all other traits. All the efforts at change will be lost. Further, due to the small pool you are starting to accumulate other problematic genes which in high enough concentrations will actually start to either prevent the people from being able to live without severe intervention or will eventually render them unable to produce new generations. That's not sustainable.
Now to step back a moment, the issue here isn't actually people or dogs. But it's the process that is being explained as producing evolution in dogs. And I get it, if you google it a lot of places say dogs are examples of evolution. I saw that. But the issue is that this process is contradicting the definitions used to distinguish evolution from an ice cube melting simply because someone insists on using words loosely. Evolution is not just a change, a species is not just something that looks different. This is why we have definitions to try and keep from having concepts crash into each other like defining the changes in dogs as evolution when it doesn't properly fit into the rest of the framework. This process looks more like a controlled dead end than evolutionary anything. Which makes me worry more for dogs the longer we debate this. :-\
-
I only read a few paragraphs and skimmed the rest. I don't mean to be offensive, but you are repeating the same statements over and over and not really trying to understand the information I am providing you, or so it seems.
There is no point of evolution. There is literally ZERO effort going into it. It's just one of those things that happens.
A species adapts. Not the individual.
Further, describing hair color difference as evolutionary makes no sense. I have brown hair and you may have red, but I could have a gene for red hair too. Even if I don't it's still in the human genome even if it isn't expressed in me as an individual. That's not an evolutionary difference between us. Especially since the smallest group evolution is supposed to happen on is the population level, not the individual level.
Now, hold on. What? You just said that our differences are not evolutionary, then go on to say they... are? If we were sisters, what you just said would make sense. If everyone you were related to also had black hair, and everyone I was related to had red hair, I'd say that is a pretty good indication of an evolutionary difference.
What is your obsession with species? If you understand that it is hard to define species, then why are you using it as the one most important factor in determining the true definition of evolution? Here is the definition of evolution from my textbook:
evolution - Descent with modification; the idea that living species are descendants of ancestral species that were different from the present-day ones; also defined more narrowly as the change in the genetic composition of a population from generation to generation.
Genetic composition means genotype.
genotype - The genetic makeup, or set of alleles, of an organism.
allele - Any of the alternative versions of a gene that may produce distinguishable phenotypic effects.
People attempted to manipulate the phenotypes of dogs... They ended up manipulating the genotypes. Does that make sense to you?
This process looks more like a controlled dead end than evolutionary anything. Which makes me worry more for dogs the longer we debate this. :-\
wat
-
This is starting to become a thread where only Illysia and Sarras bicker about stuff that will catch off-guard everyone who hasn't been following it for a while.
Let's try something different: What do you do when you are bored?
I'll start: I make models, mostly WWII planes.
-
This is starting to become a thread where only Illysia and Sarras bicker about stuff that will catch off-guard everyone who hasn't been following it for a while.
Feel free to move on but I'm pretty sure this thread is often just me and someone else talking about stuff most people aren't really paying attention to or interested in.
I only read a few paragraphs and skimmed the rest. I don't mean to be offensive, but you are repeating the same statements over and over and not really trying to understand the information I am providing you, or so it seems.
How would you know that if you aren't really reading? Further, how do you defend a point based on a specific line of reasoning, if you using constantly changing lines of reasoning just to keep the other party entertained? It may or not be the same statements but that's because you failed to answer the issue at hand. Making a statement then moving on does not guarantee you gave a satisfactory or defendable answer.
Now like I said, skim again and we'll be right back in an endless loop, if you confuse evolution and change you can't distinguish between species change and an ice cube melting. That is a relevant point. Poor definition will leave the origin of species in the same definition as changing fashion. Pick any definition of evolution that you want but understand some are inadequate and useless for making your point. So choose your definition carefully. And there is no grand scale purpose to evolution, but there are several theories on the point of it. Passing on genes to keep a species thriving as a possible point so that line of thought is not useful for making your point.
Now, make up your mind. Part of why this is going in circles is because your explanations are contradicting. How am I supposed to "understand the information you are providing" when it is all over the place? How did the species adapt but not the individuals? The species are made up of individuals. If you have one or two with useful traits, that does the species no good... A genetic adaptation has to spread to enough members of the currently living population to hang around otherwise it can be there or not be there like a mole on your cheek. Species don't get traits by magic.
And why use species if it is hard to define? Because explaining why there are species is the whole reason there is a theory of evolution. If you have a problem with that take it up with Darwin. Many things in life are hard to define. Being hard to define does not make it irrelevant. It is far harder to define life but look how many branches of science we devote to it. Science is a learning process not a knowing everything process.
As for our differences, human have common ancestors so making a distinction between whether we are sisters is arbitrary. Humans are related enough. Now, looking at that that textbook definition, I'll accept that as a definition, and I'll go further and stick out it is inadequate or a major oversimplification of what they mean. By that definition, you are evolutionarily different from your parents, but that can't be as there isn't enough genetic difference to make divergence. 10,000 years from now your descendants will still be humans just the same as you meaning you couldn't have possibly had enough change in your genetic code. You have to make a break between evolution as the mechanism for making species and just slight changes that won't lead anywhere.
If you defined evolution as just the change between generations, even defining it as genetic change, then we are technically evolving each generation. But no, we have not evolved anytime recently. We are still humans and so are our children. But, the progress of human evolution topic is hotly debated. That's all the point this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091124-origin-of-species-150-darwin-human-evolution.html was making. There are 4 separate theories right there and one of them is definitely "not evolving."
Yes, people manipulated the genotype of dogs some and still got dogs. They will stay dogs, they are not going to lead to anything past making more dogs. There is not enough change in the genes to do anything but at best slowly kill dogs off by narrowing their genetic pool too much. Which is why I say the process of making specific breeds starts to worry me now. But there are ways to keep from dooming a breed to being inbred.
-
Yes, people manipulated the genotype of dogs some and still got dogs. They will stay dogs, they are not going to lead to anything past making more dogs.
They were wolves first. They're still wolves. Inbred, sure, but wolves nonetheless (still Canis lupus). Which makes me wonder how ironic is it that we use dogs to hunt wolves and protect us and our sheep from them.
-
Let's try something different: What do you do when you are bored?
I'll start: I make models, mostly WWII planes.
When I'm bored I: read, watch youtube such as MyMusic, MDK, dailygrace. Also, tumblr and other social media.
-
When I'm really bored, I decide to read even this thread ... ;D
-
I would like to congratulate illysia and volki for having the first
Intelligent discussion on the planeshift forums.
This friends, is a milestone.
I would love to read the rest of this and reply, but sadly I am
Just getting over a migraine that started yesterday. I can't think
Right now ...
Regardless of who's right or wrong, this is good stuff. Keep it up :)
-
I would like to congratulate illysia and volki for having the first
Intelligent discussion on the planeshift forums.
This friends, is a milestone.
;D There might be another serious discussion around here... somewhere. But this probably is one of the longest running arguments that didn't either start with debates over RP or end in debates over RP.
When I'm really bored, I decide to read even this thread ... ;D
When I'm bored I come read this forum. Sadly it eventually took over. I haven't played my games properly since this argument started. :/
-
I love how there are pages and pages of text arguing about the difference between evolution and natural selection.
For the record, dog breeding is evolution. The definition of evolution is a change in a population over time. Dog breeding is NOT natural selection. In fact it is artificial selection.
Natural selection is what causes evolution in nature. But "natural selection" and "evolution" are NOT the same thing.
-
Even making a distinction between natural selection and evolution, just using a change over time is like I was saying earlier. It's an over simplified definition for biological systems. We aren't talking about the latest iPhone, we talking about the Theory of Evolution.
Yes in a general sense it means change but its like the distinction between how the words weight and mass are used in physics and in general conversation. The refinement of definition is needed when you are talking scientifically because how it is used and thought of in general conversation is too loosely defined, poorly defined, or wrongly defined to be of use as a foundation for inquiry.
Evolution as a change in population over time is better definition than some, but technically aging is a change in a population over time. Do you see how over simplified definitions causes trouble in showing what is and is not an example?
-
Illysia. Just stop. I could argue against every single one of your points, but it hasn't worked before, so I'm not going to try again. You cannot win this argument. You may not realize it, but I do know more than you when it comes to this topic. That is the only reason I have continued to discuss it. I am trying to enlighten you. Unfortunately, as I have no "certificate" for my knowledge, and since I do not yet have the level of knowledge a graduate student would have, you refuse to believe me. Now, if Lilura could stop being lazy and teach an online class for you, that would be appreciated.
None of the links you have provided have helped your cause. And I am surprised that you have not yet realized that much of what you've tried to explain contradicts your repeated conclusion. No one else who has posted yet agrees with you. My professors would not agree with you. My textbook, if it gained sentience, would certainly not agree with you.
This may come as a surprise, but I do have a lot of patience. I often find myself teaching friends and acquaintances what I have learned over my lifetime. And I do enjoy learning and being taught in school and by my friends. I rarely ever run into someone who will argue with me. That is mostly because I never discuss topics I know nothing about, and I have a reputation for knowing too much. If I ever feel like information I have learned is faulty, then I immediately search for the correct information. If I feel like I may have misunderstood information, I will try harder to understand it. And if I found myself in your situation, where no one agreed with my understanding of a subject on a public forum, I would stop. I would probably then spend an entire month learning as much as possible about that subject.
The fact that you continue to argue against so much opposition worries me. I would say you are stubborn, but not in a good way, I'm afraid. There is a point at which stubbornness becomes a negative trait.
-
Feel what you want Volki. I'm not trying to change what you believe so much as point to the reasons I can't follow you down that conclusion. You could be a graduate student, the issue is not the paper you hold. Passively accepting something just because everyone else is willing to accept it is not inherently beneficial, that's called being a lemming. It's not that I'm not paying attention, I'm telling you all you are doing is throwing peanuts and expecting me to be happy just because you chose to accept it.
My main issue with this is that you have to have to leave loose defintions to shoehorn this concept in. I've already said several times why the definitions given are too open to be of use. The ice cube, the phone, your son... all those examples fit the definitions you gave. It's not my fault you didn't realize how loose those definitions were. And just blowing off that you can define it better doesn't make you right.
I'll accept the artificial selection, I accept that dog breeds represent a certain amount of genetic change. But, if biological evolution is a distinct thing that can be defined, then give it a unique definition that applies to it not everything synonymous with the word change. Most of the definitions given could apply to things we know for sure no one claims as evolution because the definitions are too loose. Now I know you have to start someplace and succinct definitions are nice, especially for quick conversations, but all continuing to provide loose definitions does is convince me that you don't have a better fitting definition and can't fit this dog breeding into the structure of evolution as a whole. You have to leave it loose, to shoehorn it in, because if you give a more specific definition it becomes clear it does not fit.
This is not about you or me, it's about foundations. If you are just defining evolution as change in a population, you leave it open for non examples. So quit dancing around initially issue and give it a clear, unique definition; it doesn't even have to be short, but it better be consistent.
-
/me thinks this discussion is completely bonkers.
Every Kran knows Talad created everything and things only change according to his will.
-
Except the Lemurs. :whistling:
-
You can't prove that!
Also, Talad created Laanx. time has no meaning for gods.
-
;D I think he might have to worry about Laanx trying to uncreate him.
-
Passively accepting something just because everyone else is willing to accept it is not inherently beneficial, that's called being a lemming. It's not that I'm not paying attention, I'm telling you all you are doing is throwing peanuts and expecting me to be happy just because you chose to accept it.
It is not passive acceptance. It is active acceptance. You can only accept a scientific theory by understanding it.
This is how scientific study works. If you cannot appreciate how it works, then you are irrelevant. We do not need someone who argues about a definition. We already understand how evolution works. You are barring yourself from the first step of scientific study, which is making an attempt to understand theories. You do not have to accept the theories, but you must accept the definitions. You may contest a theory, but you may not contest the definitions. If everyone shared your way of thinking, communication would be rendered useless. There would be no such thing as science.
And now I realize your mistake. You have thrust yourself into a debate over something you have not yet grasped even the basic principles of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
READ EVERY WORD.
-
READ EVERY WORD.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/223/686/132056471450.gif)
(a side note, I'm not "taking sides". I'm just here to have fun and write this damned story. which, btw, is "almost" complete now!)
-
From Rigwyn's link"
Natural selection, as outlined in On the Origin of Species, occurs when a genetic mutation—say, resulting in a spine suited to upright walking—is passed down through generations, because it affords some benefit. Eventually the mutation becomes the norm.
The definition of evolution like I said
The human population will become more alike as races merge, he said, but "Darwin's machine has lost its power."
That's because natural selection—Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept—is being sidelined in humans, according to Jones.
The fittest will no longer spearhead evolutionary change, because, thanks to medical advances, the weakest also live on and pass down their genes.
Skewing the environment, especially to preserve the weaker individuals, messes with the process. Like I said.
Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, said Darwinian evolution "is happening on a very slow time scale now relative to other things that are leading to changes in the human condition"—cloning, genetic enhancement, robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, for starters.
Scientists say Darwinian evolution is slow... like I said. You have to directly tinker with the genetic code to speed it up like I said. But even with arguing on artificial selection... dogs don't cut the mustard here.
But if you want to prove your point, provide evidence that dog breeding is providing viable new evolutionary pathways.
I don't have time to reread all this right now, but I think you cherry picked the article that I linked. The article also suggested that the demand for greater intelligence and greater resistance to disease could cause further evolution. While you might argue that advances in medicine, welfare and programs that cater to the less fortunate prevent evolution from occurring, this too could change rather rapidly. All it really takes is a few world leaders to adopt a "survival of the fittest" sort of policy.
As for whether or not the cultivating of a specific phenotype whether via natural or artificial means and subsequent sepciation (sp) counts as evolution or not, I would think yes. Enlighten me if I am wrong.
What is required for a change to be considered evolution? Is mutation specifically required? Is that the only requirement?
/me grumbles ... "All these goddamn pink ponies and unicorns... what is this world coming to!"
-
It is the end times. E.T. is coming home to clean up the cages of its pets, and we ain't them
-
/me grumbles ... "All these goddamn pink ponies and unicorns... what is this world coming to!"
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/223/652/F0xyJ.jpg)
also, heres my only contribution to your discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798
-
No more ponies. NO MORE
-
the krans posting as we type, so probably. yeah :(
Who's Online
Pages: [1] Show
User Time Action
Online Rirenil Masdo 09:15:46 PM Viewing the board index of PlaneShift.
Guest 09:15:45 PM Viewing the topic PlaneShift 0.5.9 release!!.
Online Illysia 09:15:23 PM Posting in The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread.
Online Venalan 09:14:29 PM Viewing unread topics since their last visit.
Guest 09:13:49 PM Registering for an account on the forum.
Online lilura 09:13:41 PM Posting in The "I'm Bored" Conversation Thread.
-
What is required for a change to be considered evolution? Is mutation specifically required? Is that the only requirement?
/me grumbles ... "All these goddamn pink ponies and unicorns... what is this world coming to!"
3 requirements of evolution via selection: variation, heritability and the differential survival and reproduction of variants
I'm trying to stay out of this discussion though it is fun for me to read when bored ...add it to my list of things that I do when Im bored
i like ponies
-
And as usual, Volki, you post links you yourself have not read fully. A habit you should get out of...
So let's look at what we got here.
Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
It says evolutionary processes gives rise to diversity not diversity is inherently evolution.
Now the variation section seems more useful here since it gets into the genotype and phenotype issue and I believe it makes a point that will apply to artificial selection too.
A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes.[58] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely
Question though, in making dog breeds did you you reach the point of fixation? Is a genetic bottleneck the same thing as fixing the alleles?
Despite the constant introduction of new variation through mutation and gene flow, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[68] However, even relatively small differences in genotype can lead to dramatic differences in phenotype: for example, chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.
And see here is what I was pointed at with the dogs. They show wide phenotypic difference yes, but they are still quite similar to each other in terms of genetics.
Now notice in this article, Artificial selection does not get to join natural selection in the mechanisms section. Those are supposed to be means by which evolution happens. Now you can think what you want about me sticking out that dogs don't count, but this article bumped the whole of artificial selection out of that party.
Ooh but lets move on to adaption.
Adaptation is the process that makes organisms better suited to their habitat. Also, the term adaptation may refer to a trait that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass. By using the term adaptation for the evolutionary process and adaptive trait for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished. Adaptations are produced by natural selection. The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky.
So you mean the individual does adapt, not just the species? :o And again... natural selection.
Ooh and there is a section on speciation but I won't bother quoting from it either as I don't think we have any outstanding issues on the species thing. However, nowhere in there does it say that speciation is tied up intrinsically with evolutionary process so I will concede that being able to make new species isn't a critical issue.
Lets see, the history part does not concern artificial selection nor dogs so lets skip on. Well again, there's the artificial selection as an application but it does not present it as evolution. While artificial selection is listed as an application of evolution, notice that most of the stuff talked about skips it entirely. Skipping on, there is nothing to bother quoting from the last section. However this article does have some links worth exploring some too.
Selective Breeding(Artificial Selection) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection)
Curious fact, the word evolution isn't even used once in the text of this article... Not once. ;)
Now it seems that Darwin was interested in using as an illustration in connection with what were his new theories but apparently he was just using as a point to consider since the evolution article did not list artificial selection as one of the points of his theory. So while it is a change, this looks more like it isn't even considered evolution on the wiki.
Modern Evolututionary Synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis)
- All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
- Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).
- Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
- The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
- Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
- In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
The modern evolutionary synthesis is a 20th-century union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution.
There are several points from posts past I could make but I'm tired and this is again messing with my game playing so I will leave it at this. Artificial selection didn't get a nod. Looks more like it's not just dogs that don't count. Next time volki, read your own link instead of assuming what it says.
@Rirenil: While I hate the new ponies with the passion of a jaded purists...>.> ...that was funny. However, while you are telling stories, why don't you tell exactly why you are finishing that story of yours now and who it is that you promised to post it for?
@Rigwyn: I picked out the stuff that I knew I had seen corroborated elsewhere look above.
-
Stories never end, only the tellers do. There is always more to the story than the teller tells. Just why DID that miscreant befoul the judges car in four sentences or less?
-
<3 lilura
-
*looks at Irishman*
Where have you been? I thought we might have to go looking for you. ;D
-
I been settling into school yo. Been workin dat knowledge, as it were. Also, playing Planeshift! JOIN US
-
No on PS, but gogogo on school. *\o/* *does the cheersquad routine*
-
And as usual, Volki, you post links you yourself have not read fully. A habit you should get out of...
I read these Wikipedia pages years ago. I do not need to read them again, especially when I already have a much deeper understanding of the subjects.
Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
It says evolutionary processes gives rise to diversity not diversity is inherently evolution.
Now you are twisting the meaning of something into an entirely different thing. No, sorry, but you are wrong. Evolution causes diversity. Diversity is caused by evolution. There is no way you can change the meaning of this, no matter how much you try.
Now the variation section seems more useful here since it gets into the genotype and phenotype issue and I believe it makes a point that will apply to artificial selection too.
A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes.[58] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely
Question though, in making dog breeds did you you reach the point of fixation? Is a genetic bottleneck the same thing as fixing the alleles?
You misunderstood this so badly I'm not even going to bother...
Despite the constant introduction of new variation through mutation and gene flow, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[68] However, even relatively small differences in genotype can lead to dramatic differences in phenotype: for example, chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.
And see here is what I was pointed at with the dogs. They show wide phenotypic difference yes, but they are still quite similar to each other in terms of genetics.
This is not what you pointed out. Not even close. They are not "quite similar" to each other in terms of genetics. Where did you get this idea? Do you even know what genomes are?
Adaptation is the process that makes organisms better suited to their habitat. Also, the term adaptation may refer to a trait that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass. By using the term adaptation for the evolutionary process and adaptive trait for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished. Adaptations are produced by natural selection. The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky.
So you mean the individual does adapt, not just the species? :o And again... natural selection.
Actually... The population adapts. The individual is the one that experiences the product. An entire species does not magically evolve at the same pace or the same way. And guess what. You just proved my point. ;)
Selective Breeding(Artificial Selection) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection)
Curious fact, the word evolution isn't even used once in the text of this article... Not once. ;)
How did you miss the big bold text that says "Evolutionary biology"? I'm blind. What is your excuse? And the authors didn't mention evolution because they assume anyone reading it would realize any type of selection is a process of evolution. It's even filed in the damn section for evolutionary biology... Good god, woman.
3 requirements of evolution via selection: variation, heritability and the differential survival and reproduction of variants
This, right here, is exactly what I am saying, Illysia. You are fixed on denying that the process of evolution is evolution. You accept that evolution is a theory, but you deny its definition. You ignore the fact that changes happen gradually. You assume that there is a concrete thing called evolution, of which only certain points in the process can qualify. However, no such points actually exist. Evolution is so slow and full of so many changing variables that you cannot look at one point in time and say, "Look! That's where we evolved." That is a completely incorrect understanding of the concept. What you can do, though, is look at an old specimen, an ancestor, and then look at yourself. Seeing the differences, you say, "Look! We have evolved from that organism." That would be a valid statement.
-
"Evolution causes diversity. Diversity is caused by evolution." does not imply "diversity is inherently evolution."
I could give you examples of diversity that do not touch on evolution in any way.
divers round objects: marbles; baseballs; coprolites; the sun; etc.
divers rectangular objects: a box; a table; a stamp; books; etc.
You two seem to be talking at each other rather than to each other. I believe that it comes from differing magnitude of semantic precision.
Oh look: it's Bender! (http://www.metroecuador.com.ec/foto-noticias-ecuador/2013/02/Bender.jpg)
-
I could give you examples of diversity that do not touch on evolution in any way.
divers round objects: marbles; baseballs; coprolites; the sun; etc.
divers rectangular objects: a box; a table; a stamp; books; etc.
(http://i.imgur.com/AtuzC.gif)
-
@Bilbous: No bilbous, it comes from her reinterpreting what I say so she can try lecture me on how wrong I am. She can't just accept it as is or she'll have to come off her high horse. Volki's ability to decipher english is just fine. She's hiding behind her little strawmen to avoid the irony that it wouldn't matter if she was wrong if she wasn't so convinced she knows everything and wasn't being obnoxious.
@Volki: Again you are refuting things I didn't say but it's not surprising because if you stop reinterpreting what I said you can't make your point.
Ok, I'll grant you getting worked up over the first one since I see where I may have been linguistically unclear. When I say diversity is not evolution, I am saying it is not the evolution process. It's the point I've been making for several posts now. I already explained, the point of contention is that you are playing loose with definitions. Diversity =/ evolution process. I'll take out the examples that were here since bilibous made the point already before I finished. But, if you'd get it straight that you need to start with working on your definition, it's too loose, you'd find your story doesn't hold as well as you think. Like I just said, the second you narrow that definition to something unique, it invalidates your argument. That's why you need it to be undefined so badly.
Now, second point you can't explain that second one because you don't have a counter explanation. Don't bluff, just admit you don't want to try and defend it. It is a valid question and one you apparently can't answer. If you weren't so arrogant I wouldn't hold it against you.
Now, if dogs are not similar genetically how are they interbreeding? That's basic Volki. Or do you think we can just stick any animals together and get offspring? Maybe I'll send you a camelopard one day. ;) I pointed out there was some variance yet they were still one species. "Most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species." the genome is the sum of possible genes. Breeds are differing by stuff like height and fur color. The one site said the difference in dog heights could be due to variance on a single gene. How does it constitute them being wildly different from each other if they share genes and the diversity is due to variation some of their genes? Dog breeds are not true species. Do we need to go back to the whole interbreeding argument again?
A species adapts. Not the individual.
Since the teeth are in the horse I'd say that horse had a direct relation to it as an individual. You can sort out what your statement means as this is what you said.
And selective breeding is a related field of course it was listed with the others. I keep telling you that you are making a mess of a definition and you seem to miss that point. I'm not debating whether it is considered relevant information I'm telling you that it is not the definition of evolution.
de·fine verb \di-ˈfīn\
: to explain the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)
: to show or describe (someone or something) clearly and completely
Maybe this will help in the future. The whole reason for focusing on the definition is because without one you got nothing.
This, right here, is exactly what I am saying, Illysia. You are fixed on denying that the process of evolution is evolution. You accept that evolution is a theory, but you deny its definition. You ignore the fact that changes happen gradually. You assume that there is a concrete thing called evolution, of which only certain points in the process can qualify. However, no such points actually exist.
Now when did I ignore that it was gradual when I told you at the very beginning it takes time and dog breeds are too recent? Just stop strawmaning what I say so you can pretend to step all over it. It must make you feel better but all it does it mudy up an already murky debate. If you can't keep track of what was said, check. Every post is sitting right there. If you can't be bothered to check, don't comment on it. Further, if it is not concrete, what are you going on about? How do you know what evolution is and isn't without defining it? This argument goes in circles partially because the only thing you have firmly in mind is trying to talk down to me. What you need to focus on is the discussion and what is actually said.
But wait... lets go back a step.
Modern Evolututionary Synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis)
- All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
- Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).
- Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
- The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
- Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
- In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
The modern evolutionary synthesis is a 20th-century union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution.
See that last quote... the widely accepted account. Think what you want of it, but that list is the definition of evolution, you simply weren't paying attention or you ignored it because your strawman won't fit over it. Last I checked there wasn't a footnote saying "but only if it is also approved by volki". They didn't ask you for permission to define it. So your point is invalid. There is your definition, accept it or don't but understand fussing about it not being defined is just talk.
Evolution is so slow and full of so many changing variables that you cannot look at one point in time and say, "Look! That's where we evolved." That is a completely incorrect understanding of the concept. What you can do, though, is look at an old specimen, an ancestor, and then look at yourself. Seeing the differences, you say, "Look! We have evolved from that organism." That would be a valid statement.
And what does this have to do with anything we have been discussing? You have your hands full just trying to keep track of what actually has been said, I would advise against pulling in random statements. No one is talking about what point, no one is talking about which organism... definition. Do try to focus. the last thing we need to do is to have to start a new argument on how to actually conduct an argument.
And while I do have points to make about lilu's statement, I'm going to leave her out of it because if I indulge you, she'll keep coming up. Goodness knows even I am sick of going round and round with you, I don't blame anyone else for steering clear of this.
-
I don't think it's more evolution, but mutations and adaptation to the environment. That's why there's blacks, asians, caucasians, etc... and why the neanderthals don't exist anymore. The fact the tribes in Borneo are shorter than scandinavians is due to a mutation in their genetics that makes them grow only to a certain height, because they don't need to be any bigger. This has to do with social bias: tall people could be seen like demons, or god, or for X reason they were shunned away or couldn't reproduce with their fellows. Same goes with the scandinavians: who says they weren't naturally or artificially selected, looking always for the strongest individuals? Let's remember the vikings were warmongers, and it's natural they chose the strong over the weak to become warriors, and soon they became the norm, outnumbering the "normal" individuals.
Survival of the fittest, lemme tell ya. That's not evolution. That's nature being scary.
-
Illysia, I did not reply to the thing you wrote about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because I did not want to embarrass you. (Now, I don't really care about embarrassing you, but I tire of repetitive tasks quickly, so don't expect a counter-argument.)
You make arguments personal, not me. I tried to help. You assumed I was belittling you. That is the entire reason you continued to argue this, I believe. My reason for continuing was because I was hoping I could teach you, or at least understand where you were coming from. Neither worked. And in my experience, that means you have an unsaid agenda. Which would, in this case, be to protect your ego.
Also, I'm too arrogant to entertain your "debate" any longer.
-
@Rirenil: While I hate the new ponies with the passion of a jaded purists...>.> ...that was funny. However, while you are telling stories, why don't you tell exactly why you are finishing that story of yours now and who it is that you promised to post it for?
that would give away the ending.
Stories never end, only the tellers do. There is always more to the story than the teller tells.
-
We could try to guess the details of the who and why of Neko's story exhibition but perhaps that would be rude. I have to admit I stopped reading it after the second new installment but I do not believe its purpose was to illuminate this particular rock-head. I think it would be a shame for it to end if it means that he will then go and return no more.
-
the who, has been pretty much given away already within the most recent bits from the name drops. you may play a guessing game if you so desire. it'll come out in the end anyways.
i can understand where you come from. krans aren't known for their intellect; course enkis aren't known to write much either. but my voice fails me, so i have taken up the quill and paper to chronicle the history of those we cared and lost. how do those lemurs state it? ah yes, i'm scratching tasks off from my bucket list.
-
Normally I don't like speaking my mind this bluntly but today is not Illy Tolerance Day.
@Volki: You spent more time using links you hadn't read, throwing insults instead of proper explanations, and brushing me off once you couldn't defend yourself any longer, than you did actually doing a defense of your position. You weren't enlightening anyone, you thought you were proving yourself more intelligent and in the end being full of crap, not just the argument, backed you into a corner. You weren't worried about embarrassing me since according to you it was happening already and you mocked when you thought you could get away with it. You can take that load of crap or complete imaginary tale, which ever you want to group it as, with you as well on your way out of the debate. You simply ran out of arguments, which can happen; when you are civil and know how to talk to people, it's no big deal as people will understand and will simply shrug.
But when you come up with stuff like this (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=41234.msg467177#msg467177)and then don't come through on it, it makes it harder to just let even happenstance slide. You swear you know more, but to say you can argue every point, you just resorted to stray statements or unrelated reinterpretations of what is said. That's called not knowing what you are talking about or simply not knowing enough. And by the way, this is how you make sure of what someone said, you go back and check.
You should have had the grace, after lecturing so much, to admit that you were wrong, you needed more time to form a clearer argument, clarify what you had already said, or just simply bow out until you can do some actual research. But instead you ran and you turn your back on the debate with the same blowing off that backed your arguments into a corner. Go ahead and go because I am definitely sick of arguing with you. I have nothing against the debate but I'm tired of trying to overlook your crap for the sake of trying to make points. But, as you go, don't act like you enlightened anyone or like you were trying to help a soul. There is no face to save here; you just need to head on until you can learn to communicate with people without being so obnoxious and maybe need to take your own advice on just stopping sooner.
Now, that being said.
@Rirenil: :/ Hmm... Now we have to guess.
*makes random guess*
Strawberry Lady? er... I mean Zorbels? Hmmm... Maybe I better go read more.
-
i am in love with this little indie game and it's amazing soundtrack. http://www.electronicsuperjoy.com/
here's a taste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttX7Ui_eNmA
the music composer is a young kid whom you might remember from this overly popular vid when the skyrims were the big things http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js1H73QjXOo
he's had his music in a few other popular small time games as well. the track used above is the third level of "the impossible game", which is another little fun yet frustrating game i enjoy.
Finally got to take a look at this. Funny, I was playing a game on the wii that was kinda similar called Bit.Trip Runner. I like your game better.
Regarding the post-apocolyptic disaster discussion that *evolved* ( ha ha .. couldn't resist ) into a less than credible lesson or perhaps "mutual verbal spanking" in evolution and whatnot, perhaps its a good time to seek a new topic. I feel the direction of the conversation has been lost. Lets not chase each other's tails for the sake of chasing tails. :)
/me opens a new can of worms.
What do y'all think about religion, mythology and humankind? Are there any positive or beneficial uses for religious and spiritual practices despite their questionable grounds in reality? Do the symbols, rituals and fictional beliefs found in various religions say something about who and what people are much as the story or fictional novel tends to give little hints about the writer him/her/kraself?
( For the lazy and weak in mind, this is a not a yes or no type of question. )
-
When you can perceive only 3(+1) of the postulated 11 (or more?) dimensions is it possible to be certain of anything you can perceive? Perhaps religions order our brainwaves in way that tap into aspects of the dimensions we cannot experience directly causing effects we cannot know.
-
This reminds me of Carl Sagan's talk about "Flatland". For those who have not seen the video, he discussed the problems of visualizing an extra dimension using a two dimensional world as an example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0)
-
certainly not original to either him or I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) *Wikipedia.
I just evolved the concept slightly :innocent:
-
Religion and politics are two topics I try to avoid at all cost on the internet, for the obvious reasons. While I have a thought on the subject, there is very little that isn't in some way controversial and I'm a bit tapped out for a while on controversy.
However, that is an interesting video Rigwyn. To build on Bilbous' statement, more like it is a shadow that shows a not completely accurate representation of something we don't have a true point of reference for. Thus when trying to quantify it in terms of our points of reference, the explanations can have varying levels of coherence, "proof", and interpretation... Yikes. o.o
-
Everypony knows that Celestia and her sister Luna make the Sun and Moon go round. you silly fillies and you're silly ways of thinking.
~~~
oh boy, i hit 10 "chapters". the things got a life of it's own! run for the hills. and yeah. it should be real obvious who "she" is now wit that last bit of story.
-
Ponies.... O.<
However, I told you it would keep growing and growing. :P
-
Normally I don't like speaking my mind this bluntly but today is not Illy Tolerance Day.
@Volki: You spent more time using links you hadn't read, throwing insults instead of proper explanations, and brushing me off once you couldn't defend yourself any longer, than you did actually doing a defense of your position. You weren't enlightening anyone, you thought you were proving yourself more intelligent and in the end being full of crap, not just the argument, backed you into a corner. You weren't worried about embarrassing me since according to you it was happening already and you mocked when you thought you could get away with it. You can take that load of crap or complete imaginary tale, which ever you want to group it as, with you as well on your way out of the debate. You simply ran out of arguments, which can happen; when you are civil and know how to talk to people, it's no big deal as people will understand and will simply shrug.
But when you come up with stuff like this (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=41234.msg467177#msg467177)and then don't come through on it, it makes it harder to just let even happenstance slide. You swear you know more, but to say you can argue every point, you just resorted to stray statements or unrelated reinterpretations of what is said. That's called not knowing what you are talking about or simply not knowing enough. And by the way, this is how you make sure of what someone said, you go back and check.
You should have had the grace, after lecturing so much, to admit that you were wrong, you needed more time to form a clearer argument, clarify what you had already said, or just simply bow out until you can do some actual research. But instead you ran and you turn your back on the debate with the same blowing off that backed your arguments into a corner. Go ahead and go because I am definitely sick of arguing with you. I have nothing against the debate but I'm tired of trying to overlook your crap for the sake of trying to make points. But, as you go, don't act like you enlightened anyone or like you were trying to help a soul. There is no face to save here; you just need to head on until you can learn to communicate with people without being so obnoxious and maybe need to take your own advice on just stopping sooner.
I have enough people backing me up, enough consensus that you are incorrect, and enough confidence in my knowledge and textbooks that I feel no need to continue this. This whole "debate", I have not experienced anger. Maybe some frustration and confusion regarding your behavior. But mostly amusement. You are the one with something to prove, not I.
Your outburst has been quoted for the future.
-
Maybe i should ask ven to keep deleting Rirenil's story post so he will stay longer :devil:
Also dear Rirenil, do you watch Friendship is Witchcraft as well?
-
Friendship is Witchcraft
You know... I did a double take when I saw that nestled in there. It actually took me a few moments to figure out why lilu used witchcraft there since I wasn't expecting it. And that is why you read carefully what it is written, so that you don't get whiplash from completing a phrase, or in this case title, in your mind and then your brain spazzes because it realizes something is wrong with that picture. ;)
-
Something important that certain people seem to be forgetting here... you know who you are
Writing more does not make you more right. A short, clear, concise argument is by far the most convincing.
Illysia, you are right that the primary point of contention lies in the definition of evolution being used. However, your definition is incorrect. It is too restrictive.
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." [Wikipedia page: Evolution] That is the scientific definition of the word. You can claim that it is too loose and that "evolution" should be limited to certain situations. That argument may have merit, but unfortunately you are not in charge of the English language and cannot redefine words to your liking.
Look at the Wikipedia article "Selective Breeding" again. On the right side, you will see that selective breeding is considered a branch of Evolutionary Biology.
In the case of dog breeding, artificial selection causes dogs with specific traits to be mated more frequently and dogs with undesirable traits not to mate. From an Evolutionary Biology standpoint this is identical to environmental pressures killing off individuals with undesirable traits. Yes, from an individual perspective being sterilized isn't the same as being killed, but when you consider successive generations it means the same thing: they don't pass on the undesirable traits to the next generation. Those that are selected to breed pass on their genes, and the next generation has a different genetic makeup tailored to the selected trait.
They show wide phenotypic difference yes, but they are still quite similar to each other in terms of genetics.
This doesn't make any sense. Changes in phenotype are caused directly by changes in genetics. The fact that the organisms are 99.99% the same is irrelevant. The 0.01% can still cause extreme differences in the ability to pass on traits, whether the selection is natural or artificial. If you don't believe me, here is a list of diseases in humans that can be caused by a SINGLE point mutation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation#Specific_diseases_caused_by_point_mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation#Specific_diseases_caused_by_point_mutations)
That's right. If just one base pair out of 3 billion is wrong, you can end up dead. Tiny genetic variations can still cause vast differences in evolutionary "fitness."
I just realized I'm not following my own advice. Oops... :whistling:
-
Also dear Rirenil, do you watch Friendship is Witchcraft as well?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/thebaronvonperrine/PS%20stuff/Subs/th_subs1_zps6ff9624e.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/thebaronvonperrine/media/PS%20stuff/Subs/subs1_zps6ff9624e.png.html) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/thebaronvonperrine/PS%20stuff/Subs/th_subs2_zpsa84630fb.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/thebaronvonperrine/media/PS%20stuff/Subs/subs2_zpsa84630fb.png.html) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/thebaronvonperrine/PS%20stuff/Subs/th_subs3_zps1f73753a.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/thebaronvonperrine/media/PS%20stuff/Subs/subs3_zps1f73753a.png.html) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/thebaronvonperrine/PS%20stuff/Subs/th_subs4_zpse6dbe2c8.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/thebaronvonperrine/media/PS%20stuff/Subs/subs4_zpse6dbe2c8.png.html) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/thebaronvonperrine/PS%20stuff/Subs/th_subs5_zps231398c4.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/thebaronvonperrine/media/PS%20stuff/Subs/subs5_zps231398c4.png.html)
I'm also considering adding a few more names to that list. I like watch the channels entire video history and I only add them if I've enjoyed at least most their work. It makes the boring nights go by until I can manage to fall asleep.
Maybe i should ask ven to keep deleting Rirenil's story post so he will stay longer :devil:
A global moderator without the power to properly do their job? What has this place devolved into? Oh wait, this statement should have gone in the "complaint" thread. ;)
-
dearest tman we are on to other subjects now ....like ponies and Rirenil's story and what ever riggy said.. :P
-
Tman's original point about post length is golden. When you write too much, you dilute your point. If you want to make a strong point, say it in a few words as possible and use bold and color to emphasize only the most important points.
-
"Make every word tell." E.B.White The Elements of Style. Color by RR.
-
That Carl Sagan video keeps bouncing around in my head. Some thoughts though. What if there are barriers to bringing "beings" from different dimensions into dimensions above their own? For instance, a true flatlander has difficulty existing in a 3 dimenional context because in 3 dimensions we can't truly lack height. What if going into the fourth dimension would means needing some quality that we lack. We could find some sort of way to represent 3 dimensions, but it wouldn't quite be the same, or maybe you just inherently gain some qualities just by transitioning. What if you can only go so many levels beyond your own or you would simply distort the original thing to the point of breaking it?
Also, little square gained what seemed to it like uncanny ability when lifted out of it's dimension. For instance, it could see inside of it's fellow flatlanders, and their buildings. Not to mention it would have perceived the "familiar" aspects differently. They would be used to dealing with each other edge on, but from above you could see all the sides at once and see edges as outlines instead. How would you make sense of sensing some kind of "all at once" quality? And do things like reading minds or seeing things that you aren't supposed to be able to see, just represent tapping into some sense from a higher perspective as it were? Something that would be perfectly normal if you were looking down as it were onto the 3 dimensional world?
And what happens if you metaphorically throw several squares in the air. It's the blind men and the elephant. Everyone preceived an aspect but no one got the whole picture and by the sound of it everyone described a completely contradictory animal. Yet, they were all grasping in a limited way the aspects of the whole creature even if they lacked the ability to tell how much of the whole that piece constituted. If all the squares are thrown out of flatland into a much larger and more complex context, who knows what they might all take away from it. But all of it will sound crazy as the squares will have to simplify descriptions in terms of what exist in flatland which will make for issues in coming up with a description. It wasn't flatland they got thrown up into. Then imagine that over time, the story gets repeated, distorted, and some outright fabrications get thrown in, and you've got a real mess. But that didn't mean that the initial squares did not in fact try and explain as accurately as possible something for which they had poor points of reference, and perhaps they didn't have exposure long enough to be able to recognize what points of reference they could use. Maybe they didn't see a sphere long enough to recognize it as a more complex form of circle, so imagine trying to explain it while also looking around for a point of reference while missing the best point of reference.
Then, the other dimensions are probably not physical as we typically perceive it as in three dimensions, we have to approximate even the more simple dimensions to represent them in out own. So for all we know, trying make sense of that other dimension in terms of 3 dimensional physical point of references would be the equivalent of trying to make sense of a whole universe of Escher stairs without any nice doorways to hide the process of how someone went between two seemingly unrelated points. You'd just see it happen and your brain would spazz.
-
Pithiness is my middle name.
-
I doubt, if there was a two-dimensional universe, that it would harbor life as we think of it. I do not believe it would be possible for us to exist within a two-dimensional universe and especially not a one-dimensional universe. And, as I've thought of it, I do not think that dimensions necessarily occupy universes of their own. There may have been a time in which our universe was one-dimensional (prior the Big Bang), then briefly two-dimensional, and finally three-dimensional.
I came up with that idea long ago, when I decided, "I'm going to solve the Big Bang!" It turns out that physicists have recently considered that possibility. It would be surprising if a kid was right about that, though. I also came up with a ton of other wacky ideas.
Running with the idea of a universe that changes dimensions, I wonder if it could be that some space anomalies, many of which we have witnessed, are sections of the universe that have reverted to the second and first dimensions. And perhaps there are sections of the universe that have advanced to the fourth.
-
A few interesting points...
1. If we entertain the idea of a 2 dimensional being for a moment, think about its sight. We see a warped 2d view of our 3d world. The depth we see is an illusion. If the flat guy has eyes, he would be only able to see 1d ( a single line left and right ). This is assuming that he could even see at all given that a 1d line has no thicknessl. As we understand things, this would effectively make him blind.
2. If our flat friend was blown into the air and flopped around like a sheet of paper, would it really gain a two dimensional picture of its habitat from above or would it still see this world as a very strange one dimensional line - assuming it *could* see a line? I think point 1 answers this.
3. As Volki already pointed out, life as we understand it could not exist in just two dimensions. Whatever life could exist in only two dimensions would be terribly inferior - or different. We would need to scrap the idea of cells, molecules and atoms as we understand them.
4. Might it be possible that 2d and 4d life forms might share our space without us knowing about it?
-
Well, if we have a warped view of 3D giving us an illusion of depth, then 2D would have similar with a line going right left and an illusion of back and forth. It should still have a sense of proximity meaning there would be some variance in it's field of vision.
Further if he doesn't get a 2 dimensional view of the 3D world, then he gets a far more confusing cross sectional view of the 3D world. Not being able to even perceive the elements of the 3D world as a whole will mean he won't even be able to see the relationships between elements.
True, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but since our context only applies to our context it shouldn't be surprising that other contexts have would their own constraints.
In terms of awareness, I think it is possible for other dimensions to be aware of each other but more than likely representations in a dimension other than your own would be slightly distorted meaning an incomplete or distorted view. But I think those from a higher dimension have an advantage as they likely have more of the means to perceive the beings in the lower dimension. What I mean is that 4 dimensions can account for 3 dimensions but 3 dimensions doesn't have an equivalent of the missing dimension.
-
I'm pretty sure that we can understand four-dimensional objects...
-
You can probably understand a "shadow" of the fourth, but think like in the the 2D model, you can't even perceive the whole so you are missing information. For instance, the tesseract, you can't just imagine it as it should exist in 4D space but you can make a 3D approximation.
-
I think arguing about what a person is capable of perceiving is kinda stepping in crap. Its one of those arguments that really goes nowhere quickly. There's no right or wrong here, just "i say yes", vs "you say no".
What do you think about determinism?
Are our future actions determined by the past as is the case with physical objects? Is choice and our ability to steer our lives a magnificent illusion? In making choices, steering and controlling our lives, are we defying physics?
-
I believe that choice is not an illusion but consequence is the key in shaping our view of our choices. When the consequences carry forward and grow it seems like choices are limited, but I don't think it actually changes your ability to steer your life, but rather it determines which decisions you will seriously consider and how hard a course change will be. You may just have to fight harder to change course when you want, it may take more time to change course, or you may have to stop and force yourself to consider options you don't like to get where you want to go, but I think you always have the ability to steer your life.
You know, let me put a caveat in there that it might depend on where you are and what culture you are in. You may be in a place where this is not the case, but you may have a choice to stay in that situation or to try to go to a context where you do have more control over your choices.
-
I think his question was meant more on a fundamental level. Of course on first glance everyone has "choices" all the time. Right now I can choose to post this comment, or I can choose to click the little red arrow at the top right and exit this window. The real question comes into play when we consider, what causes a person to make the choices they do? Or are the choices a person makes simply a function of that person's experiences and brain chemistry? Did I choose to click "Post" instead of "X" because I have free will, or was it just the chemicals in my brain telling my body what to do based on neural patterns.
The heart of the question is whether you believe in human consciousness beyond the physical body. Are we simply the sum of the chemicals and bonds that make up our bodies and brains? Or is there something more?
-
We know we are material. We do not know anything more. To accept that we are probably only material, but are certainly at least material, is not disappointing. The universe is exciting to learn about. There is meaning to be had with what we have. Our freedom is extremely limited but still exists.
-
I think his question was meant more on a fundamental level. Of course on first glance everyone has "choices" all the time. Right now I can choose to post this comment, or I can choose to click the little red arrow at the top right and exit this window. The real question comes into play when we consider, what causes a person to make the choices they do? Or are the choices a person makes simply a function of that person's experiences and brain chemistry? Did I choose to click "Post" instead of "X" because I have free will, or was it just the chemicals in my brain telling my body what to do based on neural patterns.
The heart of the question is whether you believe in human consciousness beyond the physical body. Are we simply the sum of the chemicals and bonds that make up our bodies and brains? Or is there something more?
Yes. How do we know that our conscious choices are not just a side effect of something that had to happen due to preexisting conditions. If I shoot a ball at a wall at a 45 degree angle, it will deflect at a mirrored angle. This can be repeated over and over again. The ball is compelled to move and has no choice.
There was an experiment done that showed that it was possible to indicate which choice a person would make a second or so before they were aware of making that choice. (See Readiness Potential (Bereitschaftspotential) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential)) This right here indicates that there is more to our choice making than what we are aware of, but it still does not prove whether we have the power to choose or if choice is an illusion.
There are a lot of interesting caveats to this topic.
For those unfamiliar, yes, this concept is counter-intuitive. You need to get past your "No, that's impossible" reaction in order to explore it :)
-
The concept isn't counter-intuitive. When this was first discovered, people were running on the assumption that there was no such thing as free will. In my opinion, that's an assumption that has tainted the field of psychology for too long. So, they looked for proof anywhere they could, and that study fit perfectly in line with their beliefs.
There is no proof anywhere in the results that conscious decision-making is an illusion. I've struggled to understand where this conclusion came from. The researchers went in believing they could measure consciousness, but I don't believe we are even capable of that just yet. Psychology as a hard science is lagging far behind. I think it is because people like to treat it as philosophy.
-
These questions have gone unanswered for thousands of years. It's clear that philosophy, mysticism and religion have answered weakly. Let science run its course. It has been mankind's greatest ally.
Study of the alleged supernatural is unreliable. Philosophy, however, is useful for wisdom. Thus attempting to prove our existence is useless. The answer is intuitive. Attempting to find peace of mind is noble.
In short: if it's not science, stick to what's practical when using philosophy.
-
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
― Socrates
-
The original name for what we now call science was "Natural Philosophy," aka the study of the physical world/universe. Note the key distinguishing feature between natural philosophy (read: science) and all other branches of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, etc.) is that it assumes nothing beyond what can be physically observed. Basically in layman's terms, science always begins with the assumption that nothing supernatural or metaphysical is taking place, and then asks the question "Ok, so how can we explain what we observe based on what is happening in the physical world?"
Therefore, since science by definition assumes a lack of metaphysical forces at play, it is impossible to use science to study anything metaphysical. Science cannot answer questions about the existence of a deity, free will, the soul, etc. because it specifically excludes them in its underlying assumptions.
Not to mention the fact that everything we observe about the world is biased simply by the fact that we are humans and our brains are designed to perceive things a certain way. But that's a whole other discussion.
-
Science can answer questions of consciousness, freedom, morality and meaning in actual life.
-
Did you read anything I just wrote?
You're thinking of philosophy. Science is but a small branch.
-
Therefore, since science by definition assumes a lack of metaphysical forces at play, it is impossible to use science to study anything metaphysical. Science cannot answer questions about the existence of a deity, free will, the soul, etc. because it specifically excludes them in its underlying assumptions.
While that is an interesting thought, I think it misses one point. What if our concept of what is natural simply needs to be expanded? I think one day science will catch up with and find ways to quantify less observable things like thought and consciousness. But, it will take more time to find the way to do so. For instance, the effects of magnetism were considered supernatural at once point. Now, it is well established section of basic physics. It is quantifiable just how a magnet can make things levitate with "nothing" under it.
-
Science can incorporate so much more than what you presume.
-
While that is an interesting thought, I think it misses one point. What if our concept of what is natural simply needs to be expanded? I think one day science will catch up with and find ways to quantify less observable things like thought and consciousness. But, it will take more time to find the way to do so. For instance, the effects of magnetism were considered supernatural at once point. Now, it is well established section of basic physics. It is quantifiable just how a magnet can make things levitate with "nothing" under it.
I see your point, and it's definitely interesting. What if, somewhere in the future, we discover that humans do have physical "souls" that can be measured and proven? Wouldn't that be a case of science proving something metaphysical or supernatural?
My point is that, no it wouldn't. Because once we discover something manifests itself in the physical world, it ceases to be a metaphysical phenomena, and therefore was just misclassified.
Some (over two thirds of the US, according to polls : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Belief_in_the_existence_of_a_god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Belief_in_the_existence_of_a_god)) believe that there exists a deity beyond our physical realm. What if, in the future, we discover that what we thought were acts of god were actually acts of super advanced alien technology? Does science prove theology? Not really, because they wouldn't be a "real god." There could always be another deity beyond even their realm of observation.
The best way I can explain it is this: Science relies on observable facts. If you cannot observe something, it isn't science. So let's consider the age old stoner's dilemma: "What if the colors I see are different from the colors you see?" I could see something green, know it's green. You could see the same exact object and perceive it the way I see red. But for you, that's green. It always has been green for you. You're used to it being green, even though it's how I perceive the color red.
The point is, without entering another person's consciousness, there is no way to know, because it is all subjective reality. Science can't answer it, because there's no way to test it.
-
I think of God as a being with a deeper fundamental understanding of the laws which govern our universe and the ability to affect them. It's kinda like flying. Flying is not a defiance of the law of gravity, it is working with other laws of physics that allow you to overcome gravity, but to someone without understanding of any of the laws, you are doing something you ought not be able to do.
But regarding what science can perceive, this is why the development of techniques and methods are important. My point was not science proving the metaphysical but rather the metaphysical possibly being an arbitrary classification that we invented. If we develop better methods and techniques we may find that that what we considered as being completely beyond our classifications was really just more complex examples of the same rules we had already come to know.
Further, Our individual interpretations of reality may be subjective but that does not mean that reality is completely subjective. I believe that reality is really quite aside from our perceptions, which are subjective, and if we can't make heads or tails of it that is just our problem as reality is what it is anyway. So, if there is a concrete reality, there is a possibility that we will find a way of getting at it, but it will depend on refining our methods so that they are less and less subjective. For instance, I may see your green as red, but regardless of what you or I see, the frequency of the reflected light of the object can be measured and will stay constant despite any perceptional issues on your or my part. Measuring the light took the subjectivity out of the equation even if we still see differently.
-
[Just want to point out off the bat that I'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm really enjoying this discussion.]
I agree with almost all of what you're saying, especially the part about subjective reality. I believe in objective reality. However, as humans we are incapable of perceiving absolute objective reality. How we understand the world is simply a mental construct, a model our brain makes in an effort to understand our sensations. Everything is put through the "filter" of human understanding.
An analogy would be like a computer. Computers, at their most basic level, understand nothing more than 0s and 1s. That's it. That's all they can handle. However, by building together streams of 0s and 1s and assigning them meaning in some way, we can get our computer to approximately represent complex things like images, videos, etc. It seems like anything can be represented in a computer, but that's just not true. Computers are actually finite state machines. It would be possible, given enough time, to go through every possible state your computer could possibly contain. So, your computer approximates these things, but there are a fundamentally limited number of concepts your computer can represent.
Sorry for the tangent, let's swing back to the previous discussion a bit. Does god have free will? I think of God as a being with a deeper fundamental understanding of the laws which govern our universe and the ability to affect them. It's kinda like flying. Flying is not a defiance of the law of gravity, it is working with other laws of physics that allow you to overcome gravity, but to someone without understanding of any of the laws, you are doing something you ought not be able to do.
The reasoning behind the question of humans having free will is that, if everything is bound by natural laws, then theoretically if you knew the laws that govern the universe and you were given the exact position and velocity of every particle in existence, you could potentially calculate exactly how every particle would act for all of history. So the question is, are our thoughts and actions our own choice, or simply predetermined by their previous state, going all the way back to the beginning of the universe?
Now if a god exists solely in our physical universe, but as a more advanced being, he/she/it is presumably subject to the same governing laws. Maybe he has found a way to bend or change laws that we thought were immutable. But, being solely in the observable physical universe, the way in which god does so must be bound by its own physical laws. So we see, are the actions of this super powerful being simply predetermined by its previous state, which in turn is determined by its previous state, all the way back to the beginning of the universe? Does god have free will?
You see, it's actually the same question as whether humans do. Is our consciousness purely a function of the physical laws of the universe and its initial state, or is there some other part of us not governed by physics? Science, by definition, cannot tell us the answer. Science can get us closer and closer to understanding the fundamental laws of the universe. But it can't answer any questions about what is beyond them.
-
I do not believe in a god, but I do not see why one could not exist. By this I mean, even if you could physically measure a god, taking it out of the metaphysical realm as tman said, one could still worship it as a god. Humans have been worshiped as gods before. If someone believes a super-advanced species of alien was a race of gods, revealing their true identities does not necessarily negate their labels as gods.
-
If someone believes a super-advanced species of alien was a race of gods, revealing their true identities does not necessarily negate their labels as gods.
Correct. But it DOES negate their labels as metaphysical. Meaning that the free will question applies equally to them as to us.
-
Science could test consciousness given time. The attempts by philosophers and theologians to claim their own space is increasingly more of a joke.
-
If you have ever tried to make a computer pick a random number without relying on a pre-made function to generate it for you, you run into an interesting problem. You see that there is no way to get a computer program to pick a *purely* random number.
The best we can do is to come close. When you look at a sample of random numbers generated by a computer, you'll find statistical anomolies in the numbers that it produces. Some numbers may occur more often than others, etc... This problem is not really that significant until you get into cryptography - where a computer's inability to generate good random numbers can lead to exploits that take advantage of this weakness.
When you step away from the computer and look for real life examples of how to generate random numbers, you see again that there are flaws.
When you flip a coin, the forces you put on the coin, the coin itself, the air and surface that it lands on all have properties that affect which way the coin will bounce and flop. We can't deliberatly make the coin bounce and land the same way each time since we don't have that much control over our body, but bias can be measured if you do a large number of flips - like a thousand or so.
The point here is that with physical things at least, there is no randomness. And randomness is an illusion. There is obscurity and complexity, but no randomness.
How then, can free will exist?
-
See, here is where an issue lays. I don't think it is inherently true that knowing all the factors necessarily negates probability and allows you to assume only one possible path. Things may happen with a certain range of possibility no matter how much you know. You might be able refine the probabilities to more exactly reflect what is going to happen. But I think someone would have to diliberately intervene to influence the outcome to make it one path only. However, there is a possibility that our limited understanding and control of various factors limits our ability to intervene to that extent meaning that even when we act there is still a some range of possibility.
To illustrate, you can flip a coin and it has the probability it has, but you could also catch the coin mid air and put it down on tails the whole time. I think with more understanding you will only refine the numbers for the probability and find something like it actually has a 70% chance of tails under these conditions, but probability will still be in play. I don't think you will ever refine it down to one possible outcome unless you deliberately influence the scenario which is represented by grabbing the coin and setting it down how you like. But that intervention still bypasses the fact that there were more possible outcomes under those circumstances.
Now about physical gods, if you have a god that exists in our universe like we do then they may be constrained similiarly. But, being a part of our universe is not the same as having the same limitations that we as humans have. We have an incomplete understanding of what is going on around us so we don't even know whether or not we can overcome things that currently constrain us as humans.
Further, the "physical" universe is only a part of the whole. If you mean the matter based universe then it is easily the smaller part of the universe. Energy seems to make up more of the universe, and we are still learning about it in the greater whole. So, there is this issue that you have to consider the concept of gods outside of the "physical" realm as we know, but not in some magical realm, just one we don't have enough information on. It's still a part of physics.
But, either way, I still think choice is not the result of mechanisms but rather is facilitated by the mechanisms. You din't go down the road because you had a car, the car allowed you to get down the road.
If someone believes a super-advanced species of alien was a race of gods, revealing their true identities does not necessarily negate their labels as gods.
I agree.
Now about randomness, assuming no randomness also assumes we already know everything there is about probability. If we had that level of understanding, I don't think scientists would still be working on probability experiments. Like I said earlier, we can only speculate now based on limited information. Limits in computing may simply been a limit we built in but will be overcome once the right new idea comes through, and limits in our own ability may be due more to how we think about it rather than a truly not random thing. Their may be a breakthrough one day that goes down a different path but opens new possibilities that give us more insight.
For instance, there was a point when Physicists had believed that there was nothing left to learn about physics, and apparently Newtonian physics hasn't been updated much since Newton's time. But Einstein came along and his work blew open a whole new sets of concepts which lead to new fields of physics. We might just need an Einstein for probability, or it might simply be that we will get new insight out of the newer branches of physics.
-
Rigwyn, What does free will have to do with randomness? We can't begin to question free will until we understand consciousness. Answering with analogies leads us nowhere.
Illysia, by physical universe I mean the one occupied by all kinds of matter and energy.
Edit: From what I've learned, nothing is random. In the grand scheme of things, some outcomes may appear random. But they really aren't. If you give me a die, I can roll it on a six almost 100% of the time. The times that I don't, I have not correctly accounted for the shape of the table or some other variable. When the die is in my hand, I can position it exactly the same way and roll it in exactly the same way. Everyone assumes I have a streak of good luck, but I'm just a cheater. ;) And they fall for it every time because a die roll is supposed to be random.
-
See, here is where an issue lays. I don't think it is inherently true that knowing all the factors necessarily negates probability and allows you to assume only one possible path. Things may happen with a certain range of possibility no matter how much you know.
This this worded funny. It reads as if the results are affected by being observed. I don't think that's what you meant. And no, were not talking about QM right now, so it doesn't apply ;)
You might be able refine the probabilities to more exactly reflect what is going to happen. But I think someone would have to diliberately intervene to influence the outcome to make it one path only. However, there is a possibility that our limited understanding and control of various factors limits our ability to intervene to that extent meaning that even when we act there is still a some range of possibility.
To illustrate, you can flip a coin and it has the probability it has, but you could also catch the coin mid air and put it down on tails the whole time. I think with more understanding you will only refine the numbers for the probability and find something like it actually has a 70% chance of tails under these conditions, but probability will still be in play. I don't think you will ever refine it down to one possible outcome unless you deliberately influence the scenario which is represented by grabbing the coin and setting it down how you like. But that intervention still bypasses the fact that there were more possible outcomes under those circumstances.
This might be a case of funny wording too, but I'll comment anyway.
I'm not talking about altering the experiment in order to come up with different results. I am saying that the reason why you fail to guess heads or tails when a coin is flipped is because you are not capable of measuring and calculating all the factors needed to determine how the coin will land. The coin is a victim of the toss and all the factors that it encounters until it comes to rest. Each and every phase of its transition is DICTATED and can be calculated by an observer - assuming that they have the capacity and ability to measure and perform the calculation.
The way the coin flips and lands has nothing to do with its probability of landing one way or the other.
Now about physical gods, if you have a god that exists in our universe like we do then they may be constrained similiarly. But, being a part of our universe is not the same as having the same limitations that we as humans have. We have an incomplete understanding of what is going on around us so we don't even know whether or not we can overcome things that currently constrain us as humans.
I think the point here is that idea of a god with free will flat out contradicts what we know about how things work. That's not to say that a god does not exist, but rather that the very idea of a god with free will does not make sense. The idea of me having free will does not make sense either, and I'm ok with that even though it doesn't make sense. ::| ;D
Further, the "physical" universe is only a part of the whole. If you mean the matter based universe then it is easily the smaller part of the universe. Energy seems to make up more of the universe, and we are still learning about it in the greater whole. So, there is this issue that you have to consider the concept of gods outside of the "physical" realm as we know, but not in some magical realm, just one we don't have enough information on. It's still a part of physics.
Ima ignore this thing about intangible gods that can't be described and whatnot. The hideous ghost in my closet could be described with similar words and also could be made from energy and dark matter and whatnot.
But, either way, I still think choice is not the result of mechanisms but rather is facilitated by the mechanisms. You din't go down the road because you had a car, the car allowed you to get down the road.
Here's the sticky part. At what point do things stop reacting to the forces that set them in motion? If an asteroid gets too close to a star and is sucked towards it due to gravity ( or curvature of spacetime or whatever you wish to call it ), Does it just do an about face and go the opposite way? Does it just disappear and reappear somewhere else? Does it just stop moving? No, moves according the forces acting up on it. There is NO deviating from this. This might as well be written in stone. This is what makes the concept of free will and randomness so alarming. [ "alarming" as a bad word.. I should say "contradictory" perhaps ]
Now about randomness, assuming no randomness also assumes we already know everything there is about probability. If we had that level of understanding, I don't think scientists would still be working on probability experiments.
We use probability as a shortcut. We estimate rather than making billions of measurements and calculations.
For instance, there was a point when Physicists had believed that there was nothing left to learn about physics, and apparently Newtonian physics hasn't been updated much since Newton's time.
Hence the name, Newtonian Physics *cough* ;D
But Einstein came along and his work blew open a whole new sets of concepts which lead to new fields of physics. We might just need an Einstein for probability, or it might simply be that we will get new insight out of the newer branches of physics.
You lost me there.
As for your question Volki, I worded my association between randomness and free will poorly. You are right, they are not the same. I should have said that if the world as we know it is deterministic, then how is free will possible as the ability to choose freely suggests that we can break this deterministic cause and effect cycle.
-
Free will is only contradictory if everything is already predetermined. I don't think the fact that everything is subject to various factors is definitive proof that everything in all aspects is for certain predetermined down one path. It simply means we can come closer to predicting accurate outcomes but there is still a chance that things will go different, even if by small chance. And no I don't mean different as in the complete opposite direction.
If you look at calculation, probability is multiplicative I believe. So each factor multiplies it's probability in order give you the total probability. 1 equals 100% certainty 0 equals 0% and each factor's probability is some decimal between the two. Now given as many factors as you want you will never get to 1 or zero meaning that there is no one certain path even if you factor in 5 million or more issues.
Going with probability as a proxy, even with everything being subject to forces around it, there is still a chance that the probability approximation is right and things will have more than one path option. The forces directly involved bring with them other factors acting on them that must be taken into account. Complex calculations don't necessarily equal a predetermined, singular outcome, especially in dynamic systems.
But, here's something to think about, the energy levels of electrons. While they say that the electron will raise to a different level by accepting energy, which is all fine and good, when talking about dropping a level they say it happens spontaneously. Basically the election emits energy and drops down in level, but there is supposedly no prompt for why it released the energy at that time. Now, I don't think I fully agree, but it is something to think about. If there really are things that happen without particular cause, I dare say there is a case that there must be some kind of random out there. In fact, maybe it's the reason the stuff closer to what we deal with in day to day life could have a measure of variability. Something underlying the more obvious factors may be contributing it.
Now, A god without free will contradicts all traditional notion and quite a few non traditional notions. But like I said above, there is only no free will if everything is already forever more predetermined.
Do you mean you are going to ignore the statement or ignore the intangible? You can ignore the intangible if you want but that is not the same as it is irrelevant. If you have some energy thing in your closet and it is able to interact matter, you have a problem in your closet regardless of what label you slap on it. :sweatdrop:
-
Quick question. Do do you believe that the universe is deterministic or indeterministic?
-
The universe as we know it thus far is deterministic.
Free will is only contradictory if everything is already predetermined.
Things may in fact be predetermined - rendering free will either an illusion or a flawed concept. Try not to be biased by the consequences and ramifications.
I don't think the fact that everything is subject to various factors is definitive proof that everything in all aspects is for certain predetermined down one path. It simply means we can come closer to predicting accurate outcomes but there is still a chance that things will go different, even if by small chance. And no I don't mean different as in the complete opposite direction.
How could something possibly "go different" ? This is what is missing.
If you look at calculation, probability is multiplicative I believe. So each factor multiplies it's probability in order give you the total probability. 1 equals 100% certainty 0 equals 0% and each factor's probability is some decimal between the two. Now given as many factors as you want you will never get to 1 or zero meaning that there is no one certain path even if you factor in 5 million or more issues.
Probability is not what drives the world. Probability is a tool people have made for making accurate guesses.
Going with probability as a proxy, even with everything being subject to forces around it, there is still a chance that the probability approximation is right and things will have more than one path option.
No... this is not how things work. There is no gambler riding atop each subatomic particle rolling dice to decide which way the particle will go next.
The forces directly involved bring with them other factors acting on them that must be taken into account. Complex calculations don't necessarily equal a predetermined, singular outcome, especially in dynamic systems.
But, here's something to think about, the energy levels of electrons. While they say that the electron will raise to a different level by accepting energy, which is all fine and good, when talking about dropping a level they say it happens spontaneously. Basically the election emits energy and drops down in level, but there is supposedly no prompt for why it released the energy at that time. Now, I don't think I fully agree, but it is something to think about. If there really are things that happen without particular cause, I dare say there is a case that there must be some kind of random out there. In fact, maybe it's the reason the stuff closer to what we deal with in day to day life could have a measure of variability. Something underlying the more obvious factors may be contributing it.
You are racing into a web of confusion here. This does not prove or disprove the idea that things just happen at random. Mixing uncertainty and unknowns into the topic does not justify the existence of rainbow puking unicorns.
Now, A god without free will contradicts all traditional notion and quite a few non traditional notions
Just because these notions are traditional does not make them correct. Just because everyone believes that the earth is flat .. like the map... does not make it flat.
But like I said above, there is only no free will if everything is already forever more predetermined.
This is one possibility that we may never know. Whether the universe is predetermined or not, I am still going to live my life as if I do have free will.
Do you mean you are going to ignore the statement or ignore the intangible? You can ignore the intangible if you want but that is not the same as it is irrelevant. If you have some energy thing in your closet and it is able to interact matter, you have a problem in your closet regardless of what label you slap on it. :sweatdrop:
I assure you IIlysia, the spooky creature in my closet is just a delusion of grandeur. I suspect that I've unwittingly imagined it in a covert attempt to boost my ego and sense of self importance. After all, if I was not so important, this creepy daemon thingy would not be creeping out of the closet and standing over me as I tremble beneath my blanket and try in vain to force myself to sleep. It would find someone else to pester. :love:
Ps. Regarding my creepy daemon friend: As a result of embracing my daemon friend with open arms, accepting the fact that he and I are one and the same, and accepting and loving him and thus myself unconditionally, I am at peace and sleep quite well. Oddly, he has vanished since then. :detective:
-
Further, the "physical" universe is only a part of the whole. If you mean the matter based universe then it is easily the smaller part of the universe. Energy seems to make up more of the universe, and we are still learning about it in the greater whole. So, there is this issue that you have to consider the concept of gods outside of the "physical" realm as we know, but not in some magical realm, just one we don't have enough information on. It's still a part of physics.
You misunderstand me. By "physical universe" I mean everything in existence that can physically be observed, including all forms of matter and energy.
Now about physical gods, if you have a god that exists in our universe like we do then they may be constrained similiarly. But, being a part of our universe is not the same as having the same limitations that we as humans have. We have an incomplete understanding of what is going on around us so we don't even know whether or not we can overcome things that currently constrain us as humans.
I think the point here is that idea of a god with free will flat out contradicts what we know about how things work. That's not to say that a god does not exist, but rather that the very idea of a god with free will does not make sense. The idea of me having free will does not make sense either, and I'm ok with that even though it doesn't make sense. ::| ;D
Exactly. "Randomness" is a conceptual model invented by the human mind in an effort to explain what we observe. We call a dice roll "random" because if we do it enough times we expect a certain distribution of outcomes. But the fact is, if you know everything about the initial state of the die and the forces acting it, you can calculate exactly how it will roll. "Randomness" is something humans use to account for the fact that we don't have all the information needed to predict with accuracy.
Science assumes at its most basic fundamental level that the universe works in this way. There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the previous and current state of any entity in existence. Therefore, the implication is if you know everything about the laws that govern the physical universe, and you know exactly where every entity was at any given time, you can calculate exactly how every particle will move for all of the past and future. Which would imply that everything, even a god who lives in the observable physical universe, is predetermined.
But a God who lives outside of our observable universe would not be subject to this constraint. He could change things without being affected by them.
Imagine it like you're playing the Sims, but you leave the mode on where your Sims do their own thing if you don't tell them what to do. If you never touch the keyboard or mouse, your Sims will go about their lives, subject solely to the constraints of their AI. Give the same state, they will do the same thing every time. (If their actions have some random element, their behavior might differ, but they are at the mercy of the random number generator. Given the same seed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed), they will always do the same thing.) They act out their lives as if they have free will, but they are actually just following a specific set of instructions laid out in the game and AI code. In this analogy, the game is the universe, the Sims are people, and the game code is the laws of physics.
And the player is god. The player lives outside the game code, but can effect things within the game universe. He can pause the game and move things and people around. He can give people tasks to do. He can use cheats to improve the lives of the players. If he wants, he may even be able to hack the game and change the game code (laws of physics). Since he lives outside of the game code, he is not subject to the same equations that dictate how the Sims and the world will behave.
But the Sims cannot know about the player. All they know is what is inside the game code, because that is all they can possibly see or interact with. Anything outside the game is undetectable to them.
This is what I mean when I say that there are questions science cannot answer. Are we just "sims" in some god player's simulated universe? There's no way to know, because we don't have access to anything outside the universe we exist in.
-
(http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/214/4/f/92_gears___animation___final_by_taffgoch-d42fea9.gif)
-
Looks like something a person on maryjuwana would stare at Rigmeister.
-
But, here's something to think about, the energy levels of electrons. While they say that the electron will raise to a different level by accepting energy, which is all fine and good, when talking about dropping a level they say it happens spontaneously. Basically the election emits energy and drops down in level, but there is supposedly no prompt for why it released the energy at that time. Now, I don't think I fully agree, but it is something to think about. If there really are things that happen without particular cause, I dare say there is a case that there must be some kind of random out there. In fact, maybe it's the reason the stuff closer to what we deal with in day to day life could have a measure of variability. Something underlying the more obvious factors may be contributing it.
That's not what that means. I'm really not inclined to say why, though. That's not how it works. That's not what "spontaneous" means here. alsjdfl;kf
-
@ Rigwyn:
A nice interpretation of Fullerene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene)...
-
The universe as we know it thus far is deterministic.
Sorry but this is false.
Truth is it's not been determined yet even if one of the major pillars of the modern physic: the quantum mechanics has proven not to be deterministic which may lead us with good approximation to think the universe has good chances to be NOT deterministic.
The only possible way to "normalize" the quantum mechanic to make it fits into a deterministic law was to use the Schrodinger's law which was taken (by most physician) as a sort of mathematical rape of the quantum theories. No experimental proof has been able to prove quantum mechanic to fit into a deterministic law.
-
If I understood correctly (and it's entirely possible I did not) the probabilities discussed in quantum mechanics refer to probabilities of detection of a specific state.
For example, in the topic previously discussed about electron orbitals, the definition of an orbital its the region around the nucleus where the electron has a 90% chance of being located (or something, it's been a few years since I took chemistry). That doesn't mean that when you look at an orbital, some universe random number generator rolls a D20 die and if x<=18 then the electron is in the orbital and if not then it's outside somewhere. In reality the electron moves along its own patch all the time, and we have no reason to think that its path isn't determined wholly by some mathematical function of initial position and time. We just don't have the tools to measure or predict the path accurately enough. The "random" motion of the electron is the human brain's way of averaging out its overall behavior.
[Edit: Just want to add that this discussion has been really thought-provoking and enjoyable. :thumbup:]
-
Thought provoking indeed :)
The QM side of this is over my head. I have a light understanding, but that's about it. What I don't understand is how things on a larger scale could behave in such a deterministic way if their underpinnings are indeterministic? If at the subatomic level, things happen randomly - blinking in and out of existence with no rhyme or reason, then how is it that atoms, molecules, and so on behave more predictably? I would equally stumped if the reverse was true - if you could get randomness from order.
-
... In reality the electron moves along its own patch all the time, and we have no reason to think that its path isn't determined wholly by some mathematical function of initial position and time. We just don't have the tools to measure or predict the path accurately enough. The "random" motion of the electron is the human brain's way of averaging out its overall behavior.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be so. You share this line of thought with Einstein, who refused to accept quantum mechanics in the way it is understood now ("god is not rolling the dice"). Present consensus among physicists is that the motion of small particles can only be described by probabilities. Hidden variables, which is the term what for you are referring to, are not an option any more.
Good luck in your further random movement!
-
probabilities =/= randomness
-
For the record, I wasn't speaking of orbitals in general but simply a lack of prompt for when electron decided to drop to lower energy states.
All you have to do is state the prompt for the shift Volki, If you can't be bothered to explain then there is nothing to take your word on. Further, the math of probability won't let you get to 1 or 0 meaning there is no point at which you set an invariable course. There is only no room for random if there are no other options.
Now about quantum mechanics, I believe the reason that atoms and bigger don't go winking in and out is because at a certain level Newtonian physics kicks in. The two rule sets don't overlap to my knowledge, so the later must kick in and enforces a sort of stability I guess. But I am curious what goes on at the interface between the two systems.
Oh and about the Sims. To be fair, to the extent that Sims are aware of anything, they are aware of the player too. Fail to fulfill a need and the sim will look up and wave at the player to get their attention. Limited though it is, as long as a means of interacting is written into "the code" there is a means for the player and the sim to be aware of each other. The real world question is simply, what is the "written into the code" means of interacting?
-
Thought provoking indeed :)
The QM side of this is over my head. I have a light understanding, but that's about it. What I don't understand is how things on a larger scale could behave in such a deterministic way if their underpinnings are indeterministic? If at the subatomic level, things happen randomly - blinking in and out of existence with no rhyme or reason, then how is it that atoms, molecules, and so on behave more predictably? I would equally stumped if the reverse was true - if you could get randomness from order.
to tell the truth not even science is actually able to do ... really :D
the two main theories that drive current science the relativity (which is a very good in explaining larger scale interaction like the star systems, the universe expansion, black holes) somehow fails when applied to small subatomic system tosuch an extend that its predictions are totally wrong, same can be said while trying to apply EQM to gravitational systems.
This is why we don't have a TOE (Thoery Of Everything) yet! :D
However my personal understanding of the universe is that probabilities resulting from very small scale interactions can, in a considerable time scale, leads to an ever growing "cloud" of unpredictable events (or the probabilities that different outcomes can happens begins to be no more negligible) even on a larger scale (such as planets, and stars patterns, ...).
Now looking at smaller scale like we experience in everyday life I believe the unpredictability resulting from those "strange" physical laws (quantum physic) has a bigger impact than it can have on a star system. This by no means has anything to do with "randomness" (at least in the way we use to think about random).
-
to tell the truth not even science is actually able to do ... really :D
the two main theories that drive current science the relativity (which is a very good in explaining larger scale interaction like the star systems, the universe expansion, black holes) somehow fails when applied to small subatomic system tosuch an extend that its predictions are totally wrong, same can be said while trying to apply EQM to gravitational systems.
This is why we don't have a TOE (Thoery Of Everything) yet! :D
So.. if QM is indeterministic however, those wonky behaviors that are at play only at the subatomic level do not have any affect at a macroscopic level ( ie. it does not cause photons to stray from their trajectories as they traverses from one end of the universe to the other. Such creep or collective error would cause light to twist and knot along the way - perhaps turning back to its origin. ), then does this make the universe as a whole indeterministic too? Isn't it fair to say that ts deterministic at a macroscopic level?
However my personal understanding of the universe is that probabilities resulting from very small scale interactions can, in a considerable time scale, leads to an ever growing "cloud" of unpredictable events (or the probabilities that different outcomes can happens begins to be no more negligible) even on a larger scale (such as planets, and stars patterns, ...).
Right, but there is still a chain of cause and effect. It's just too obscure to measure and observe.That's not the same as saying that randomness is part of the cause, rather its only practical to deal with this mess by using probability and treating it as if it was random.
?
Damn you.. I'm going to have to start studying this stuff now.... ;D
-
Further, the math of probability won't let you get to 1 or 0 meaning there is no point at which you set an invariable course.
This isn't true when applied to things in the real world. In a frictionless vacuum, if you hold a marble 5 feet off the surface of the earth and drop it, there is a 100 percent chance that it will fall toward the ground with an acceleration of roughly 9.8 m/s2. There is zero chance that the marble will follow some other path. There is only one possible outcome.
More generally, when any forces are applied to an object, the object will move according to the equation a = F/m, where F is a vector specifying the magnitude and direction of the sum of all forces acting on the object, and m is its mass. This happens with a probability of 1. The probability that this won't happen is 0. That's why it is a scientific law.
"Randomness" is a human construct to explain how things happen "on average," since we cannot possibly know every force all the time and must make generalizations.
Oh and about the Sims. To be fair, to the extent that Sims are aware of anything, they are aware of the player too. Fail to fulfill a need and the sim will look up and wave at the player to get their attention. Limited though it is, as long as a means of interacting is written into "the code" there is a means for the player and the sim to be aware of each other. The real world question is simply, what is the "written into the code" means of interacting?
As far as I remember, this wasn't the case in the version I played as a kid. The Sims would have thought bubbles pop up above their heads about what they needed or they would make some physical indication (yawn, etc.). Regardless, the analogy is still in tact. If the game world is the universe, the Sims have no way of knowing anything about the world outside their universe unless the player specifically changes the code to put it into the game.
For example, if I want to somehow explain to my Sims how comfy my blanket is, I need to put it into their universe in a way that they will understand. As discussed previously, there is no way to perfectly represent real things in computers; all they know its 0s and 1s. So at best the texture, material, size, color, etc. of it will be only an approximation of the real object. Then its attributes must be assigned in a way they will understand. That's easy, Sims have a comfort bar, so we can say using this blanket increases their comfort by a certain number of points. So we have an approximation of the real "metaphysical" (by the code's standards) object inside the game universe. But here's the kicker. The approximation of a metaphysical object in the game universe becomes a physical object. The object the Sims perceive can be explained in its entirety by the physical laws (code) of the game universe. They still have no concept of the metaphysical reality.
Sorry if that was confusing. I should come up with a better explanation but I have a midterm tomorrow. :sleeping: :sleeping:
-
Creating the vacuum and dropping the marble represents what I said earlier about intervening. You are specifically reducing the amount of factors that would normally affect the marble so that you can force a result. That marble would otherwise be subject to more complex forces. I believe in this case you are simplifying F by introducing a vacuum and metaphorically grabbing the coin and setting it down. I get what you mean, it's not going to fly off into space without another force acting on it, but I'm pretty sure that the vacuum qualifies as intervention that bypasses probability.
However, I think I get you point about the metaphysical now and you are probably right that there are concepts that are approximated in the real world. But I would stick out that for our purposes and the Sims purposes, we probably can understand well enough as we need to.
-
All you have to do is state the prompt for the shift Volki, If you can't be bothered to explain then there is nothing to take your word on. Further, the math of probability won't let you get to 1 or 0 meaning there is no point at which you set an invariable course. There is only no room for random if there are no other options.
In science, spontaneous does not equal random. It means that the change will occur given the right conditions. And it will happen. There is no element of randomness at all. This is just a case of a layman's term being mixed with a scientific term. I ask that you trust me on this. I don't want to argue for hundreds of pages.
It's useless to even mention the "locations" of electrons in their orbitals because no one knows if their movement is truly random. The equipment does not exist to properly measure them. So, it would be foolish to use the supposed randomness as proof of randomness. And it would be especially foolish to use it in an argument about free will.
-
I think once again, this topic has gone about as far as it can go. Any other ideas for topics?
-
Creating the vacuum and dropping the marble represents what I said earlier about intervening. You are specifically reducing the amount of factors that would normally affect the marble so that you can force a result. That marble would otherwise be subject to more complex forces. I believe in this case you are simplifying F by introducing a vacuum and metaphorically grabbing the coin and setting it down. I get what you mean, it's not going to fly off into space without another force acting on it, but I'm pretty sure that the vacuum qualifies as intervention that bypasses probability.
You're misunderstanding the point. The marble in a vacuum is just an example.
Another way to look at it: the planets in our solar system move around the sun in very specific, calculated ways. In our solar system it becomes tedious to calculate because there is some tiny effect of other the other planets and moons on any given orbit. Note: tedious, not impossible.
So let's look at a solar system consisting of one star and one planet. Given the planet's distance from the star and it's current velocity, you can calculate the exact path which the planet will take around the star. The probability that it follows this path is 100%, and the probability it deviates from this path is 0. You see, I didn't "set up" this system. It exists naturally. It is a simple system, yes, but the point is still made. You can easily extend this to a solar system with 2 planets. You just need to account for the tiny force of gravity between the planets when doing calculations. It's easy. When consider a solar system with a few more bodies (planets, moons, asteroids) things become more difficult but still entirely within our abilities. We didn't set up the system in a way that eliminates the other possibilities. The laws of physics prescribe how the motion of the system plays out.
-
I think once again, this topic has gone about as far as it can go. Any other ideas for topics?
viking or pirate metal? here's examples taken from youtube. to be fair in the examples, i simply took whatever the first video that came up in the search results.
viking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPRt6Tt6RyM
pirate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-Z_psXODw
i think i'm leaning towards pirate
-
More Pony.
-
@Volki: Fair enough.
@tman: Ok, I'll give, but maybe it's a matter of random being something unique to choice. But since some folks are ready to move on I suppose I'll let that go. :P
@Rirenil: Metal isn't really my thing.... ::|
@bloodedIrishman: Someone get the duct tape!
-
I think you can still have choice in a deterministic system - the only caveat is that your choice and what you choose was predetermined.... but that doesn't really matter. LOL
You are choosing, making a choice and effecting change however this was all part of the grand design and known in advance so technically, you did not deviate from the great wind up machine.
Now to splash in some religious color to this:
God is the begining and the end, the alpha and the omega. He ( sexist, I know ) is the prime mover. He knows everything about you, what you will choose, and what will happen as a result. He knows the future and has complete control over it because he crafted each and every detail of this system.
Nothing that happens in god's world is an accident, nothing is flawed. There are no mistakes - each and every cog in this machine is there for a reason and is tied in with something else. Lucifer, murderers, disasters, sickness, the angels, mohamed, sinners, scientists, athiests, doctors, accidents, bad luck, karma, born agains, evaporating black holes and spooky branch davidians interacting at a distance are all intertwined in this gigantic collection of gears.
Perhaps this god has made this wind up toy for his own amusement so he can sit there and watch it churn and transform before his eyes - smiling and laughing as he watches people do things good and bad, argue and fight over their beliefs, warm the planet, and most importantly, try to figure out and explain how this contraption works.
Perhaps this universe sized toy is just one of many bizarre trinkets that are sold and traded like cheap imported goods at a celestial bazaar? Perhaps others such contraptions are completely different from this universe thingy. I don't just mean different stating conditions, I mean as different as a fruit cake is from a television show.
-
Or maybe God is just a kid at his computer and we are his Sims ;D
-
Heh...
Maybe we are the eyes and ears of this creator - hence, we have a purpose in life .... o.O
-
Choice down a predetermined route is not choice, it's the just the next step. But I don't think I can quite get with the Doodle God theory of divine exploration and discovery.
I think factors were set in place and allowed to proceed, but because of free will, things can turn badly. Everything seems to have an opposite, so I imagine that even starting with good there is still the chance for bad to manifest as the opposite.
But hey, I thought we were moving on to pirate metal? :P
-
@Rigwyn
I've no interest in serving a divine tyrant.
I'm fine with being a result of accidents. Thats how I was conceived anyway. ;D
-
WTF DOES PREDETERMINISM HAVE TO DO WITH FREE WILL
STOP
Extreme Hardcore Metal
NSFW
NSFW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssmo8CxdriE&t=2m24s NSFW
NSFW
-
Bah... I don't think it really matters anyway.
I found a "Pony Metal" link on youtube in response to Rirenil's post... but I could not bring myself to listen to it among my co-workers... and I really don't want to post a link like that without reviewing it first.
-
What exactly is your issue, Volki? Care to explain?
-
/me takes the mic.
BHURURURUURURHRURHURRRRBRHRHRHRBRRHRURHURHRHRBRUHRRHRRUHRR
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHGHGHHGHGHHH
BHURURHBRHRBRHHRHUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
lol... you're a nut.
-
Pony Metal?
*brain breaks*
The issue is simple, Volki, if every choice you make or thought you have is truly just the outcome of a long string of events acting each other to eventually act on and influence you, then when you are asked to choose left or right, it is a trick question as whether you go left or right doesn't actually have a single thing to do with you or what you think. You only had the option of following the path that was predetermined by factors beyond your control.
-
Subjectively speaking, you made a choice and effected change while paradoxically, that decision was nothing more than the result of previous events.
I don't know if this is right or not, but it sounds good to me.
-
Well, that's the whole predetermined issue in a nutshell. The variance is typically on the origin of the events that act on you. You know, divine or just the starting conditions of the universe.
-
I honestly believe my level of awareness is above most humans. Yes, I realize how narcissistic that sounds. So far, I've only met a few individuals who understand consciousness like I do. We agree that it is not tied to the physical universe our bodies occupy. So, I do not believe that determinism is related to free will. They are on entirely separate planes of existence.
And I believe that an animal's level of awareness is limited by the physical body the consciousness resides in. Humans happen to be the least limited vessels on Earth.
@‿@
-
The issue is simple, Volki, if every choice you make or thought you have is truly just the outcome of a long string of events acting each other to eventually act on and influence you, then when you are asked to choose left or right, it is a trick question as whether you go left or right doesn't actually have a single thing to do with you or what you think. You only had the option of following the path that was predetermined by factors beyond your control.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. The choice has everything to do with how you "think" as long as you define thinking as the physical action your brain takes to make decisions. The thing is that how your brain thinks is via chemical reactions and electrical pulses.
If I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 10, your brain will choose one. But that number choice is just a mental construct represented by a specific neural pathway in the brain. Your neurons took that pathway as a response to specific stimulation and memory. But remember memory, like the rest of your brain, is just chemicals. Chemicals interact in specific ways.
So the choice you made was actually made by your brain (duh). But your brains behavior depends on its neural pathways. Its neural pathways depend on its chemistry. Its chemistry depends on its chemical and physical history. It's history depends on physical laws. Essentially you are just the product of what has happened to you.
That's not to say that your thoughts and actions are not your own or are not important, it's just that your brain couldn't have reacted differently given the same state and stimulus. Just because your brain chemistry determines your choices doesn't make them any less significant. At least that's what I like to believe.
Ah, posts during writing. Oh well I already typed it up.
-
I honestly believe my level of awareness is above most humans. Yes, I realize how narcissistic that sounds.
Ok I'm glad you realize it. ;D
So far, I've only met a few individuals who understand consciousness like I do. We agree that it is not tied to the physical universe our bodies occupy. So, I do not believe that determinism is related to free will. They are on entirely separate planes of existence.
This is exactly what I meant a few pages back when I said there are questions science can't answer. If something is not tied to observable physical phenomena then science cannot make measurements or predict outcomes.
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. Science just doesn't have an answer. It's a question for philosophy.
-
I believe I am greater than God. This isn't narcissism, I'm just saying based on the facts.
(1) I am greater than all
(2) All includes God
I am therefore greater than God.
DO YOU NOT SEE?
Can we move on though? This is boring. Some made excellent points, some not, and you all tl;dr'd. Now onto My Little Pony.
-
I honestly believe my level of awareness is above most humans. Yes, I realize how narcissistic that sounds. So far, I've only met a few individuals who understand consciousness like I do. We agree that it is not tied to the physical universe our bodies occupy. So, I do not believe that determinism is related to free will. They are on entirely separate planes of existence.
Sounds interesting. Care to elaborate a bit?
-
Now onto My Little Pony.
No! :P No more ponies!
Well the issue of whether everything is predetermined also takes in the option that your thinking whether beyond science or not is on rails too. Well I supposed the name is different, predestination.
-
Can we move on though? This is boring. Some made excellent points, some not, and you all tl;dr'd. Now onto My Little Pony.
I'm pretty sure if you want to spend your time talking about ponies there are entire sections of the internet dedicated to that. :P
But I don't find this boring at all. And if you do you don't have to read it.
And if we wanted to be talking about ponies, we would be. Just sayin' :whistling:
-
Something I've thought about from time to time is how little has change as far as teaching and education goes. They way we learn in schools is pretty much the same as it was when I was a kid. Some learning is repetitious rote learning and some involves actually discussing and dissecting information - tearing it apart in order to understand it better.
Is it possible to invent a far more effective means of teaching without the use of expensive medical technology? Is it possible to devise a way or method to more rapidly educate a student so that by they time they are an adult, they know maybe two or three times more that one would via conventional means?
I could see this as being very important as technology advances.
-
@tman
I was being sarcastic. No person likes My Little Pony. I do find it boring and I did not read. Thus I want the topic to change, thus I state what I stated. Rirenil wants MLP. Why are you discounting his opinion? FASCIST NAZI. Godwin's Law. There it is.
-
Why are you discounting his opinion? FASCIST NAZI. Godwin's Law. There it is.
So...
I win? :D
-
Godwin's Law does not imply the one on the receiving end wins.
However,
(1) I am always right
(2) I called you a Nazi
Therefore you are a Nazi
-
@bloodedIrishman: Don't say that on the internet. You'll attract a rush of fanboy rage... because it's certainly not the 5 year old little girls propping the ponies up. :P
@Rigwyn: One can simply put more effort into developing the infrastructure to support different types of learning. For instance, some people learn better while moving, some people while interacting with others, and so on. Adapting classes so that they are separated by learning style rather than child number might help better. I guess the seven intelligences are a good place to start.
Then there is also just updating the system. Simply changing things to fit around new technology could help. Er... not the medical kind just things like making sure kids never have to learn on software like clarisworks again. Do schools even still have that? XD
-
I'm pretty sure I nearly killed myself yesterday. I'd rather not discuss anything so complex right now... Feeling a little woozy.
-
I know this topic has gone too far but I can't really resist from replying... :D
So.. if QM is indeterministic however, those wonky behaviors that are at play only at the subatomic level do not have any affect at a macroscopic level ( ie. it does not cause photons to stray from their trajectories as they traverses from one end of the universe to the other. Such creep or collective error would cause light to twist and knot along the way - perhaps turning back to its origin. ), then does this make the universe as a whole indeterministic too? Isn't it fair to say that ts deterministic at a macroscopic level?
I'm not the mouth of the science but as far as I can tell if the inner structure of the universe is not deterministic at subatomic level we can't really say it is at a bigger level... however for such bigger scale phenomenon we can safely assume they are predictable, at least in the time frame we can observe.
I know the terms predictable and determinable as I used them can be pretty confusing but they are not the same, at least in the contest of what I'm talking about.
Right, but there is still a chain of cause and effect. It's just too obscure to measure and observe.That's not the same as saying that randomness is part of the cause, rather its only practical to deal with this mess by using probability and treating it as if it was random?
Of course there is cause and effects, the only problem (if we can call it a problem at all) with QM is the sheer act of measurement is a "cause" by itself. As you approach and go to measure the quantum state of an electron, you actually make the probabilities collide and the system can be actually be measured (given measurement errors and given you're not trying to measure for example below the wave length of the electron itself, which is by no mean possible) and so it is determined, but at this point it's already in the past! :)
So the problem still stay and while we have a relationship of causes and effects (and they're not random because while measures happens the results given are by no mean random) we can only predict the state of a system by interacting with it which will actually modify both the system and the observer to a degree.
Damn you.. I'm going to have to start studying this stuff now.... ;D
physic is fascinating, isn't it? ;D
-
Or maybe God is just a kid at his computer and we are his Sims ;D
More Pony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZG1K1-2omo
-
Something I've thought about from time to time is how little has change as far as teaching and education goes. They way we learn in schools is pretty much the same as it was when I was a kid. Some learning is repetitious rote learning and some involves actually discussing and dissecting information - tearing it apart in order to understand it better.
Is it possible to invent a far more effective means of teaching without the use of expensive medical technology? Is it possible to devise a way or method to more rapidly educate a student so that by they time they are an adult, they know maybe two or three times more that one would via conventional means?
I could see this as being very important as technology advances.
http://youtu.be/zDZFcDGpL4U (RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms )
enjoy.....
-
As a student at a fairly prestigious university, there is NOTHING more annoying than going to the first day of class and discovering your professor is one of those new-age let's-change-the-entire-classroom-paradigm kind of guys. Seriously if this happens to me I drop the class immediately. A couple classes at my university are starting to do the whole "flipped classroom" thing where the lectures are posted as videos and the time in class is spent doing "homework problems." I get it. People learn differently. But the fact is, all of us who go here got in because the traditional system worked well for us. We all did really well in the traditional education setting. Stop trying to change us.
-
I had a "flipped" class in one of my lecture classes that holds about the number of students that attended my elementary school. It was really confusing. There was too much talking. It was far too slow. And barely any of the students brought their over-a-thousand-page textbooks. I haven't even bothered to show up to the class since. (Teacher doesn't take attendance or in-class grades, and I can't survive huge auditoriums with no breathing space.)
Also, I can guarantee you that videos are the worst learning medium. People can read information much faster than they can watch/hear it. And you can't speed up videos to equal the speed at which you learn with reading without losing frames or going beyond the threshold of audio comprehension.
-
no
-
When I was going to school, the biggest hinderance for me
Was that I could not take notes and pay attention at the same
Time. If I listened and understood the material, I would not
Have notes and vice versa.
Simply being given a transcript forr the class - video and audio
Would have been great and easy to produce.
-
Can we move on though? This is boring. Some made excellent points, some not, and you all tl;dr'd. Now onto My Little Pony.
i will do you one better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwud6Qh4e_c
oh, and they curse, so waer headphones if you are in an area where that sort of thing is frowned upon.
-
Something to consider would be to make specific debate threads for those who are interested in discussing things in detail.
-
but then i cant be blatantly offtopic in them without breaking the rules of thread.
stop trying to ruin my fun. :'(
-
(http://iambrony.dget.cc/mlp/gif/143309%20-%20animated%20pinkie_pie%20sad.gif)
-
If you don't recognize this music, you were probably an industrious member of society in 2005.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrmAuYSEKlg
This was before you had to level in FPS games...
-
Remember when video games didn't have music?
-
/me picks up the topic and puts it back onto the rail.
So.. where did y'all go?
/me sets a huge bear trap and baits it with brown sugar, oats, and a fist full of hay. Walking away, he dismisses the idea of purple ponies from his mind.
I've been kicking around the idea of guided RP again. Not railroaded, but guided without railroading. Any thoughts? I suppose what I mean by guided is having a player who drops setting and environment info, leading an expedition or mission but without a predetermined outcome, etc..
This is hard to do without making it feel forced but can be done if you are flexible enough.
-
If you don't recognize this music, you were probably an industrious member of society in 2005.
i never cared for that gaming series once the 10 year olds invaded it. i've always been more laid back when it came to shooters. halo and borderlands is fun for the story development and humor, team fortress for the goofy fun you can have and for giving us gary's mod videos, etc.
and because now you all expect it; this time with the added twist of mixing the topic the above quote with the below quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAGB11YrSs or the original version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWfRy0yZKW0
/me sets a huge bear trap and baits it with brown sugar, oats, and a fist full of hay. Walking away, he dismisses the idea of purple ponies from his mind.
-
This game is dead.
-
Yeah I see there's been a downward trend in numbers lately. Tonight, myplane shows single digits.... I think Wednesdays are usually bad, though, aren't they?
Could be something seasonal perhaps? *shrugs*
-
Midterms, man. Midterms.
-
Well, I have my second exams spread over three weeks. The first of those weeks, I was sick. So now I'm cramming and have no time to play.
-
(http://denver.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/rsz/mlfw1548_large.jpg)
-
Rigwyn, I am interested in a guided rp. An expedition also sounds fun.
I don't think the game is dead but activity is severely reduced, and that's frustrating.
-
It's deader than worlds.com.
-
Patience grasshopper.... ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGblsNXkJog (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGblsNXkJog)
-
Worlds is weird...
-
The world is better with candy. \o/
-
^ A logical compliment. :)
-
Strawberry Lady? er... I mean Zorbels?
(http://data5.lustich.de/bilder/l/38219-cooler-look.jpg)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnokGcoUOmE
-
I don't even.
-
I don't even.
i agree, i don't the new comment system either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkIKLfXKFSs
-
Rirenil, you just tricked me into watching a video about character development in My Little Pony. Also, that guy clearly does not read comics. Superman is the worst character in comic history. But it's not that he's a Mary Sue. The writers can never settle on who the man actually is. And eventually, one becomes sick of seeing characters reincarnated. He needs to die. Permanently.
DC is seriously just bad with the writing side of comics. Superboy Prime punching heads off and bisecting people with his eyes... F*** that.
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/15776/464560-pantha3.jpg)
And then they try to redeem characters like this. X-/
So I came back to say that the worst Mary Sue (in DC comics) is Batman. Think of all the symptoms of Mary Sue-ism. Dead parents, born rich and famous, ridiculous morals, highly intelligent, considered just as powerful as Superman despite being human. He barely seems human. If the man didn't have his villains, he would have no personality. I've heard it said that the villains are what make his character. Without them, he'd be nothing.
-
/me sets a spring-loaded purple pony trap with huge, razor sharp teeth!
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Bear_Trap_7423.jpg)
/me yanks off his ninja mask, and walks away chuckling to himself.
-
so what you're saying.... is that you also don't like the whole "we killed off spiderman, no, wait, it was really just doc oct taking over his body and now will do good instead of evil as him" storyline they decided to come up with a few years back?
also, ponies, because itrollTM
-
/me yanks off his ninja mask, and walks away chuckling to himself.
dont forget to throw her out the window (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApDAJJONn9I)
edit: oh, i can do even better now that i think about it.... ah here it is.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRC4Vk6kisY :devil:
-
I only read some of the original Spiderman. Never had a much of a chance to read Marvel comics. But, yeah, that sounds horrible.
The problem with (the big famous) comics is they never end. Like TV shows that go on too long. Characters start coming back to life and the only people who still watch are total nerds.
But I enjoy seeing my favorite characters die, so whatever.
-
better be careful, dr. who fans might get out their pitch forks with tha type of talk.
-
i go without internet access for 4 days thanks to a few pesky tornadoes that rolled through and flattened everything around me and you all stop chattering away.
what am i going to do with the lot of you at this rate?
-
i go without internet access for 4 days thanks to a few pesky tornadoes that rolled through and flattened everything around me and you all stop chattering away.
what am i going to do with the lot of you at this rate?
I originally read this as "thanks to a few pesky tomatoes that rolled through and flattened everything around me" :)
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebfLWAB8bY4) anyone?
-
Yes, I remember a movie poster...
-
Congratz on 0.6.0 Release. Numbers are consistently higher all times of day than normal and already holding longer than for other releases. :thumbup: Looks like interest is up. Hope people are taking advantage of it. :)
-
I'm bored.
Might try and update PS during my winter break to see how it fairs on my computer. See what new things await O--)
-
I'm bored.
1) http://youtu.be/L5l9lSnNMxg
2) http://youtu.be/_jKylhJtPmI
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRBihr41JTo
learning is good for everyone. LEARN!
-
Ah. Looks like I missed Vayl again.
Shucks.
-
This post (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=36214.msg470330#msg470330) got me wondering...
Just how many people actually started RPing not long after they started playing? For those people who started RPing soon after, was this your intro into RPing or had you done it before? PS started me on RPing but, it had to have been at least 2 or 3 years before I actually did it. I was a stubborn convert to RPing at first.
-
I started out the exact same way, Illysia. Exactly the same. No exposure beforehand beside very light storytelling experiences; came into this game not even really knowing the full extent to which people roleplayed through gaming mediums.
-
You had more going in than I did. I didn't have the storytelling experience at least not in writing. It was all new to me. I remember that once I did start RPing, I really struggled with people RPing less than nice characters. PS was a crash course in almost all aspects of RP for me.
-
I joined PS for the RP at first. Good thing people where so forgiving back then. Because I was god awful at it. I actually had a subscription to World of Warcraft at the time, and I wandered and ended up here. My first two characters where flops, but then I decided to do something entirely different with the third. I decided I wanted her to be shaped by her own experiences, and not be a badass from the start. That was Zalya. I remember one of my first 'RP's' was asking for help to get to Hydlaa ICly. I think it was Merivo who walked me there. There I bumped into a few people at Kada's and over the next few days wound up meeting Elady at the Stonehead. I believe this was while you where away for a bit Illy. And well, one thing led to another, and now four years later Zalya is one of my favorite characters to play.
-
I also joined for the RP. I'd been roleplaying on forums for a few years and playing MMOs for fewer still. I started roleplaying almost immediately after I found other people.
-
@ Zalya: I probably was away during that time. Did you start Zalya off to get into trouble from the beginning or was that influenced by the RPs she got into? :D All of my characters developed by being influenced by the characters they RPed with. That lead to some interesting successes and flops for me. I've lately found that doing more background work is making it easier for me to RP though. However, I only had Illysia for years and back at that time there was enough RP to stumble into, so RPing with Illy was really simple. I do miss the cavernous bag RP bit I used to do when Illy met new people though. :)
However, I did notice funny character development trends back when I started to RP. Many people had tragic or super-epic-tragic backstories and most of those people wore hooded cloaks that hid their faces... black cloaks. It was common enough it became it's own PS cliche.
@Candy: How much did you have to change RP style to switch from Forum RP to real time MMO RP?
-
No, Zalya got into plenty of trouble on her own. :P Now a days I tend to make characters with very well thought out back stories so I can jump right in and have a well thought out character right off the bat. But Zalya helped me develop those skills naturally as she grew. Her back story came along later.
-
Haha. Poor Zalya. I had to work very hard to get to the point where I could work out backstories for my characters. I had to make a checklist for it just to do it, but I am slowly getting better. I find that working out motivations more than anything helps me have a character I can RP with in enough situations though. It also gives me something to RP about in a pinch as I weave in something more personal to the character into a lull in the RP. But at least I am now branching out into a wider variety of characters. Finally made my first neutral character and that has been quite the foray as I normally can't help but make a good character that takes issue with a lot of "grey" things, but it lets me grow in skill.
Anyone have any goals for what they want to improve on RP skill wise?
Mine is conveying personality in most RP interactions. For me that means better defining that which makes each character unique, improving on using emotes to more accurately and specifically describe character interactions, and being sure that I put more effort in to incorporate changes in the surroundings and other nearby characters into what my character is saying or emoting at a given moment. It's easy to get caught up in a one on one RP, but it is hard to work in snippets of overheard conversation, throw in something like a tipped over glass, or come up with logical props to start new RP directions. Not to mention broadening out to RP in a wider variety of locations.
-
I only had exposure to single player RPGs prior to planeshift. When I joined, I had this idea of ganging up with other players and doing stuff... like going on adventures, quests, and stuff. None of that really happened until sometime later when i got bored and starting trying to find people who role play.
Planeshift's RP is more like play-acting than anything else. I guess what I was originally looking for was something more ooc - ie playing as a player. The idea of player/character separation was completely new to me.
-
What you were looking for early on reminds me of some of the "RP" that they do on one of SWTOR's RP servers. Technically the players just communicate during missions, like saying where they are going or who they are going to target next, then toss in an occasional emote.
I honestly had no clue what I was getting into when I first started PS. I really had no expectations, but I was fortunate in that I had time to grow into RPing slowly. I ended up loving it in the end.
-
Many people had tragic or super-epic-tragic backstories and most of those people wore hooded cloaks that hid their faces... black cloaks. It was common enough it became it's own PS cliche.
@Candy: How much did you have to change RP style to switch from Forum RP to real time MMO RP?
Oh, the hooded black cloaks are an RP trend in general. Everybody wants to play the edgy, mysterious rogue at some point. Also it's easier to draw if your character's figure is hidden under the folds of a big bulky cloak.
As for the style, I sat around lurking on peoples' roleplay for a while before jumping in, and I probably should have done more of that. In a forum RP I can get a feel for the community and its roleplay within about ten minutes of skimming threads. I went into PS without really looking at the forums, however, and as soon as I started emoting, I got a lot of OOC snark and tongue-lashings if I made a slight slip-up and/or didn't know the lore. A good few of the snobs remained unapologetic when they found out I was new and clueless. Had I not been used to roleplayers in general and the fact there's often more OOC drama than actual roleplay going on, I'd have probably quit after my first couple visits to Kada's.
-
PlaneShift was my first MMORPG. I tried to adapt from my little experience in single-player RPGs (that is one game - Gothic 1) as well as from my real life: Listen, ask, be as polite as necessary — there to NPCs, here to human controlled chars just as well.
-
@Candy: I was fortunate, I didn't run into snobs much and only got a few lashings in the beginning. But I think I took to the concept of RP in PS fair quickly even if I didn't do so hot on the difference between OOC and IC. But I heard from many people that they caught more flack. Fortunately, I think the current community is better about that sort of thing. I wonder if an FAQ style guide on very basics of RP and how to ignore the more obnoxious RPers would help some, the ones that are willing to read that is?
@LigH: Ah... do you know it took me years to figure out you could talk to NPCs? ;D The first two years I just smashed rats in Oja occasionally; I didn't talk to people or do quests. ;D However, nowadays I find that that trying to develop my characters as if I were going to write a single author story about them helps my RPing. The hard part is just finding RPers with compatible RP styles.
Anyone have any favorite resources for helping with character development?
-
My character developed while roleplays happened next to him. Often with Zorbels. Also with Lolitra. Business was not yet so strict in those times, so meeting friends was easy, and serious roleplays developed next to unimportant gossip. The world was small. The plaza was full, or we went playing hide-and-seek in the steep maze the road once was.
Today we have the quite elaborate tutorial. I believe that players can be prepared better for the more serious roleplaying now. If they want. If not, they may bail out already there instead and keep prefering WoW or GW...
-
Well, then perhaps players need to make sure there are highly visible "light" non serious RPs so that new players don't feel they have to jump in the deep end immediately. I know I face, in other games, situations where you absolutely cannot get into an "open" RP because the players are too focused on the characters they already know and have background stories with. That is frustrating and will make someone give up.
-
Well, there's still the FAQ that Aiwendil put together on the Outlaws forum, I think it's also here somewhere.
As for resources, there are a million character questionnaires to flesh out details like backstory and stuff. I should use them but I don't. It's like LigH said, the roleplay develops the characters.
Edit: Totally agreed, Illy; it's hard enough to break in to a new RP community as it is! I pretty much played fishmaulks on WoW just so people would be interested.
-
fishmaulks? ::|
-
Well.. the stage is there. You just need to get out there and do stuff.
I think the hardest part for newer players is "getting the ball rolling", so to speak. Once somebody steps in and initiates something, It's much easier for fellow players to tag along.
-
Ah well, that is a completely different problem. I find that most RPers are not initiators. Usually they play along, but for too often they sit around and wait for someone else to engineer their fun. I find this frustrating since lately that means someone asks me to RP with them only for them to toss all burden of making the whole thing work on me. >.> I mean at least do half the work if you come to a person asking to RP with them. And rather than learn how to engineer RPs, some just toss some half thought out ideas and then drop the ball back in my lap. X-/
I think that kind of stuff leads to burn out among the people that do initiate RP in pretty much all MMOs. But, when you do find someone else willing to engage you and contribute the RP becomes fun and not a drag to keep going and that's when you risk falling prey to ignoring any incidentals as you don't want to ruin the flow you only just finally got going. :whistling:
-
Fishmalk. I spelled it wrong. You should know this one, Illykins, it's on TVTropes!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanNickname/TabletopGames
-
::| as much time as I have lost on that site I have never seen that before... or heard of it before.
However, my most desperate ploy to get someone to RP with me recently involved throwing bottle caps at the head of a "droid" character that was patrolling the cantina looking for out of line occupants. I was having a real hard time getting other RPers to RP with me and I was out of patience with the other RPers and out of options for interacting logically with that character. Throwing bottle caps was the last idea I had left and fortunately it worked.
-
That sounds terribly antisocial... but I get it.
Adventures, quests and plots take planning. They don't just materialize on their own. When you see awesome things like this happening, either someone is working behind the scenes, or its sheer coincidence and not likely to happen again.
Even plain old socializing requires some effort. Someone needs to be clever and think of something interesting to talk about. One person needs to toss out conversation starters and the other needs to reply and contribute to the conversation. When nobody contributes to the conversation, it just dies. When two or more contribute to the conversation, it thrives.
It's a real treat when you put the work into getting a story/plot/adventure going, and other players contribute to it instead of just watching.
-
@LigH: If you are still reading this, I'm not correcting anymore typos since I am tired and the typo fairy has been bashing me on the head for several hours now. :P I really should head to bed in a few minutes.
@Rigwyn: Terribly antisocial? Doesn't your character cut off people's limbs and what not? :P
Well, he was a patrol droid on duty and in the Star wars Universe just stopping a droid you have no connection to for a causal chat actually doesn't work logically as a sane person and there was the whole literally walking around the cantina and out of talking range issue. ::) So my character got frustrated with the droid wearing out the deck plating behind her so she decided to do a little target practice. :P
But you are right on the amount of effort it makes even to make a simple conversation happen and keep going. Although, you can have conversations that drag on without much substance because not enough effort or thought has been put in by both sides. That's what I refer to as "How's your mother?" RP. Even as a social/"talky" RPer, that is extremely grating to try to make work. It ends up being "how's the weather?" "how's work?" and so on and it tends to elicit equally generic and bland answers thus leading to no character development, no interesting reveal, and no potential for engaging follow up. >.> But that's not to say that those questions have to lead to that kind of RP by the way.
However, I wonder if there is some way of setting up RPs so that people more naturally flow into contributing just by being around it, thus increasing the fun and alleviating some of the burden on the RP starter?
-
Well, if the players present are coincidentally interested in the same things, it will be much easier to spark something off that's of mutual interest. If those who you play with don't share the same exact interests, then you would do well to know your audience.
People will gravitate towards the things that interest them.
Inhibitions prevent people from jumping in.
I look at it like this:
If I wish to have fun as a regular player character, I need to be with other players who are able to reciprocate and contribute to the story.
If I wish to have fun as a lead character, then I need to know my audience and take an active role in getting them interested. I need to provide them with elements that I think they will find entertaining and rewarding.
If my goal is to take pleasure in writing about the rp, then I need to make sure that there will be things to write about. I need to think in terms of plot and plot hooks. I need to leave plenty of fodder for the curious. I need to do a lot of foreshadowing which requires either a general idea of where the story might go ( MIGHT GO ), or a diligent attempt to make it look like seemingly insignificat tidbits from the past were actually significant ( To give the illusion of foreshadowing ).
I've been tempting to try something a bit differnt - perhaps doing a guided game-like event. Something more D&D style - where success and failure is determined by dice or roll. This would have a completely different feel, but it might also be easier for newer players to participate in.
I say experiment. Try a shitload of different things and stick with whatever seems to work.
-
Play a character without inhibitions.
-
While those things are definitely good ideas when there is a plot, it's a bit harder for RPs where the RP isn't as task driven, but you give me a good idea Riggy. I need to go back and figure out what it is about stories like the one in 12 Angry Men that will let you be able to focus on people in a contained space but still be engaging. Essentially, how to draw out and showcase what makes a character tick in a way that sucks people in.
Learning how to apply that to real time RPing will be an interesting project.
After thought added in later:
Actually, after giving it some thought. I think I might know how to work your ideas in to social non action driven RPs. It's just a matter of having a sub"plot" waiting in the wings that's meant to elicit reactions rather than propel characters into action. I'd just have to bring tidbits of it out to play when the main social aspect lags but never let it take over too forcefully so that there is still room for others to contribute. The foreshadowing and whatnot would only needed when I need a lead in to take the lull in a new direction. I've done it a little bit in some RPs but I often don't put that much effort into it as lately most attempts to catch RPers and get them to RP haven't gone anywhere so that kind of effort is wasted.
Another thing I realized is that I usually have less trouble with getting people engaged when I am essentially playing two characters at once that are opposites of each other. It's harder in PS but in Sci Fi settings it's much easier to have two characters virtually around at the same time. Maybe I just need a way to make sure that the contrast is always around even if the opposite characters themselves aren't. hmm..
-
12 Angry Men was great because the characters were facing the conflict of deciding if someone was guilty of a crime. This created conflict between the characters themselves.
You need conflict of some kind for any interesting story. It doesn't need to be looming over your character all the time, which is when the social play occurs. Or you can be totally boring and pretend there is no conflict around your character, ever. But the only time anyone sees your true character is during times of crisis. 12 Angry Men was a crisis for the characters involved, and they all developed in an interesting way during the span of the movie.
If you're roleplaying without a plot, you're doing it wrong.
-
You once again ignore style Volki. You can Roleplay without plot and still have conflict. That is simple enough if you have enough players who use that style. But generating soft enough conflict that allows everyone to jump in and stay in is the hard part. It's always a balancing act.
Honestly, that's where some others make it hard for other people to join their open RPs. The RP becomes so centered on the conflict which was established before that moment that any new player coming in (new to the RP that is) is iced out due to not having connection to the deeper part of the conflict. Or sometimes the problem is figuring out the other characters around you well enough to find a point of conflict that won't force them to have to remove their character from RP to maintain their character's IC perspective. For example, you might have a character make fun of another but that other character might only be able to take so much of it before they leave and if it is a super sensitive character, one hit might be all they can take before they ICly have to withdraw.
This is probably why it is so easy to get into a rut of only RPing with certain people even if one consciously makes an effort to avoid that. There are just so many factors that are already worked out with the people one is used to RPing with.
-
One thing that has helped me in the past was actually a tip from a directing book. The tip was titled "Every scene is a chase scene. Every character must want something. If not, why would they partake in any sort of action? It can be simple enough. Perhaps character A wants to know where character B is from. Perhaps character B does not want to talk about where they are from. This back and forth, giving and taking is essential for creating engaging stories on stage, and in RP. I've often fallen into the rut of "Well what do I say next to keep this going?" And a good way of getting out of that is asking myself "What does my character want here?" Often times we ignore the little goals. Identifying what they are is incredibly helpful for playing a character in any situation.
-
I've often fallen into the rut of "Well what do I say next to keep this going?" And a good way of getting out of that is asking myself "What does my character want here?" Often times we ignore the little goals. Identifying what they are is incredibly helpful for playing a character in any situation.
This! So true. My only problem is identifying the more viable goals. For instance, I wanted to interact with the droid character in one RP but his patrol and my character's indifference towards droids meant I was drawing blanks on what to have my character do next. However, like you say those little goals make a difference, I did come up with her wanting the droid to stop pacing which opened the way to finally starting RP.
Whoo! +100 internets for Zalya giving the answer I needed. \\o//
-
Ah.. motivation.
I do things because x... I ask questions out of need or curiosity. I ask for help only if I damn well need it, yet I help others when I think doing so might feel rewarding. Without motivations, needs and want's, we probably wouldn't be doing much.
As an antagonist, I try to create imbalances where I can. I try to ruin the peace and create crisis so that others feel a need to interact or to right my wrongs. I try to create a disturbance or blockage that cannot be ignored and needs to be overcome. This is very hard to do since we are in a fictional world where people/characters can just walk away from the approaching maelstrom or blatantly swim into it on an inflatable raft and eat a ham sandwich as they swirl towards the center.
Ok, that was a little too metaphorical, but you get my point.
-
hehe. The part I liked most from Zalya's post was actually not the part on motivation but rather on catching yourself when you make that switch from motivation to "how do I keep this going?". Honestly, it's little ooc things like that that interfere in RP more than IC things. It's learning to catch those behaviors and do something more effective/constructive that lets RPs thrive and RPers grow.
Since most of my characters are usually good, the closest I can do to cause a disturbance is to have my characters engage unfamiliar characters around them with conversations, commentary, or by watching them. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't. However, I have found that RP servers in swtor are a tough nut to crack and sometimes you can do all the lovely things that we talked about and still get completely ignored. Bah, maybe I need to sometimes come back to PS to test or refine a theory in an environment that is a little less resistant. ;D
-
@Illysia, all conflicts are part of a greater plot.
By the way, if you have to act out of character to keep a roleplay going, that's bad form.
-
By plot I mean the player guiding the story specifically Volki and the problem is not acting out of character it's thinking out of character. When an RP lags it's easy to take yourself out of the moment to work it out in your head, but that can also move you away from focusing on your characters motivations since we as players have a motivation to keep an RP moving.
It's a matter of getting distracted I think.
-
bump...
I'm bored right now. I don't feel like finishing my writing exercise for the day. :/
-
Ok.
The only things that matter to living beings in general ( or as we know them ) are survival and reproduction. Any matters that are completely unrelated to these are insignificant.
Art, religion (the effects of religious beliefs), ethics, education, and entertainment matter IF and ONLY IF they contribute to survival or reproduction.
-
I think leaving a legacy in other ways is very significant. I think we learn more about past peoples by studying their art or architecture than we do by studying their DNA. Perhaps one day we will learn enough to be able to similar kinds of data from DNA but for now we can't.
However, if there is a genetic component to personality that would be a game changer.
But, ethics, if nothing else, does matter. Bad ethics mean eventually bad behavior that leads to the downfall of a population not the up building or sustaining it. I think the other stuff is pretty important too.
-
Learning about previous cultures is significant only to the extend to which doing so contributes to our survival and reproduction.
( Yes, I'm taking an extreme and narrow stance for the sake of argumentation. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this yet. Hopefully insightful, critical discussion will show if this is bs or truth. )
-
I would say say it ain't truth. ;)
For instance, a no ethics policy would say there is no reason to protect children from harm that is less than fatal. True, the genes will go on, but without ethics the state of the infrastructure that supports reproduction, that is society, collapses. You need people to be able to come together to work together for mutual good as no one is completely self sustainable therefore society is necessary. You need boundaries to allow people to work together and provide common ground. You need to say there is a point beyond which we will not sink because that point only leads down a bad road.
Education is necessary because no one comes into the world with all the information they need. What counts as education is subjective but there is always a form of it. Also, Education allows for efficiency, if done right, in creating skilled people who support the infrastructure of society. Everyone can't survive on just hunter gathering, not that current ways are perfect, but being able to do things like farm, construct more sturdy structure for storage and living, and so forth are necessary, generally speaking, to start to make a society more resistant to getting wiped out completely. Some people being able to produce more food, by say farming, allows others to spend less time on food gathering and more time on other skills that help support society. Therefore passing on information efficiently is the best form of shoring up vulnerabilities.
Art is necessary because it can stimulate thoughts and feelings. Humans are very much into what they can sense and art involves appealing to those. But admitedly art is very powerful. It can inspire and it can demoralize, thus it can be used to tear down or build up, but it can move people to take action towards things that help them define their society. For instance, many a photography has a collection of everyday life pictures to bring awareness and appreciation for people who may not get as much appreciation as they deserve but make society as we know it possible.
I'll leave it at those or the post will only get longer. :)
-
Roled rubs his hands together, grinning. He prepares himself for intellectual battle.
"So, the proposition is:"
The only things that matter to living beings in general ( or as we know them ) are survival and reproduction. Any matters that are completely unrelated to these are insignificant.
Art, religion (the effects of religious beliefs), ethics, education, and entertainment matter IF and ONLY IF they contribute to survival or reproduction.
/me draws forth his Socratic sword and holds it vibrating above Rigwyn's cranium.
"Please sir, tell me what you mean by the verb "to matter"? "Matter" to whom or what, when, and in what sense please? And what you mean by "survival"- as in individual or cultural or species or? And finally what you mean by "reproduction"? For only then, when we occupy the same battlefield of time and space, and the same "horizon of history" (Gadamer), can the tussle commence...
:o
-
For instance, a no ethics policy would say there is no reason to protect children from harm that is less than fatal. True, the genes will go on, but without ethics the state of the infrastructure that supports reproduction, that is society, collapses.
To the extent that the infrastructure or society supports or for facilitates survival and reproduction, it has value - but only to that extent. Comfort is not necessary unless it somehow supports or facilitates survival or reproduction. Again, only to the extent that it does.
You need people to be able to come together to work together for mutual good as no one is completely self sustainable therefore society is necessary.
A person can survive on his own, though being part of a pack or society would likely increase his odds of survival and reproduction. To that extent and to that extent only, it has value.
You need boundaries to allow people to work together and provide common ground. You need to say there is a point beyond which we will not sink because that point only leads down a bad road.
The only thing that is bad, is things that are counter to survival or reproduction - either directly or indirectly.
Education is necessary because no one comes into the world with all the information they need. What counts as education is subjective but there is always a form of it. Also, Education allows for efficiency, if done right, in creating skilled people who support the infrastructure of society.
To the extent that education supports survival or reproduction, it has value. Knowing how to select adequate food or build fire will certainly augment one's ability to survive. Knowing something that has absolutely nothing to do with survival or reproduction is meaningless. There is no value in having knowledge of a fictional story unless that knowledge somehow augments survival or reproduction.
Everyone can't survive on just hunter gathering, not that current ways are perfect, but being able to do things like farm, construct more sturdy structure for storage and living, and so forth are necessary, generally speaking, to start to make a society more resistant to getting wiped out completely.
There was a time when people were hunter/gatherers. There may still be some such tribes in remote parts of the world. Those who are incapable of satisfying their basic needs will not survive. With the aid of a community, such people can survive, but whether that's a good thing or not is the subject of another debate. ( It's certainly a merciful thing, but does being merciful and charitable to those who cannot provide for themselves aid it survival and reproduction, or does it take away? )
** I do realize that this is a sensitive topic. I have some family members who are incapable of providing for their own needs. I would never toss them out into the cold to lighten the load or enhance the gene pool so to speak.
Art is necessary because it can stimulate thoughts and feelings.
Art is not required, however, I think that it is completely unavoidable. To me, art is where near-chaos touches logic. I think this is basically what life is - a fusion of near randomness with predictability.
Humans are very much into what they can sense and art involves appealing to those. But admitedly art is very powerful. It can inspire and it can demoralize, thus it can be used to tear down or build up, but it can move people to take action towards things that help them define their society. For instance, many a photography has a collection of everyday life pictures to bring awareness and appreciation for people who may not get as much appreciation as they deserve but make society as we know it possible.
If it does not stop us from surviving or reproducing, then we do not need it. If it enhances these, then it has value but only to the extent in which it does.
"Please sir, tell me what you mean by the verb "to matter"? "Matter" to whom or what, when, and in what sense please? And what you mean by "survival"- as in individual or cultural or species or? And finally what you mean by "reproduction"? For only then, when we occupy the same battlefield of time and space, and the same "horizon of history" (Gadamer), can the tussle commence...
I should be more careful about using the words "Matter" and "Significance"
Survival and Reproduction are required in order for our kind to continue living.
By reproduction, I mean literally having offspring that will perpetuate our kind.
I would consider something significant, but not required if it aids in reproduction and survival.
Knowing how to build fire is significant but not required for survival.
-- added to further clarify...
I was recently contemplating the meaning of life and thought to myself, perhaps there is no great meaning or purpose. Perhaps our ultimate purpose is simply to reproduce and avoid becoming extinct. ( If we become extinct, then that's ok.. that's just natures way of wiping out the mistakes and continuing with her her work. )
"And what you mean by "survival"- as in individual or cultural or species or?"
- I guess I would say species ( but lets not get into what happens if our species splits into two chains, that's outside of the point )
By reproduction I mean reproducing for the sake of surviving over the long haul. For the human race to survive beyond a single lifetime, a significant portion of it must reproduce and provide an adequate amount of offspring that is capable of reproducing in return. When it fails to reproduce or survive, it ends.
How much reproduction is needed for the race to survive is another story. Too much could be almost as bad as too little.
-
Whooo... *cracks knuckles* heavy topic late at night. I apologize for missed typos. X-/ I'm just cutting the rest of my post and will only leave this part. It would take too long to finish talking about everything brought up so I'll just focus on this part.
The value of survival and reproduction is subjective. You might feel the need to live, but what if you are only a danger to everyone and everything around you? For everyone else to continue, your survival not only becomes subjectively worthless, but it becomes more valuable to eliminate you; however, you might feel that your survival is paramount. Who is right? Who sets the standard? Why? There is no set scale, on human terms at least, about what or who is valuable. There is nothing inherent about one's survival being important; it is a viewpoint issue that is shaped by how you define "important". Someone can set arbitrary ideals and standards, but, honestly, not a one of us actually has true authority to enforce it universally. Once again, it is subjective.
I might also add that, theoretically, survival of the species could depend eliminating individuals based on traits other than physical capabilities. Many people who believe in "survival of the fittest" would not submit to elimination if it was found that they were deficient in another critical area. There is often a bias there that should be noted. It has been my casual observation that proponents of that view are often people who think themselves qualified to be exempted from the "purge." Thus, change the terms of viability and you'd also find opinions change at exactly the same time meaning there was once again nothing inherent about it.
However, what is necessary isn't always a matter of what will keep you from dying on the spot. I would argue comfort is necessary. The human body is not supposed to undergo constant stress over long periods of time. Can it do so? Yes. But the strain on the body is significant, and can, in fact, cause health problems that lead to earlier than necessary death and decreases in ability to function and reproduce. Adrenaline and cortisol are meant to spur you to action in the heat of a moment to save your life but existing long term in that state has the opposite affect.The body tries it's best to compensate and work under long term stress anyway, but that is not the same thing as saying constant stress is not killing the body; it just dies over a long enough stretch of time that you might not realize that stress was the underlying cause. Further, in the end, does it matter if it was a lion or a heart attack that killed you? Dead is dead and comfort can help the body better maintain it's functions.
Now about a single human surviving on his own, it is unsustainable. Even if he does have children and then they part company some time later, it is more likely the children will die without the support of a group as children are fragile, require a lot of resources, and the mother can only be in one place at one time. He will not likely be successful in continuing his line for very long as each surviving generation would have to beat the odds with the odds increasingly stacking against them. On the other hand, if a person does not have children, he will not only lack a generation behind him to keep going, but he will also grow old and vulnerable with no one to protect him. Groupings of people are necessary to survival, "society" is necessary to manage groups of people however big or small. Even in a small group, there will always be conventions that govern the interactions to some extent, that is the basic foundation of society.
A stable group is also a foundation for society. People need to come back to a more stable group as haphazardly bumping into others is not reliable. Those that manage being on their own now are rare and are often supported indirectly by "societies". For instance, there are religious hermits on their own but more than likely they are not meditating and farming the land in their minds to stay alive. Food, clothing, and other necessities are coming from some grouping of people. If they were to rely on whoever stumbles by, they would probably starve. What if the next person to stumbles by has no food and no access to food? You need people with known skills or resources, so that you can adjust how you function thus the need for returning to people you are familiar with thus needing a group thus needing a society.
-
The value of survival and reproduction is subjective. You might feel the need to live, but what if you are only a danger to everyone and everything around you? For everyone else to continue, your survival not only becomes subjectively worthless, but it becomes more valuable to eliminate you; however, you might feel that your survival is paramount. Who is right? Who sets the standard? Why? There is no set scale, on human terms at least, about what or who is valuable. There is nothing inherent about one's survival being important; it is a viewpoint issue that is shaped by how you define "important". Someone can set arbitrary ideals and standards, but, honestly, not a one of us actually has true authority to enforce it universally. Once again, it is subjective.
The survival of a single being, yes. You could say the same thing about an entire species ( some might argue that the world would be better off without humans ), but the point of my argument is that all that matters (for the species in question) is survival and reproduction.
Discussing the value of human life, how to asses it, and what to do about it could take up an entire discussion in itself. We should bookmark this section for later.
I might also add that, theoretically, survival of the species could depend eliminating individuals based on traits other than physical capabilities. Many people who believe in "survival of the fittest" would not submit to elimination if it was found that they were deficient in another critical area. There is often a bias there that should be noted. It has been my casual observation that proponents of that view are often people who think themselves qualified to be exempted from the "purge." Thus, change the terms of viability and you'd also find opinions change at exactly the same time meaning there was once again nothing inherent about it.
I was thinking, people who are not fit to survive might come in handy for some other purpose, so it might be better to feed and keep them healthy... ( that sounds horrible, I know. )
However, what is necessary isn't always a matter of what will keep you from dying on the spot. I would argue comfort is necessary. The human body is not supposed to undergo constant stress over long periods of time. Can it do so? Yes. But the strain on the body is significant, and can, in fact, cause health problems that lead to earlier than necessary death and decreases in ability to function and reproduce.
Once the male has fertilized the female, he has little purpose in life. Likewise, once the offspring can survive on it's own, the mother is dead weight for the most part.
Now about a single human surviving on his own, it is unsustainable. Even if he does have children and then they part company some time later, it is more likely the children will die without the support of a group as children are fragile, require a lot of resources, and the mother can only be in one place at one time.
Having a community or tribe increases one's chances of survival and reproduction, but it is not an absolute necessity. There is a different here between a need and a very-good-to-have. Yes, without tribes and communication, people would probably die much earlier and be less likely to successfully rear offspring.
As I think about this more, my original argument could be reduced to something like "All we as a species need, are the things required for our survival. " as reproduction is implied when you think of "survival" as "surviving as a species."
I think most of us are well beyond this most basic need. Once that need is met, we forget about it and focus on the next rung - which is not so much need, but perhaps improvement or comfort.
-
The survival of a single being, yes. You could say the same thing about an entire species ( some might argue that the world would be better off without humans ), but the point of my argument is that all that matters (for the species in question) is survival and reproduction.
See that's the problem with it being subjective. Since there is no inherent value you can use any arbitrary standard as "needed". What makes survival so important that it supersedes all other standards, the fact that some people put a value to it. But for what it is worth, the only value most things have is what someone is willing to give for it. I personally would say sacrificing noble actions, culture, and art in general for survival is too high a price.
I was thinking, people who are not fit to survive might come in handy for some other purpose, so it might be better to feed and keep them healthy... ( that sounds horrible, I know. )
They may not be fit to survive individually but they may be perfectly fit to survive in a group. This is where the arbitrary promoting of self over group is most notable. Technically speaking, whether or not they can run on their own is irrelevant if the group has enough resources to compensate. If they are bringing something beneficial to the whole then physical ability is just one trait out of many for consideration.
Once the male has fertilized the female, he has little purpose in life. Likewise, once the offspring can survive on it's own, the mother is dead weight for the most part.
In some cases yes, but that is not universal. The male serves as a protector for the family in many species thus providing a resource to the family. Even in a system that doesn't use a nuclear family structure, the males often contribute to the functioning of the ecosystem as predators or something they construct contributes to it. Children's bodily function may be mostly autonomous, but they are still often not fully developed, the child is vulnerable and unable to care for themselves fully. The parent or parents are necessary because the child must be given the things need to live long enough to learn, the time needed for their bodily functions to fully develop, and the time to build enough strength to compete with adults or other species for resources. Animals rarely fall out of the womb fully equipped to survive and even in those species where the offspring are along from the beginning often see heavy losses.
However, here is where we have to make a distinction between thinking creatures and animals. Animals often do come far better equipped to just function than humans do. However, humans have other considerations as well. Being able to neglect our mind is not the same as saying it is not necessary to cultivate it, being able to ignore our inner sense of justice is not the same is saying it is not really there, ignoring that we have a need to connect to things larger than our individual selves is not the same as saying we don't need to connect, and so on. Animals may not need things things to function but humans do, that is why we recreate these things whenever we get the chance and that's why people who are deprived of these things often suffer for it. Humans are complex creatures no matter how hard some might try to simplify us for convenience or categorization. That in turn means that our "needs" are complex as well. We have many functions that must be preserved for us to function, not just bodily functions.
Having a community or tribe increases one's chances of survival and reproduction, but it is not an absolute necessity. There is a different here between a need and a very-good-to-have. Yes, without tribes and communication, people would probably die much earlier and be less likely to successfully rear offspring.
This assumes that you could sustain a species without some such grouping. It is not "good to have" it is necessary. Maybe Bacteria could function this way, but you will eventually wipe out a species of complex creatures if they do not band together at some point for mutual benefit. Humans in particular are simply not equipped to function that separately. You will maybe have a few generations but the line *will* die out as no human is that self sufficient and they cannot reproduce on their own with sufficient resources.
As I think about this more, my original argument could be reduced to something like "All we as a species need, are the things required for our survival. " as reproduction is implied when you think of "survival" as "surviving as a species."
I think most of us are well beyond this most basic need. Once that need is met, we forget about it and focus on the next rung - which is not so much need, but perhaps improvement or comfort.
I will agree that it is in the mix of things we feel we need to do but that is not the same as saying that if we only meet that need that we can get by without the others.
-
See that's the problem with it being subjective. Since there is no inherent value you can use any arbitrary standard as "needed". What makes survival so important that it supersedes all other standards, the fact that some people put a value to it. But for what it is worth, the only value most things have is what someone is willing to give for it. I personally would say sacrificing noble actions, culture, and art in general for survival is too high a price.
noble actions, culture, and art in general are great results humankind and every single human being was able to and is able to achieve only after having satisfied the primary survival needs. History has already shown no human group develops a high culture when he's still locked in a struggle for his own survival. When environmental conditions make it uncertain the survival even for a highly civilized culture it happens the culture regress.
Even a single human being when faced with the need to defend its life most of the time forsake cultural restrain and fight for its life. Like every other lifeform does. The only exception can be fighting for the offspring. Fighting for the future life sometimes at the expenses of own life is something which seems to be inherently coded inside every living being.
-
Painting masterpieces and creating symphonies might not be possible but art has a broader definition than a canvas. Even decorating a pot slightly can be that culture's art if it is decoration for decoration's sake. But I don't think it is inevitable that noble actions will always be sacrificed. I think it is just simple to devalue character in favor of selfishness, and if one does not develop strong enough character before getting into a survival position, they won't necessarily have the strength at that point to suddenly develop it.
Strong character and strong principles are a very persistent traits once established and they are not easily turned off. However, it is easy to appear to have those traits but lack the substance of it, so it will appear a person's principles are much more flimsy than they are since the person "turned" on them. In reality, that was probably just not something they had truly internalized; it just wasn't that important to that individual. However, there are people who will sacrifice themselves for their principles, whatever those happen to be, no matter the circumstance because deep in their souls this ideal, whatever it may be, becomes far more important than surviving without it. Truthfully, I think this is one of the things that differentiates humans from animals. Principles are not an instinct because they must be learned and developed, but if done right they can be equally as strong.
Also, we would have never gotten to the point of civilization if someone didn't strike out and try to break the cycle before it broke on its own. Civilization doesn't just happen when the conditions are right, it has to be worked for. Even now we have food shortages, sicknesses, resource shortages, people die and so on. It's not like those went away, but when you work against the survival situation to try to set yourself up to one day thrive, you end up doing the things that are the foundations of civilization. I think to often people think necessary systems just appear in ideal conditions or at least in non crisis conditions. Many systems appear right in the middle of the least ideal of circumstances because that is when they were needed and that is when they had to be implemented.
And regarding protecting young, it isn't hard coded into everything. Some species just have their offspring and then once born the kiddies are on their own. Some species eat their young. Others might have individuals that simply abandon them. I think that varies greatly.
-
History has already shown no human group develops a high culture when he's still locked in a struggle for his own survival. When environmental conditions make it uncertain the survival even for a highly civilized culture it happens the culture regress.
I think statements like this apply more to the population as a whole than to each individual. Yes, among the panicking sick and starving who are trying to scrape up something to eat ( more to prevent death via starvation than to feel sated ) while fighting off hordes of starving wolves, there will likely be some jackass who instead of helping this fellow cavemen survive, decides to soothe his soul by singing songs about the festering dead while finger painting pictures of their demise into the cave walls with tar and blood.
Strong character and strong principles are a very persistent traits once established and they are not easily turned off. However, it is easy to appear to have those traits but lack the substance of it, so it will appear a person's principles are much more flimsy than they are since the person "turned" on them. In reality, that was probably just not something they had truly internalized; it just wasn't that important to that individual. However, there are people who will sacrifice themselves for their principles, whatever those happen to be, no matter the circumstance because deep in their souls this ideal, whatever it may be, becomes far more important than surviving without it. Truthfully, I think this is one of the things that differentiates humans from animals. Principles are not an instinct because they must be learned and developed, but if done right they can be equally as strong.
When faced with survival, I think many folks would do things to survive that would otherwise violate their principals. Not all, but many. Putting lofty principals before death looks great in the movies, but I think when a person is actually subjected to a life or death situation, their survival instincts will be more likely to win. That's not to say that an individual *cannot* put principals first but rather, its more likely that they will do what they need to do in order to survive.
example:
Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, also known as the Andes flight disaster and, in South America, as the Miracle of the Andes (El Milagro de los Andes) was a chartered flight carrying 45 people, including a rugby union team, their friends, family and associates that crashed in the Andes on 13 October 1972. More than a quarter of the passengers died in the crash and several others quickly succumbed to cold and injury. Of the 27 who were alive a few days after the accident, another eight were killed by an avalanche that swept over their shelter in the wreckage. The last 16 survivors were rescued on 23 December 1972, more than two months after the crash.
The survivors had little food and no source of heat in the harsh conditions at over 3,600 metres (11,800 ft) altitude. Faced with starvation and radio news reports that the search for them had been abandoned, the survivors fed on the dead passengers who had been preserved in the snow.
Also... while a crude design on a jar or stick may be considered art, its a lot different from the sort of art that comes about when a person or society has enough spare time to actually devote a huge portion of their life to the practice and study of art. ( Assuming that they have been practicing for long enough to actually document or hand down their progress and thus advance in the arts at an accelerated rate. ) Compare simple craft/art left by tribal folks versus art from more advanced cultures where people actually make art their profession.
-
Many will not struggle that hard, but I still think it depends on the internal values system you set for yourself. If you want to be the kind of person who would resist, you can work towards becoming that kind of person. Unlike instincts, values can be chosen. If you place your own survival as paramount placing it even over not eating another human being, in a situation were you have have to make the choice to eat the other person that choice didn't generate in a vacuum at that point in time. That choice was colored by a value that was held before that point. To someone who that is truly objectionable to, down to their core, they will die before going there because living with that kind of violation of your being is more objectionable than dying. In the end, you can choose to be a more noble person, but it's not the kind of thing you can just fake, and you can't develop that on the spot. It takes a lot of effort, hard work, and time to be able to transform yourself into that kind of person.
However, I suspect most people just have whatever values they have, they don't necessarily think about them extensively and turn them around in their heads as much, unless they happen to be writers or something. I think that is one of the reasons that RPGs are popular with some people. In ones where your actions have consequence and you have morality choices, you can, if you bother to, analyze your internal values system and see what your feelings are on various points with low consequence in real life. However games aren't the only thing that makes you analyze your values system. Ideally that is what religion does, although I concede that there is nothing inherent that says every religion is going to produce people with good values.
However, this is what makes faith both powerful and potentially dangerous. Belief in deities and or higher forces will convince those who actually believe to adopt particularly strong principles or values, for good or bad, that they will not simply swerve from even in the face of consequence. It's the foundation for making a martyr. But even without appealing to higher powers, I think it is possible for any organization that can move its members enough to generate strong views can create in people values that cannot simply be "turned off". I believe that is what lets soldiers march into a warzone knowing they could die and yet they still head in. Not every soldier has a family or child in particular who they have to protect, and not every conflict affects the homefront. But, strong values on what should and should not be the case can spur a person into danger because their internal motivational value is stronger than the desire to live.
I think all humans are capable of that kind of conviction for something if they choose to tap into it, but most simply don't. Most things probably aren't critical enough for people to form strong values around them.
-
That choice was colored by a value that was held before that point.
Perhaps. Although this is an extreme example, try to imagine literally starving to death while there is *food* no matter how off putting, right next to you. I don't know much about physiology ( and I won't pretend to ), but I think once a certain degree of hunger kicks in, your body is going to chemically urge you to eat that frozen meat. :devil:
However games aren't the only thing that makes you analyze your values system. Ideally that is what religion does, although I concede that there is nothing inherent that says every religion is going to produce people with good values.
Jeez... I was doing so good at avoiding the religion argument.... V_V
However, this is what makes faith both powerful and potentially dangerous.
To have faith is to believe without knowing. That's ok when education is not available and blindly believing the town "smart person" is better than living in complete darkness. We no longer live in such darkness. Today, it's better to be educated if you are capable of it. If you are mentally retarded or incapable of being educated, then its better to just be obedient to some smart person and benefit from their brilliance.
Belief in deities and or higher forces will convince those who actually believe to adopt particularly strong principles or values, for good or bad, that they will not simply swerve from even in the face of consequence.
First, morality is not dependent on belief in fictional gods and perceived "higher forces". While some folks "do good" because their mythological god is said to approve of such behavior and punish the opposite, others "do good" because they have empathy or are decent people.
I think religion can be an effective tool for modeling the mind so long as the indoctrinated material is superior to what is in the supplicant's head. We are at a point in time however, where religious believe is not always as effective as a good education.
It's the foundation for making a martyr.
or Kamakazi, Branch Davidian, or Heavan's Gate member...
But even without appealing to higher powers, I think it is possible for any organization that can move its members enough to generate strong views can create in people values that cannot simply be "turned off".
This scares me to be quite Frank. Frank, as in Anne. There's a good side to herding people into holding certain views I suppose, but again, if those views are skewed or deliberately crafted to support further manipulation ( think hitler or george bush and the gulf war ), then those harmless views can become tools to support someone's war machine. It's better to think critically and question the answers than to just make like cattle and follow the herd. ( sorry.. unavoidable pun :) )
: bush probably wasn't the best example here, but I think you get the point.
-
Perhaps. Although this is an extreme example, try to imagine literally starving to death while there is *food* no matter how off putting, right next to you. I don't know much about physiology ( and I won't pretend to ), but I think once a certain degree of hunger kicks in, your body is going to chemically urge you to eat that frozen meat. :devil:
Your body will force you to take in air if you are suffocating, but it will not force you to eat another human being any more than it will force you to try to eat an airplane for sustenance. You can try to eat anything, but you do have to make a choice to try to eat your fellow person no matter how much you justify it later. That is where your values system kicks in. If you devalue your fellow human enough you will be able to just see them as a piece of meat, but if you value your fellow human enough you will not. It is just that simple. But I think just enough people offend us in life that it gives us a way to justify devaluing our fellow person in certain circumstances if we wish to.
Jeez... I was doing so good at avoiding the religion argument.... V_V
You can't really take up a discussion about such things without it coming up.
To have faith is to believe without knowing. That's ok when education is not available and blindly believing the town "smart person" is better than living in complete darkness. We no longer live in such darkness. Today, it's better to be educated if you are capable of it. If you are mentally retarded or incapable of being educated, then its better to just be obedient to some smart person and benefit from their brilliance.
You have to be careful about letting your bias against religion lead to broad statements that apply beyond religion. ;) How do you know anything about Pluto or Mercury? Did you go there yourself? Did you hand check the photos? Did you personally inspect the instrumentation that was used to observe them? Did you personally question the scientists working on those projects? More than likely no. You believed someone else when they told you about these things. You believed without knowing personally and you had faith that the information came from a credible source. One can think what they will of people who belong to religions and the credibility involved, but people who have beliefs in God are using a similar method.
Besides, you can not paint any group with one broad brush and be completely accurate. Not everyone who believes in a deity or higher force denies all science or is guaranteed to be some backwards lunatic. To assume that is to be bigoted and closed minded, and those traits are far more dangerous to society than someone having a different set of beliefs. People vary, so do religions, so do stances on religion so on and so forth. While there is need to reject beliefs that bring people harm, that should not lead to a thought police like attitude towards things you don't agree with. Learning to tolerate different beliefs does not mean, "you have to learn to tolerate only the beliefs that fall within the spectrum I approve of." It means learning to get along with others without creating needless conflict by seeking to other them on the basis of what is "superior" and what is "inferior." It really doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on, if people automatically other people who believe differently and completely shut out their point of view in favor of hanging on to sterotypes everyone is more likely to lose due to the tension and conflict that creates.
First, morality is not dependent on belief in fictional gods and perceived "higher forces". While some folks "do good" because their mythological god is said to approve of such behavior and punish the opposite, others "do good" because they have empathy or are decent people.
I think religion can be an effective tool for modeling the mind so long as the indoctrinated material is superior to what is in the supplicant's head. We are at a point in time however, where religious believe is not always as effective as a good education.
That may be but you missed the actual point I was making. Whatever the means of forming the strong values are, once they are established you cannot just make a person fold over on them. The issue is not morality it is values systems and how they form. Not all values systems are good but they are chosen at least to some extent. If we can choose to do good or do bad then just saying we are biologically forced to do something like eat our fellow human is inaccurate. It depends on the values we hold and cultivate. If you don't actively work with your values system you will still develop one. You will gravitate toward some values or others. However, you may find that that method gets a lot less noble values in the bunch as noble values do not simply crop up on their own. They have to be developed and maintained.
or Kamakazi, Branch Davidian, or Heavan's Gate member...
Exactly, those people had a choice between life or their values system. Which did they choose? Did the need to survive mindlessly and physiologically override the decisions those people made based on their values? No. So, if values can override something as basic as the need to survive, how much more important is it that we active engage ourselves in managing and analyzing our values system? Values systems can be a force for good or bad; the deciding factor on which ours will be is us. If people can do much with bad values systems, how much more can be done with more noble ones?
This scares me to be quite Frank. Frank, as in Anne. There's a good side to herding people into holding certain views I suppose, but again, if those views are skewed or deliberately crafted to support further manipulation ( think hitler or george bush and the gulf war ), then those harmless views can become tools to support someone's war machine. It's better to think critically and question the answers than to just make like cattle and follow the herd. ( sorry.. unavoidable pun :) )
Thinking critically is not enough, in the end you have to hope what you thought was right. The people in Nazi Germany were not all uniformly dumb. I am not trying to excuse what happened, but there were people who thought long and hard before supporting the Nazis. Yet, they were still wrong were they not? That is why you must analyze a values system, periodically check it to see if it is still what you want, then in the end be willing to take the consequences for what you chose. Being able to explain it is not enough. If people who supported the Nazis had had in their values system a value concerning the equal treatment of people, then red flags would have been raised once the Jews started to be relocated. No one can know everything, but if you have more noble values, you can sense dangerous patterns a lot sooner.
This is why one needs to rely less on manipulation and herding and why people need to be more involved in the development of their own values system and engage with others. Actively look for values that you might need to incorporate. If you see the need to protect the vulnerable and I see the need and someone else does as well, there is no need for herding, manipulation, or anything like that. In the end we'll take care of those vulnerable and the world will be better for it was we will lessen the amount of people suffering. In the end, what you need is for people to make up their minds. Either they wish to hide behind bringing themselves down to the level of an unthinking animal and attempt to remove the responsibility of shaping their Values system to be more noble minded, OR they can go out there and look for values that will build up the world around them and engage with others to find values they may not have even known where out there but would make good additions to their own values system.
-
I once ate a whole lemon. Peel and all. Like an apple. If you think I did that for reproduction purposes you would be wrong. Lemon eating will NOT get me a date. And as for survival I did not need to eat that lemon. In fact, it made me really sick afterwards. But I did it anyways. Of course I made ten bucks off of it, so I guess that is a motivation. I guess we have to factor in greed.
-
I suppose so. Greed is another motivation that will override survival instinct and supersede a person wanting to reproduce. I wouldn't call it necessary but a person can choose to value it over the above issues.
-
I once ate a whole lemon. Peel and all. Like an apple. If you think I did that for reproduction purposes you would be wrong. Lemon eating will NOT get me a date. And as for survival I did not need to eat that lemon. In fact, it made me really sick afterwards. But I did it anyways. Of course I made ten bucks off of it, so I guess that is a motivation. I guess we have to factor in greed.
Yeah, this goes back to Roled's question about what I meant by "Matters".
Your body will force you to take in air if you are suffocating, but it will not force you to eat another human being any more than it will force you to try to eat an airplane for sustenance. You can try to eat anything, but you do have to make a choice to try to eat your fellow person no matter how much you justify it later. That is where your values system kicks in. If you devalue your fellow human enough you will be able to just see them as a piece of meat, but if you value your fellow human enough you will not. It is just that simple. But I think just enough people offend us in life that it gives us a way to justify devaluing our fellow person in certain circumstances if we wish to.
I don't think its fair to say that than in a case like this, ALL the survivors on the plane ate the dead passengers because their values were poor. No, hunger won't force you to do anything, I agree with that, but the urge to eat and fight death will have a very large impact on your decision making. Your need for survival will likely become more of an issue than your need to avoid cultural taboos.
One can think what they will of people who belong to religions and the credibility involved, but people who have beliefs in God are using a similar method.
A necklace and a noose are similar too.
What's important here is not the similarities, but the stark differences. To say that education and indoctrination are similar is a great mistake.
No, I have not verified on my own that Pluto exists, but many folks have. It's not spoken of in science text books because someone with a fancy hat had a dream about it or because the lord just told them so in casual conversation. It's in text books because it was discovered and confirmed by other people first. I can purchase or borrow a 16 inch telescope and verify this on my own if I really want to. It's something that can be seen, detected, proven and verified. Like christ, the flying spaghetti monster cannot be detected, proven or verified, so it is not in your science text book.
Try and show a christian religious leader that the whole concept of god is not provable and therefore, his bible is just the creative words of mere man hence lacks any divine authority. Depending on who you go to, you'll likely be met with ridicule, brow beating, indoctrination, manipulation, or you'll just be ignored and dismissed... possible labeled as unenlightened, or heathen. Your criticism will not be taken seriously no matter how logical it is.
Besides, you can not paint any group with one broad brush and be completely accurate. Not everyone who believes in a deity or higher force denies all science or is guaranteed to be some backwards lunatic.
To assume that is to be bigoted and closed minded, and those traits are far more dangerous to society than someone having a different set of beliefs.
Well, its hard to discuss the validity of religion without painting all religions with the same brush. You could argue about the validity of a specific religion, I suppose, but then people are going to get offended. I'm not sure how to approach this. Another way would be to break the discussion down into smaller pieces such as arguing the existence of god, or whether a god is needed for morality....
This is starting to drift...
-- Late note --
The public education system does employ indoctrination. You are correct about that. There is still a difference between learning established facts and solid theory versus religious myth disguised as fact.
-
I don't think its fair to say that than in a case like this, ALL the survivors on the plane ate the dead passengers because their values were poor. No, hunger won't force you to do anything, I agree with that, but the urge to eat and fight death will have a very large impact on your decision making. Your need for survival will likely become more of an issue than your need to avoid cultural taboos.
In this case it is more likely a matter of not having weighted this part of their values system before and they were not in a position to reweigh something that heavy by the time the issue came up. While the urge to eat and fight death are strong you aren't quite seeing what I am getting at. I'm not talking cultural taboos which you may or may not ever give a fig about. I'm talking about internal values, the things that you stick to within yourself, the stuff that makes you tick as a person. That is harder to observe in a person from a distance, but to each individual, their values are in fact a very real, concrete, and powerful thing. I'm not trying to pass judgement here so much as raise awareness. What is necessary, what is good, what is bad, what is advantageous and so forth is subjective. The way any given person is going to weigh these things personally is by their values system. The values system are the parts of you that will be driving you long after any external forces acting on you have faded or ceased acting on you.
What's important here is not the similarities, but the stark differences. To say that education and indoctrination are similar is a great mistake.
Again a broad stroke. Not every religion is brainwashing. Some even advocate turning within yourself to find answers. I can't vouch for the validity of every religion, and I wouldn't hazard to try, but stereotyping all religions as indoctrination is no more helpful than a religion stereotyping all fields of science as blasphemy.
...
Like christ, the flying spaghetti monster cannot be detected, proven or verified, so it is not in your science text book.
It has not been disproven either. Science not being able to quantify or test for God is a valid issue, but don't extend it past what it actually mean. It means with all the information and techniques we have now, it is still inconclusive as far as science goes. Quantum mechanics couldn't be proven until very recently. That doesn't mean it simply popped into existed the moment it hit textbooks. It is fine to say there is not enough evidence for you personally to believe in God, and it is good to question things to see if they really hold up, but whatever standard you use, apply it even to that which you believe to see if it still holds up. We have by no means unraveled the whole universe. Who knows what scientists will say or be able to prove in the future. For now, science mostly ignores such things in favor of what can be quantified now.
Depending on who you go to, you'll likely be met with ridicule, brow beating, indoctrination, manipulation, or you'll just be ignored and dismissed... possible labeled as unenlightened, or heathen. Your criticism will not be taken seriously no matter how logical it is.
Techincally speaking you are doing some of the the same in reverse, so if that kind of response is the problem then it should be a problem no matter who uses it. ;)
Since Religion is such a sensitive topic for you, let's just get back to the original points.
The only things that matter to living beings in general ( or as we know them ) are survival and reproduction. Any matters that are completely unrelated to these are insignificant.
Roled and Zalya have made the point that "matters" here is subjective and that a wide variety of things matter to people. Zalya also points out about greed which is often a much stronger drive than survival or reproduction. I stick out that survival and reproduction can be trumped, in terms of importance, by anything else a person may rank higher in their personal values system.
-
It has not been disproven either. Science not being able to quantify or test for God is a valid issue
I strongly disagree. Inability to disprove something that was never proven to exist in the first place is not a valid issue. When you claim that something is real or factual, the onus is on you to back up your claim. The onus is not on the rest of the world to disprove your claim.
If you believe that the inability to disprove something that has not been proven to exist is a real problem, then please back up that statement.
Quantum mechanics couldn't be proven until very recently. That doesn't mean it simply popped into existed the moment it hit textbooks.
I'm not sure why you would make such an excessively obvious point.
Prior to QM being accepted as fact (1920's), QM was a theory. QM is an explanation for how things work - it is not the very process itself, but a man made description of the process. Since then, the theory was revised.
When an apple falls from a tree, it doesn't flip open a book on physics and look for instructions on how to fall. It moves as a result of the forces acting on it. The book is just our description of what is happening.
I hope you don't think that I'm confused about this or something? o.O
It is fine to say there is not enough evidence for you personally to believe in God, and it is good to question things to see if they really hold up, but whatever standard you use, apply it even to that which you believe to see if it still holds up.
Ok. I am holding pen in my hand. As far as I can tell, it is real. I can touch it, tap it, write with it, taste the ink... Just for shits and giggles, I asked my co-worker a minute ago to verify for me that the pen was real and she did. I asked her to prove to me that it was real, so she threw it at me. It kind of hurt, but make me laugh for whatever that is worth.. I could go around the office and seek further confirmation I suppose, but I have no good reason at the moment to doubt this. If someone gave me a somewhat plausible reason to doubt this, then I suppose I could perform some more tests and seek more people confirm the findings. We could dissect the word "real" and turn this into semantics game, but that would kind of stupid.
It would be MUCH harder for me to prove the Pluto is real since it would require more equipment and knowledge, but it CAN be done, and it does not matter who does it, what their religion is, or what kind of panties they are wearing at the moment. The test of the existence of pluto is also falsifiable. If I carefully point the telescope to where it should be, fuss with it, kick it, or whatever, and there is no pluto, then I get a negative result --- which others will be interested in trying to reproduce or disprove.
We do not make up silly excuses like , "Oh, Pluto decided not to reveal itself to you today because you are Asian." Either the planet is not there, or the test was somehow flawed.
We have by no means unraveled the whole universe. Who knows what scientists will say or be able to prove in the future. For now, science mostly ignores such things in favor of what can be quantified now.
Things that are accepted as fact are not necessarily final.
Do you know why science ignores things that cannot be proven to exist? It's because these supposed things are of no use to us. We cannot use them, measure them, verify them. Even if they did secretly exist up some hidden orifice outside of space-time, they have no bearing on us. They might as well not exist at all. To pursue such things is unproductive. Now, if it could be proven that a god or ghost or the glorious FSM existed then that would be wonderful and worthy of some time.
Techincally speaking you are doing some of the the same in reverse, so if that kind of response is the problem then it should be a problem no matter who uses it. ;)
My apologies if I've been abrasive.
Since Religion is such a sensitive topic for you, let's just get back to the original points.
Agree.
I stick out that survival and reproduction can be trumped, in terms of importance, by anything else a person may rank higher in their personal values system.
I agree. I think history would agree too.
-
Ok, I had a whole post in response, but posting it kinda defeats the purpose of saying, "let's get back to the original points." Not to mention I am tired and have to be up early and I should have gone to bed hours ago. So, maybe tomorrow I will post the response, or I might just let it go since we might not actually make any more progress if we don't let the religion thing go. I'll decide tomo...er... later today I guess. :sleeping:
-
Ok, I'll make this statement and l'll try to let the religion argument be. I'll spare everyone the even longer post.
You apply your standard unevenly. Some religions claim there is a higher being some scientists claim it is impossible for one to exist. Both sides of the debate have made claims.Neither side is more obligated than the other to prove their claim and neither side can provide you with a laboratory experiment that can prove their claim. I don't care if you set the standard high, but at least apply it equally. If neither can prove their point to the point then the issue is inconclusive. In the end, it's best just to let people be. Trying to force people to abandon their beliefs simply because they don't appeal to your values system isn't going to prove anything, end the debate, or magically make the world a better place. Tolerance is actually a pretty good solution to the problem.
The public education system does employ indoctrination. You are correct about that. There is still a difference between learning established facts and solid theory versus religious myth disguised as fact.
There is a difference but don't assume that just because it is a school it can't teach myth as fact.
Two topics to consider, first, schools used to teach about differences in "races" of humans. Race was presented as scientific fact. That concept lead to some pretty nasty incidents between people. Science has now proven that there is no biological basis for the construct we call "race". This has not stopped people from continuing on in hurtful and destructive patterns of behavior with regards to "race". The idea of race is so well ingrained now that science having since cleaned up the issue cannot fully undo the damaged caused by the initial inaccuracies and myths.
Second, even scientists and the systems that dispense findings, that have credibility, still have to be watched. Satoshi Kanazawa, who at least at the time was evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, posted an article on Psychology Today regarding the attractiveness black women. You may remember the kerfuffle that resulted. The problem was that Kanazawa was attempting to state as scientific fact something that effectively constitutes a myth.
If you don't remember, here's a recap of the incident: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/satoshi-kanazawa-black-women-less-attractive_n_863327.html
Once offended people spoke up, the article was removed and I believe Kanazawa might have gotten some kind of censuring. But, until that point it was up on a site with at least moderate credibility and Kanazawa's credibility was still intact. Now I understand that this isn't a peer reviewed magazine and I give them credit for removing the article, but if science doesn't let these kinds of things happen then there is no explanation of what happened here. Not only did Kanazawa get that article out, he had done similar articles of questionable science beforehand and had not been tagged for it.
my point is, don't think that you can simply assume something is accurate because someone slaps the word "science" on it and don't automatically assume that because religion is not involved, everyone did their homework and already checked the soundness of the information. Due to human imperfection, the same flaws that will lead a person to lie about the supernatural can also affect a person to lie about what is scientifically proven. Just be sure to hold everything to the same standard.
-
Lemon eating will NOT get me a date.
have you looked around the internet lately? you'd be surprised what people go for.
my point is, don't think that you can simply assume something is accurate because someone slaps the word "science" on it
next time, just link http://imgur.com/r/all/KLzKUrX
people don't read very long posts.
-
It has not been disproven either. Science not being able to quantify or test for God is a valid issue
I strongly disagree. Inability to disprove something that was never proven to exist in the first place is not a valid issue. When you claim that something is real or factual, the onus is on you to back up your claim. The onus is not on the rest of the world to disprove your claim.
If you believe that the inability to disprove something that has not been proven to exist is a real problem, then please back up that statement.
geez ... how can you be so wrong :P ... religion is not science, religion doesn't need to be proven, religion can only be experimented by living own life ... you must really stop trying to oppose religion to logic and science, they are related as much as an apple is related to a pear. It doesn't really make sense trying to confront them on the same plane.
If you've been unable to experience it too bad/good for you but just stop pretending other to prove that is plain impossible to prove and will ever be.
And speaking about science ... its main purpose is to answer HOW things happens, but it's not really good at explaining WHY things happens, and in fact these are kind of questions philosophy not science have to answer to... and yes religion is much more related to philosophy than it will ever be with science :P
Just remember one thing the pioneer of modern science, Galileo Galilei, Newton, ..., they've been both men of science and philosophy because in the end they knew the answers they were looking for couldn't be answered only by the first or the latter.
-
Religion is one means by which the few controlled the many. Whether there is a god or not is a matter of faith and religion is the exploitation of that belief.
-
Religion is one means by which the few controlled the many. Whether there is a god or not is a matter of faith and religion is the exploitation of that belief.
You're wrong, religion has been exploited by few to control the many... just like science is now exploited and used improperly by someone as a weapon against religion. The religion is simply a way an human being use to give an organized response to his own need... because it's source is not an artificially created construct of the mind but it's the endless need of the human being to transcend his limits and get in touch with the infinite.
Belittling that need means belittling the human need to create art, music, poetry and in the end the need to create the life itself and find an answer to the meaning to his own existence.
-
just like science is now exploited and used improperly by someone as a weapon against religion.
When religious ideology is taken out of it's fictional or *artistic* context and treated as fact, it deserves to be tossed into the light of reason and exposed for what it is. I have no problem with people believing in whatever nonsense they wish to believe in, but when those beliefs leak into the real world and affect us, someone needs to speak up and shovel it back into imagination-land where it belongs and makes sense.
The religion is simply a way an human being use to give an organized response to his own need... because it's source is not an artificially created construct of the mind but it's the endless need of the human being to transcend his limits and get in touch with the infinite.
That's fine and dandy when its labelled and understood as such. Once its presented as fact, it causes a problem.
Belittling that need means belittling the human need to create art, music, poetry and in the end the need to create the life itself and find an answer to the meaning to his own existence.
No, belittling the representation of myth as fact is not the same as belittling the human need to create art etc. It's one thing to make art, its another to teach others that your art is irrefutable fact.
-
When religious ideology is taken out of it's fictional or *artistic* context and treated as fact, it deserves to be tossed into the light of reason and exposed for what it is. I have no problem with people believing in whatever nonsense they wish to believe in, but when those beliefs leak into the real world and affect us, someone needs to speak up and shovel it back into imagination-land where it belongs and makes sense.
LOL ... religion is not fictional, it's not art, it's not a movie... if you're unable to understand and you don't want to understand I suggest you to simply stop saying silliness.
No, belittling the representation of myth as fact is not the same as belittling the human need to create art etc. It's one thing to make art, its another to teach others that your art is irrefutable fact.
representation of myth as fact?? there are myths that are facts while other may not but your statement is quite funny because you made it look like there are "irrefutable facts". Funny enough the science has proven many times scientific facts thought to be irrefutable have been proven false and superseded by new theories.
You know saying this sort of stuff make you look like a very faithful person? :P
Yeah, just the kind of person which worship science just as if were another religion and yeah you're not alone... a lot of people in our times treat science just like a religion, they're true zealots, fiercely fighting against any other creed and religion like true fanatics... unfortunately they don't understand they're belittling and failing the same concept of science which has been built upon a method to test enquire and know the universe better, not a sword to brandish against other human activities.
Just because something has nothing to do with science like philosophy doesn't make it any less real... oh and just so you know, and to prevent the usual boring misunderstandings, science does not enquire what is real and what is not real but test a theory to prove it true or prove it false... and what is not proven neither false nor true the science simply ignore it or enquires more. I suggest you do the same with religion.
-
LOL ... religion is not fictional, it's not art, it's not a movie... if you're unable to understand and you don't want to understand I suggest you to simply stop saying silliness.
I'm not arguing that religion is not real. Religion is very real. I am arguing that god, the basis for these theistic religions, is unfounded and hence cannot be treated as if it is real and factual.
It is not sufficient to just dismissively say that I'm wrong. You need to add some substance to your assertion. Tell me why you believe what you are saying is true. If you are right, then I may learn something in the process.
representation of myth as fact?? there are myths that are facts while other may not but your statement is quite funny because you made it look like there are "irrefutable facts". Funny enough the science has proven many times scientific facts thought to be irrefutable have been proven false and superseded by new theories.
Yes, accepted facts are not final. I already discussed this earlier in the thread and gave an example. Are you actually reading what we are writing or just shooting in the dark?
It's been my experience with religious groups ( Catholicism and other varieties of christians ), that the existence of god and associated ideology is taught as if it was irrefutable fact. This is what I meant when I spoke of the error of presenting myth as if it was irrefutable fact.
You know saying this sort of stuff make you look like a very faithful person? :P
I've been open to criticism throughout this discussion. If I am found to be incorrect, I will promptly admit it and learn. This is what I value about this sort of debate. Sometimes you don't realize that you are wrong about something until you verbalize it and someone else points out the holes in your argument.
Yeah, just the kind of person which worship science just as if were another religion and yeah you're not alone...
No, I value the process for discovering truth. I do not worship it as you put it. I did admit earlier that I can be snarky and somewhat arrogant at times. That is part of my personality.
Just because something has nothing to do with science like philosophy doesn't make it any less real... oh and just so you know, and to prevent the usual boring misunderstandings, science does not enquire what is real and what is not real but test a theory to prove it true or prove it false... and what is not proven neither false nor true the science simply ignore it or enquires more. I suggest you do the same with religion.
I know the thread is quite long now, but this too has already been covered ad nauseum. You might want to go back and read what was already covered before making assumptions like this.
-
I really really really should not jump in...
:woot:
But I will - just to clarify one thing from Eonwind's post, which I agree with in spots (that religion is not exactly fiction or art, more of philosophy or existentialism or...whatever you like):
Funny enough the science has proven many times scientific facts thought to be irrefutable have been proven false and superseded by new theories.
No, Eonwind, and you actually get this right later on - there are no scientific "facts" that have proven false. Facts ≠ theories. Many scientific theories have been proven false and/or been superseded by more encompassing theories.
But scientific facts are facts - like, I made this measurement of temperature vs. density in a volume of water. Then you get the plot, the data, the facts. The theory that explains why temperature changes with water density is....let's say thermodynamics, or statistical mechanics. That theory can be wrong (well, it's not, but this is just a fake example). But the facts are not wrong.
So in that sense, for science, there are irrefutable facts. As long as anyone else can do the experiment and get the same results (so the data is reproducible, as it must be to be defined as scientific data), then we've got facts.
As for the rest, carry on people, I've got no idea what's going on around here, muddy guild houses, god as a novel...
p.s. One more thing - the last bit of Eonwind's post is a great description of the practice of science - testing theories. You can never prove them true, but you can prove them false. Proving them true is impossible but you can just gather more and more evidence in favor of them. Religion is not able to be put to this kind of test, that's why it is not science. There is no test that can be done to disprove that God exists, or any number of gods. So, different things. Someone said apple to pear, I like that, but I wouldn't even make them both fruits >o)
-
Please do feel free to jump in. This is not a fight, but more of an informal debate.
-
Ah, meant I should not jump in because it looks interesting and I have a bucket of stuff to do. Not because it felt like entering the fray :innocent: . Cheers though, appreciate the welcoming nature of the thread (en serio).
-
Stop posting so I can finish this post! :P
next time, just link http://imgur.com/r/all/KLzKUrX
Fair enough, but that link only makes sense in light of our explanations. People need to stop wanting 1 min explanations to deep concepts. Twitter format doesn't work for everything. :P
... you must really stop trying to oppose religion to logic and science, they are related as much as an apple is related to a pear. It doesn't really make sense trying to confront them on the same plane.
If you've been unable to experience it too bad/good for you but just stop pretending other to prove that is plain impossible to prove and will ever be.
I disagree. One, religion is not some lump some concept, it is as complicated as, well, most other human experiences. Two, there is very little reason to not confront them on the same plane if they concern the same universe and confront the same aspects of that universe. The concepts spill over into each other quite a bit due to commenting on similar things like people, how we are supposed to live, and what our purpose is. Which I believe was the actual starting issue.
Religion is one means by which the few controlled the many. Whether there is a god or not is a matter of faith and religion is the exploitation of that belief.
I would disagree. In most cases there is probably exploitation, but I would not say that is all religion is. Religion is one way by which people try to fill their spiritual need. Is it the only way people do so? No. You may see people talk of dancing or gardening as being "spiritual" to them as well, but there is a need there however one tries to quantify that or fill it. If it weren't the case, the topic wouldn't keep coming up.
You're wrong, religion has been exploited by few to control the many... just like science is now exploited and used improperly by someone as a weapon against religion. The religion is simply a way an human being use to give an organized response to his own need...
I don't agree with everything in the post, but I agree with a lot of it. Definitely the above. I think the biggest problem with exploitation of science and religion is that both have people that are trying to use people's trust in the respective institutions as a quick means of making a personal army for someone personal agenda against some group or some concept.
I have no problem with people believing in whatever nonsense they wish to believe in, but when those beliefs leak into the real world and affect us, someone needs to speak up and shovel it back into imagination-land where it belongs and makes sense.
To be honest, Eonwind makes a valid point about your response even if that is not how I would word it. You are essentially fanatically defending science in a blanket absolute, whether you intend to or not, which is behavior typically ascribed to religious devotion. You are still glossing over where science is guilty of the same thing and placing it on a pedestal that only works if you don't apply the same standard back to science. And when presented with where science has the same fallacies, you simply repeat the chant of "science is fact" without addressing the issue and turn back to attack religion. This is the same method of behavior used by some religious people to attack science.
science does not enquire what is real and what is not real but test a theory to prove it true or prove it false... and what is not proven neither false nor true the science simply ignore it or enquires more. I suggest you do the same with religion.
I would say inquiry is a good approach. Rather than just blow the whole concept off experiment with it like you would if you were looking for any other answer. Actually keep track of the variables you are coming across in a religion and its beliefs.
It is not sufficient to just dismissively say that I'm wrong. You need to add some substance to your assertion. Tell me why you believe what you are saying is true. If you are right, then I may learn something in the process.
Keep in mind Rig, that until you can prove that God does not exist, you are doing the same thing. You can make a point for religions being loopy, but that is a different claim from God not existing. You have no substance for your assertion that God is unfounded.
It's been my experience with religious groups ( Catholicism and other varieties of christians ), that the existence of god and associated ideology is taught as if it was irrefutable fact. This is what I meant when I spoke of the error of presenting myth as if it was irrefutable fact.
Well consider that it is as real to the person who believes in god as you standing in front of them, but each person's experience is individual and the indicator that let's them know might only make sense to them. With that much variance how would give an explanation that includes everyone's experience and still makes sense to someone else? You simplify the explanation down for one. It's kinda like defining the color of a red ball by including everyone's experiences, including colorblind people. We might all agree that the color of ball is "red" but the description of what tells us that varies. Color is a very hard thing to describe since we have a hard time sharing our perspectives with others then imagine how much more complex that gets once you add the experiences of people who see red differently.
Ah, meant I should not jump in because it looks interesting and I have a bucket of stuff to do.
Yes, do the important stuff first or you will never get back to it. ;)
-
Fair enough, but that link only makes sense in light of our explanations. People need to stop wanting 1 min explanations to deep concepts. Twitter format doesn't work for everything. :P
challenge accepted. i sum up all you peoples posts thus far in 6 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0
-
Science and religion are fundamentally different based on the one key concept - that scientific theories can be disproven. This is actually how we make progress. By breaking the theories we've got whenever possible - I'm hoping the Large Hadron Collider will break one of the theories of particle physics. That shows where we are ignorant, where we have most to learn, and where we can build new theories to be tested.
Religion cannot be disproven. There is no way to disprove God or gods.
So it makes no sense for me to suggest to anyone to consider religion as they consider science, looking at variables, gathering data, etc.
It seems like an internal thing to do, both individually and in groups, this thing of religion. It's open to debate, there are beautiful theological debates that I've read, brilliant things, but it's not open to facts that could disprove it. Because it cannot be disproven.
So. Separate threads. One for science. One for religion. Never the twain shall meet. Except that it is us human beings involved in both of them. That's a nice common denominator.
-
challenge accepted. i sum up all you peoples posts thus far in 6 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0
With respect to Carl Sagan, somewhat refuted. Not every one's religion has god's in their form, not everyone's religion places them above their fellows, not every religion tells people how to live, not every religion is Christianity. ;) And if science says we are at the top of the food chain because we are the evolutionary current end product, what is the difference from another system that will conveniently put us above others?
Further, it's 6 minutes not one. :P
So it makes no sense for me to suggest to anyone to consider religion as they consider science, looking at variables, gathering data, etc.
That is because you can oversimplify what you don't know into "unknowable." Religion is not an apple to be dissected, it's 50 trillion apples to be dissected... only to find some are simply rotten. You can look at these factors just fine: what is a religion's stated goals, does it have the means to achieve those goals, what is the values system it supports or creates, what affect does that values system have on the people who adopted it, what affect do those people in turn have on the world around them? Is the god an allegory, is he a person with complexity of personality, what kind of person is he if he is a person, what are his values, so on and so forth?
No you won't get numbers and cosmic energy readings but you can definitely experiment. However, you have to go in with an open mind and clear goals or it won't work.
-
Science and religion are fundamentally different based on the one key concept - that scientific theories can be disproven.
....
Religion cannot be disproven. There is no way to disprove God or gods.
Using scientific theory, one could say, 'there is no god. prove me otherwise' and your point is turned 180. it is more correct to say, "Religion cannot be disproven or proven. There is no way to disprove or find proof of God or gods."
as far as science and religion always having to be separated:
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BKfkw1aOiE
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VcLCwnpt4
-
Illysia, I like what you said. Let's be precise though: You can investigate. It's not an experiment. In the scientific sense of the word.
That's all I meant. There is no experiment that could disprove a religion, at least not one that's lasted a while (i.e. has some depth, more than "god will strike you dead if you cross those mountains" and the first fellow over waves and smiles).
But investigation, ah yeah. And quite rigorous investigation too. Although I think for me finding a religion would be more an emotional journey than an intellectual one. But I know many go about it differently.
So! Hushing now.
[EDIT: Rirenil - a very precise reason why I chose to say religion cannot be disproven instead of saying it cannot be disproven or proven - because that is where it differs from science.]
-
Funny enough the science has proven many times scientific facts thought to be irrefutable have been proven false and superseded by new theories.
No, Eonwind, and you actually get this right later on - there are no scientific "facts" that have proven false. Facts ≠ theories. Many scientific theories have been proven false and/or been superseded by more encompassing theories.
What I meant and I admit it was not explained fully is there have been theories deemed as fact and that they matched the "facts" (experiments and actual data) until new "facts" have been discovered and made it raised questions about the old theory and when more evidence were gathered proved it false. Given that I think (opinion) the point still stand.
I'm not arguing that religion is not real. Religion is very real. I am arguing that god, the basis for these theistic religions, is unfounded and hence cannot be treated as if it is real and factual.
It is not sufficient to just dismissively say that I'm wrong. You need to add some substance to your assertion. Tell me why you believe what you are saying is true. If you are right, then I may learn something in the process.
Sure I can tell you why I believe but that is part of my personal experience as human being, sure I can share but that will probably mean nothing for you because you didn't experience it. Could be you never will or maybe you will one day.
However one thing to remember about philosophy and religion which make it very different from science is at one point you're asked to take a side to make a jump "of faith". Please note you're not required to take side by another person but your own conscience at one point (I know this is not very clear but it's a difficult concept to explain in a few words) and this by no mean is giving up any piece of personal freedom (aka it's not that someone not making a choice is more free than I am).
Regarding your bad experience with religious groups and keeping in mind what I said above about taking a "side" I understand they believe in their ideology and say it's true but a christian is not a christian if he/she refuse to confront himself with the others even with not believers (which doesn't mean trying to proselytize them) a christian search for god and search for the truth (beware! truth to be understood as a philosophical, not strictly mathematical concept) is neverending. I doubt about the authenticity of the faith of someone without doubts, and I suggest you do the same.
I disagree. One, religion is not some lump some concept, it is as complicated as, well, most other human experiences. Two, there is very little reason to not confront them on the same plane if they concern the same universe and confront the same aspects of that universe. The concepts spill over into each other quite a bit due to commenting on similar things like people, how we are supposed to live, and what our purpose is. Which I believe was the actual starting issue.
I disagree with your disagreement, you can't take two random stuff even if the same universe and measure them against the same property. e.g. (just to stay in the science theme) you can't just take a proton and a photon and hope to put them on a balance: one simply has no weight. Full stop :P
Problem starts when one or the latter starts flooding each other like when science try to argue against the existence of a god or when religion starts arguing whether the earth is flat or round.
@Rigwyn: I have a question for you - and beware I'm leading you into a trick - you've been speaking about god(s) now please give me the scientific definition of a god.
-
With respect to Carl Sagan, somewhat refuted. Not every one's religion has god's in their form, not everyone's religion places them above their fellows, not every religion tells people how to live, not every religion is Christianity. ;)
...
Further, it's 6 minutes not one. :P
I was going to go with this one from the archives as well, but Feynman was never the smooth talker as much as Sagan was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4
it's 4 minutes instead of 6 though :P
And if science says we are at the top of the food chain because we are the evolutionary current end product, what is the difference from another system that will conveniently put us above others?
slippery slope counterpoint:
Dogs are only at the top of the food chain in places where Humans allow them to be at the top of the food chain.. And if we create an environment and allow the dog to thrive at his will, that would by our definition, make us more than co-inhabitants in the view of the dog, we would be god to the dog. Since that is how we humans define our own god.
-
Science and religion are fundamentally different based on the one key concept - that scientific theories can be disproven.
....
Religion cannot be disproven. There is no way to disprove God or gods.
Using scientific theory, one could say, 'there is no god. prove me otherwise' and your point is turned 180. it is more correct to say, "Religion cannot be disproven or proven. There is no way to disprove or find proof of God or gods."
Nope you can't turn that so easily, it's not a valid scientific reasoning because science (which is a method and nothing else) does not rely on others to prove your theory. You make a thesis and put your thesis under test, if the experiment turn as expected then go ahead and experiment more... but I save you sometime none has been able to prove this thesis or falsify it :P
-
Nope you can't turn that so easily, it's not a valid scientific reasoning because science (which is a method and nothing else) does not rely on others to prove your theory. You make a thesis and put your thesis under test, if the experiment turn as expected then go ahead and experiment more... but I save you sometime none has been able to prove this thesis or falsify it :P
counterpoint: the Riemann Hypothesis challenge. prove it true or false, and you win the one million cash prize.
not a math nerd? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6c6uIyieoo
http://www.claymath.org/millenium-problems/riemann-hypothesis
also, i'm going to really blow your mind now:
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6122096384/hA75F3740/)
-
I disagree with your disagreement, you can't take two random stuff even if the same universe and measure them against the same property. e.g. (just to stay in the science theme) you can't just take a proton and a photon and hope to put them on a balance: one simply has no weight. Full stop :P
Problem starts when one or the latter starts flooding each other like when science try to argue against the existence of a god or when religion starts arguing whether the earth is flat or round.
A scientist may say the purpose of a human is to reproduce and make more humans. A religious person may say the purpose of a human is to serve god. One subject two explanations, to reconcile the two issue you now have to put them on the same same plane.
I was going to go with this one from the archives as well, but Feynman was never the smooth talker as much as Sagan was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4
it's 4 minutes instead of 6 though :P
I actually like Feynman's thinking on the matter better even if I don't fully agree. However, a couple of points. It's not the simplicity of a point that makes it impossible. Most of universe is quite elegant thus allowing for fairly "simple" statements of "laws" that govern it. The problem is not how simple a thing is.
As for being provincial, keeping in mind he is only talking about Christianity, the description may or may not be wrong depending on who you hear from, but that doesn't mean that it is completely divorced from all reality or possibility. It's not unlike saying the president of the US came to another country instead of saying, a presidential delegation came. You can quibble over the details but if there was a representative of the US government in another country then the substance is there whether details have been skewed or not. And further you can't extend that to "we can't tell if the US even has a president" simply because someone skewed the details. If you have no way of talking to the president of the US yourself then you simply have to look for the right details within what you do have access to.
Further, on God being related to humans in human scales and terms, there really isn't much sense in relating the story on a grand scale that humans have no concept of. Look how much resistance there is to the idea when it is kept "local". Imagine how much of a snit people would get in if the explanation was told completely in reference to worlds, people, or realms we would not even have the ability to discern for thousands of years. ;) But we know earth, we know humans, it's just a point of reference, not necessarily the grand sum total of everything ever.
slippery slope counterpoint:
Dogs are only at the top of the food chain in places where Humans allow them to be at the top of the food chain.. And if we create an environment and allow the dog to thrive at his will, that would by our definition, make us more than co-inhabitants in the view of the dog, we would be god to the dog. Since that is how we humans define our own god.
The difference being that Humans are, in no version of the story, the originator of the Dogs as a species. Even if you go with selective breeding, the wolves were there previously. Only some of the issue is covered by having greater power over the dog and his environs. But to be honest, your dog is a bad example. He already thinks you're the greatest thing since sunshine, that he sun rises and falls at your behest, and that you are the provider of the good things in life. *snicker* ;)
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6122096384/hA75F3740/)
I'm no expert on the current MLP but I do think he just found away to finally put ponies in this discussion. X-/
-
... but I save you sometime none has been able to prove this thesis or falsify it :P
/me puts away his meter stick and thermometer, looking relieved O--)
And Rirenil, you have just put your finger upon the difference between science and mathematics. So, not a counterpoint.
But a lovely illumination of why mathematics is so awesome.
-
Try to disprove sldkfjsd.
To me ( Yes, a subjective statement this time), god and sldkfjsd are thus of equal worth.
Illy, with all due respect, I think I answered most of your replies. I'm not ignoring you, I'm just getting a little worn out. If there is any particular one that I *glossed over* then please point it out and I promise to address it.
I don't view science, scientists and scientific works as perfect. Scientists are people and people screw up in amazing ways. The scientific method is a great tool for finding truth. Is it perfect? I have no idea, but its the best tool that I know of to date.
There have been horrific experiments done in the past, and surely are still being performed today. I have no doubts about that.
As for religions being a tool for herding the masses, I honestly think that this varies and is due more to humans being pricks than anything else. I agree that some religious leaders have used religions to manipulate and gain power, but it's not fair to say that all do this - even if it looks like it.
Painting science with the same brush, some of these science shows that we see on TV nowadays do look a little cultish. We are presented with all sorts of wonderful graphical representations of planets and stars, and are told the *the story of the universe* with seemingly unquestionable omniscient certainty. I wish these shows made clear the difference between accepted fact and theory. Some things are inferred via measurement and deduction, but that is not really highlighted.
Keep in mind Rig, that until you can prove that God does not exist, you are doing the same thing. You can make a point for religions being loopy, but that is a different claim from God not existing. You have no substance for your assertion that God is unfounded.
un·found·ed
ˌənˈfoundid/
adjective
adjective: unfounded
1.
having no foundation or basis in fact.
"her persistent fear that she had cancer was unfounded"
synonyms: groundless, baseless, unsubstantiated, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated, unconfirmed, unverified, unattested, unjustified, without basis, without foundation;
----
Just in case you interpreted my last comment as some form of sarcasm ( and it was not meant that way ):
"You have no substance for your assertion that God is unfounded."
My assertion is: god has no basis or foundation in fact, therefore, god is unfounded.
If you are going to say that god is factual, then we need to revisit the whole bit about science and proof and whatnot. We will need to look at your assertion and find the substance so that we have something to run with.
-
Try to disprove sldkfjsd.
To me ( Yes, a subjective statement this time), god and sldkfjsd are thus of equal worth.
And that is only as far as you can take that. You can only state how you treat it not on the full nature of the issue.
Illy, with all due respect, I think I answered most of your replies. I'm not ignoring you, I'm just getting a little worn out. If there is any particular one that I *glossed over* then please point it out and I promise to address it.
You have only just now qualified your statements which is what I've been to get you to do for the last how ever many pages. However, you probably are not as tired of this round about discussion as I am as I've had this one with you like 3 or 4 times previous to now and somehow we keep rehashing the exact same territory. ;)
un·found·ed
ˌənˈfoundid/
adjective
adjective: unfounded
1.
having no foundation or basis in fact.
"her persistent fear that she had cancer was unfounded"
synonyms: groundless, baseless, unsubstantiated, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated, unconfirmed, unverified, unattested, unjustified, without basis, without foundation;
I will take unconfirmed but notice how many definitions of "fact" have floated around in this thread.
If you are going to say that god is factual...
I haven't once addressed whether god is there or not. In fact, I don't think the rest addressed it either. What we're talking about is science and it's ability to quantify God well enough to form experiments that would prove the existence or disprove it.
-
I am God.
-
Perhaps, Volki. If that's the case, then the existence of god indeed provable, AND she is female after all!
But this begs a much bigger question.....
Is the universe ( our planet and ourselves included ) real, or is the universe just an intricate dream?
If life is just a dream, then god may very well exist or un-exist if I will it on some level.
How do I know if its all just a fignment of my imagination?
-
Define a dream, define reality. However, something has to exist for there to be a representation of it, but the substance of things vary which may account for the difference. For instance, you may dream about getting hit in the arm and all the sensations were the same but the substance is different. But say you can make it so that getting hit in the arm will make your body undergo the same effect in connection with your dream. If your physical arm reacts, was it real?
-
Define a dream, define reality.
Well, I always thought that I was me, and you were you... and the trees and lakes were real. I've always thought of myself as a physical being in a 3d world - capable of interacting with things. I would call this reality.
A dream or illusion would be like when you close your eyes and go some place. You don't really traverse 3d space, but rather, you imagine it.
So, is the world or universe "real" as described above, or is it something that I am just imagining?
However, something has to exist for there to be a representation of it
I could have created this universe in my mind. This might be all my creation - my original thoughts. I might not have moulded them after anything.. or they could be thoughts that have been injected into my head by some mysterious entity.
How do I tell?
For instance, you may dream about getting hit in the arm and all the sensations were the same but the substance is different. But say you can make it so that getting hit in the arm will make your body undergo the same effect in connection with your dream. If your physical arm reacts, was it real?
:)
We are equivocating on the word "real". I used the word "real" earlier when I described what I meant by reality, or a 3d world.
You are saying effectively, "Is very the perception within my head regardless of its origin, real" I want to say yes to this, but I fear this will make your god argument take on new life. I need to think about this some more. I will get back to you xD
-
If you created the universe in your mind, then you are still real. What I mean was that for there to be a construct to be unreal in, real must exist, but I suspect "real" is actually relative. That was the point I was making with getting punched in a dream. However, at best, we'd be in a shared imagination since each one imagines they are real and any one point could be the center, if you use that analogy, if there is a singular originating point at all.
... I fear this will make your god argument take on new life.
You really have no idea how much you walked right into another debate about God. I'll give you time to reconsider and back out now. ;)
-
@Rigwyn: I have a question for you - and beware I'm leading you into a trick - you've been speaking about god(s) now please give me the scientific definition of a god.
I have never been given a scientific definition of god. I've heard a lot of inconsistent and conflicting accounts of who and what this god is, but none of them have been any more than opinions and hearsay as far as I can tell.
You might ask how I can say there is no god if I cannot tell you what a god is, but like I said before, this god that christians and other various religions talk about is unfounded. You could say that I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist in my view.
If your rebuttal is that only the heart can know love or god, then I'll ask you to give me a scientific definition of the "heart". To my knowledge, its basically a blood pump. :p
-
If you created the universe in your mind, then you are still real. What I mean was that for there to be a construct to be unreal in, real must exist, but I suspect "real" is actually relative. That was the point I was making with getting punched in a dream. However, at best, we'd be in a shared imagination since each one imagines they are real and any one point could be the center, if you use that analogy, if there is a singular originating point at all.
... I fear this will make your god argument take on new life.
You really have no idea how much you walked right into another debate about God. I'll give you time to reconsider and back out now. ;)
I will not back down. If you show me that I am wrong, then I will gladly accept your finding. I would much rather believe in a god than in no god at all. The christian claim that salvation ( lets not get into specifics ) leads to a happy, eternal life. As an agnostic, my believe is more that once you die, that is it - lights out, no memories. Nana. Poof!
But maybe you are just something that I imagined? You might not be real ( from your perspective, I might not be real )
The body and head might be an illusion too. I could be a brain in a vat of chemicals. How would I know?
All of this reality could be the dream of some strange alien.
Yeah, these are obscure ideas, but how do you tell what is what here?
-
Well, if you take the perspective "we are manifestations of god's will in that he thought of us and we were created," you can make the point that we are God's thoughts. However, we again have the issue of defining how "real" we are.
How do you tell what's real? To some extent you have to "take a leap of faith" no matter what path you try to prove that by. If you try to test for it scientifically, any approach you take is defined by the same levels of real that you exist in so you have to choose to believe the results you get. If you take someone's word for it, God's, Human's, or Alien's, you'll still have to reconcile it in your own mind which is not something someone else can define for you. You have to decide what is actually important to you for defining real then look for what in your mind will be the touchstone for that requirement. Indicators don't always apply universally.
-
Well, if you take the perspective "we are manifestations of god's will in that he thought of us and we were created," you can make the point that we are God's thoughts. However, we again have the issue of defining how "real" we are.
So far, we spoke of two kinds of "real", a subjective "real" as in "my experience is real", and an objective "real" as in "The world is filled with concrete things and we are just one of many"
If the subjective version of "real" is used to determine if Illy is real or not ( I think of illy, therefore she is ), and then I die of a stroke, then are you still real? If you are ,then "real" must be an objective thing. The problem is, your experience is subjective. Is is possible for a human to have an objective view of the world/universe?
-
( I think of illy, therefore she is ), and then I die of a stroke, then are you still real?
No if I am real in relation to you, yes as long as I am not real in relation to you. That analogy relies on you being at the core of the reality, but shift the center and the terms change. I think of it far more like "real" layers though. There is the center which is the ultimate reality, then there are onions layers beyond that. The further out you go the less "real" it is, real in this case depending on "substance". I would assume that something like thoughts would be on that outer layer. It's all related and part of the same continuum, it all exists but in different states of "real". However, each layer is relative to the others with exception of the core layer. All layers are what they are in relation to it. Perhaps real is simply a marker for determining how different or detached a layer is from the core. But this is all just is just wild speculation.
-
I think both are real. There is subjective reality and objective reality.
Let say I put you in one room with a single window in it that points to an apple a hundred feet away, then put eonwind into a similar room with a window facing the same apple. You two cannot see each other, only the apple. So I shoot an arrow at the apple, then open the two doors and ask each of you what you witnessed.
When I see that your objective experiences were remarkably similar, to mine ( as I shot the apple ), then I know with some degree of certainty that your subjective realities (as well as mine ) were influenced by an objective reality (the shooting of the apple)
But wait.. what if you and eonwind are imaginary? Then all this connectivity is happening within my subjective reality.
how do I know if it's all in my head, or if it's happening outside of my head?
A leap of faith?
I was going to say that taking a leap of faith is just giving up, but actually, making a choice, pro, con, or undeterminable is sort of like your leap of faith. Either way, we don't know, so we can either take a leap of faith, or we can just say "I can't tell."
I'll go for the latter. I can't tell.
-
making a choice, pro, con, or undeterminable is sort of like your leap of faith.
That is exactly what it is. Everyone has biases is subject to outside influences whether they are aware of them or not, but at some point you have to stop sorting through the sea of influences, trying to find the bottom, and dare to make a choice. That is simply life.
I personally choose leap of faith but I know that is my personality coming into play. I'm the kind of person that can't stand indecision and would rather have to double back than sit on the fence. Pick a perspective you can follow through on and pursue it until you have reason to change course.
-
So then you will turn your back on your god if I can give you sufficient reason to change course?
lol .. kidding...
-
If I felt had a sufficient reason I probably would but I haven't really had an issue with that. :P I find you have less crises of faith when you learn to tell the difference between your faith and other people meddling around in it. ;)
-
Still bored?
-
Yes, but tired. My mind had a topic but I'm too tired to come back to it. I'll try tomorrow once I've had a chance to reboot.
-
@Rigwyn: I have a question for you - and beware I'm leading you into a trick - you've been speaking about god(s) now please give me the scientific definition of a god.
I have never been given a scientific definition of god. I've heard a lot of inconsistent and conflicting accounts of who and what this god is, but none of them have been any more than opinions and hearsay as far as I can tell.
You might ask how I can say there is no god if I cannot tell you what a god is, but like I said before, this god that christians and other various religions talk about is unfounded. You could say that I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist in my view.
If your rebuttal is that only the heart can know love or god, then I'll ask you to give me a scientific definition of the "heart". To my knowledge, its basically a blood pump. :p
As I foresaw you've fallen into the trap ;D ... almost...
You were on the right way by recognizing science has no definition of the term "god" and this is one of the reason among many why science can tell nothing about god...
So yes now I could ask how you can say god is unfounded but you somewhat already answered: from a scientific pov you just cannot (because the foundation of every theory require at least a good understanding and definition of the subject being researched), but taking the term unfounded in the realm of philosophy this could be simply read you cannot find any foundation of its existence in your personal experience.
And here is the point: the definition of "god" as it seems we are using in this topic can only be found withing the realm of philosophy, and in this realm I can easily find the definition of the term "heart" as well: "the inner seat of the emotions and the conscience in a human being". You can use for my definition other words like "Ka", "soul" ... whatever ... still a philosophic fact exists: human beings have emotions and a conscience and the this fact is based upon the evidence that emotions and conscience are an human experiences shared by the majority of human beings during the course of their lives and the course of history. And please note from the philosophy perspective no further proofs are needed for that statement.
For those of you who don't know what philosophy is and before you all start saying silliness :P it must be very clear that:
1. philosophic statements don't require a strict proof like a scientific statement require;
2. philosophic statements are based upon coomon human experiences which are also based on the observations of the world around us (so a philosophic theory which lead to deny altogether the evidence of the existence of the gravity is off, albeit a philosophic theory can't care less how the phenomenon exists and its physical causes - that ust be let to science)
3. philosophic theory need an internal consistence so while strict logic is not a mandatory requisite relying on logic statements make a theory more consistent.
So as shown above philosophy both exist at the same time in the realm of subjectivity and objectivity. So please let's avoid stupid silliness like: "philosophy is only subjective and anyone can make its own philosophy and they are all true".
Of course if it will appear quite clearly from the above statements that once an individual has embraced a (hopefully consistent) philosophic theory this must be adapted to his own subjectivity.
-
And here is the point: the definition of "god" as it seems we are using in this topic can only be found withing the realm of philosophy, and in this realm I can easily find the definition of the term "heart" as well: "the inner seat of the emotions and the conscience in a human being". You can use for my definition other words like "Ka", "soul" ... whatever ... still a philosophic fact exists: human beings have emotions and a conscience and the this fact is based upon the evidence that emotions and conscience are an human experiences shared by the majority of human beings during the course of their lives and the course of history. And please note from the philosophy perspective no further proofs are needed for that statement.
Yes, I agree with that, however, try to tell a *"born again christian", baptist, or "seventh day adventist" that god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy or within one's subjective reality, and not in objective, scientific reality. This is not what they preach. The problems that exist due to people mixing their theistic beliefs with every day life ( ie. hospitals refusing certain types of services, restaurants refusing to serve homosexuals, government offices spending tax payer's money on religious statues, discrimination against non-believers or different believers) are not isolated to some philosophical plane. These are real world issues.
When people are discriminated against for being pagans, non-believers, or those who are not-saved, do you think these folks are referring to a subjective or philosophical belief in god?
Regarding the heart, what is the difference between the "heart" and the "mind"? The heart sounds to me like its a subset of the mind. We perceive emotions and process logical thought in the brain, don't we? If they are both perceived with the brain, then how to you call one set of neural reactions heart, and another set of neural reactions, mind?
( ^ This question is meant as a friendly challenge. Honestly, I have not really tried to pick it apart myself yet. )
Thank you for your well thought out response.
* note: I only mentioned a few specific religions here in order to make an example and to avoid generalizing too much as some have noted earlier. My intention is not to single out these particular religions. its a more general question.
-
God acts in miracles, and miracles are beyond science. ;)
More or less matching here may be that often mentioned tale (which I can't quote sources for...) about the agreement between the catholic church and scientists that science will limit itself to the universe for now, there is still enough to discover for a good while, and it leaves enough place for any supernatural powers outside of it (e.g. "before the Big Bang").
-
Gah.. I tried to find this agreement you spoke of, but this is as close as I could find for now. Interesting read.
( Wikipedia: Georges Lemaître )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
-
I'm no expert on the current MLP but I do think he just found away to finally put ponies in this discussion. X-/
rules of the internet: http://rulesoftheinternet.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
(a summarized version): http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-the-internet
-
Especially Rule #34 in all derivations. But this is a restricted forum... I should not have mentioned it. Am I a troll now?
-
Yes, I agree with that, however, try to tell a *"born again christian", baptist, or "seventh day adventist" that god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy or within one's subjective reality, and not in objective, scientific reality. This is not what they preach. The problems that exist due to people mixing their theistic beliefs with every day life ( ie. hospitals refusing certain types of services, restaurants refusing to serve homosexuals, government offices spending tax payer's money on religious statues, discrimination against non-believers or different believers) are not isolated to some philosophical plane. These are real world issues.
When people are discriminated against for being pagans, non-believers, or those who are not-saved, do you think these folks are referring to a subjective or philosophical belief in god?
Wait, wait ... I haven't said god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy, I said the definition of god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy. For me god is real (where real is yet another philosophical concept) and it's clear for you it's not and I have no problem accepting that.
If we speak about discrimination (and since you spoke about would-be christians) I would like to say it's not a christian behavior becuase christ acted in the opposite way accepting everyone he met for what he was.
That said there's something very important to say: a human being cannot separate its faith from his ordinary life because they are not separate things. If I am christian, I am christian here, at my working place, when I sleep, when I practice sport ... because it's part of my own being and cannot be put away. This of course does not mean I can't work, talk, cooperate, live with people with a different religion or no atheist. Nothing prevent me from doing that and people shielding being their religion for doing that are just plain wrong imo.
Regarding the heart, what is the difference between the "heart" and the "mind"? The heart sounds to me like its a subset of the mind. We perceive emotions and process logical thought in the brain, don't we? If they are both perceived with the brain, then how to you call one set of neural reactions heart, and another set of neural reactions, mind?
( ^ This question is meant as a friendly challenge. Honestly, I have not really tried to pick it apart myself yet. )
Thank you for your well thought out response.
Glad to give it a try :)
Speaking about the differences between heart and mind we're still in the field of philosophy so the concept of brain and neuronal reaction don't help us much being mostly scientific stuff, so I would leave them out of this specific discussion.
As I defined the heart the seat of human emotions I would define the mind the place of our creativity and the intellect where our highest and abstract ideas are elaborated, the seat where logic reside. However even for this philosophical system the "heart" and the "mind" are not separate entities that live on their own, the work together and affect each other, they cannot live on their own. Other two pieces are missing: the body and the soul: in this specific philosophy the quartet body-mind-heath-soul make up the whole human being but neither of them can be separated from a person: take one and you destroy the person as a whole.
Now considering the same matter in scientific terms: the heart is "simply" a muscle whose purpose is pumping the blood. The mind as term doesn't really exist, perhaps it was referred in the past but afaik even psychology now use different terms and definitions, we have however a central neuronal system (aka brain) which is divided in two hemispheres and we know emotional responses use to activate the right hemisphere while logic, math language (iirc) use to activate the left one.
@Illisia: if you look above you can't really reconcile the two views, they are only loosely related and their purpose is different, trying to reconcile them at all costs will not work much, just like when kids try to get a plastic triangle inside a plastic star of the same size... they just don't couple :)
-
@Illisia: if you look above you can't really reconcile the two views, they are only loosely related and their purpose is different, trying to reconcile them at all costs will not work much, just like when kids try to get a plastic triangle inside a plastic star of the same size... they just don't couple :)
While I have points to make here, I just have to accept that I'll have to get back to you later on this. I am still recovering from getting fillings and staring down the barrel of a root canal tomorrow. I am not going to be any good in a deep debate for a bit. Getting poked in the mouth with sharp needles is not good for thinking about anything else later. X-/
-
Wait, wait ... I haven't said god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy, I said the definition of god is something that only exists in the realm of philosophy. For me god is real (where real is yet another philosophical concept) and it's clear for you it's not and I have no problem accepting that.
For clarification, I said god was undefined - like a null pointer. Until its defined, you can't really do anything with it.
If we speak about discrimination (and since you spoke about would-be christians) I would like to say it's not a christian behavior becuase christ acted in the opposite way accepting everyone he met for what he was.
Different christan groups have very different ideas on this. Exploring this will turn into a gigantic mess rather quickly. In addition, not all christian groups will agree on which groups count as christians.
Glad to give it a try :)
Speaking about the differences between heart and mind we're still in the field of philosophy so the concept of brain and neuronal reaction don't help us much being mostly scientific stuff, so I would leave them out of this specific discussion.
Neurons are just a part of the body. I think this is an area where philosophy and science overlap. If you can't talk about how the body reacts to stimulus, then you can't talk about the body or brain either. I would agree though, that it's better to keep the technical stuff as light as possible.
-
If we speak about discrimination (and since you spoke about would-be christians) I would like to say it's not a christian behavior becuase christ acted in the opposite way accepting everyone he met for what he was.
Different christan groups have very different ideas on this. Exploring this will turn into a gigantic mess rather quickly. In addition, not all christian groups will agree on which groups count as christians.
I will go back and rely on the definition of christian: "A follower of Jesus the Christ". So anyone claiming to (and willing to) follow his teaching can claim to be a christian. Full stop.
Now relying on the definition there are certainty on the subject: evidence are Jesus has always had a welcoming behavior toward the neighbor. Discrimination was not part of his teaching but rather the opposite. So I can safely say discrimination is not a chiristian behavior. Full stop.
Gandhi once said he would be christian if he hadn't known the christians. This show that while the message brought by Christ has a deep moral value a lot of those claiming to follow His teaching not only fail that but fail in a epic way.
Neurons are just a part of the body. I think this is an area where philosophy and science overlap. If you can't talk about how the body reacts to stimulus, then you can't talk about the body or brain either. I would agree though, that it's better to keep the technical stuff as light as possible.
No, no and no. Sorry but here you're just wrong. I can and it's plain legit to ignore scientific stuff in philosophical discussion as long as human experience is not ignored as well. Ignoring the human experience is the only valid counterpoint to a philosophical thesis.
Really Rigwyn this is turning out in a "mute to a deaf" conversation, if I speak about philosophy you cannot make a counterpoint with science, it's just plain wrong like saying: "Q: What is the biggest city in europe? A: The apple's color is green." ???
Albeit I'm not a guru myself, I would like to suggest you in a friendly way to study more what philosophy is otherwise a philosophical conversation is hardly sustainable.
@Illisia: if you look above you can't really reconcile the two views, they are only loosely related and their purpose is different, trying to reconcile them at all costs will not work much, just like when kids try to get a plastic triangle inside a plastic star of the same size... they just don't couple :)
While I have points to make here, I just have to accept that I'll have to get back to you later on this. I am still recovering from getting fillings and staring down the barrel of a root canal tomorrow. I am not going to be any good in a deep debate for a bit. Getting poked in the mouth with sharp needles is not good for thinking about anything else later. X-/
That hurts! One of my parent had to do the same recently and it was a real pain... take your time, recover yourself and best luck :)
-
I don't really feel like digging up a lot of references here, but I can if needed. Your definition of what a christian is may work for you personally, but contrary to what you would expect, it is not universal. Again, this topic right here gets ugly if you dig into it.
According to catholic.com, mormons are not christians:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-catholic-church-say-about-the-practices-and-beliefs-of-mormonism
And Jevoha Witnesses are not christians:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=823767&highlight=jehova+witnesses
But the mormons say they are:
http://www.mormon.org/faq/mormon-christian
And so do the Jehova Witnesses:
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/#insight[search_id]=6ce8eb24-30b5-427e-956b-367e9ca1d1f3&insight[search_result_index]=9
We have yet to compare Fundamentalists, Seventh Day Adventists and our friends the Appalachian Snake Handlers. ( Who would probably condemn everyone but themselves xD ) \o/
As for the rest, I don't have time right now, but will review later.
-
Just a simple chart: What kind of Jew are you? (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/31439.png)
-
I don't really feel like digging up a lot of references here, but I can if needed. Your definition of what a christian is may work for you personally, but contrary to what you would expect, it is not universal. Again, this topic right here gets ugly if you dig into it.
[...]
Words have a semantic, from each word semantic comes their meaning, and I have already said what the semantic of the christian word is and it's semantic is universal (at least in the known world of today :P) you can call it a standard).
According to catholic.com, mormons are not christians:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-does-the-catholic-church-say-about-the-practices-and-beliefs-of-mormonism
while I don't want to discuss myself whether they are christian or not as a whole you can clearly read in the first link the thesis is in fact based upon the the definition of the term: if they are compatible or not with the historic Christian faith.
However it must be noted that being christian is one thing and it's not the same as being a catholic, a mormon, orthodox, ... meaning you could be a christian but not being part of the mormon community or catholic, ... requisites may vary and one could be a christian without even be part of one of those communities... still one could claim to be part of one of those community and still not to be a christian given how he lives his life.
-
Am I a troll now?
no, if you were, you'd have simply linked to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3oPJQ3yWR8 and been on your merry way.
-
Words have a semantic, from each word semantic comes their meaning, and I have already said what the semantic of the christian word is and it's semantic is universal (at least in the known world of today :P) you can call it a standard).
I'll concede to your definition for now.
while I don't want to discuss myself whether they are christian or not as a whole you can clearly read in the first link the thesis is in fact based upon the the definition of the term: if they are compatible or not with the historic Christian faith.
Again, I really don't want to go down this road. For the sake of avoiding this, I won't argue the point.
Getting back on track now...
if I speak about philosophy you cannot make a counterpoint with science, it's just plain wrong...
Honestly, I've never heard this argument before - that you cannot counter a philosophical point with a scientific point. Would you care point out where you got this rule? I'm not disagreeing with you on this, I'm just searching for some supporting material to back that up for my own edification.
-
if I speak about philosophy you cannot make a counterpoint with science, it's just plain wrong...
Honestly, I've never heard this argument before - that you cannot counter a philosophical point with a scientific point. Would you care point out where you got this rule? I'm not disagreeing with you on this, I'm just searching for some supporting material to back that up for my own edification.
Because philosophy and science are based on different foundations, the same term used for one can mean a totally different thing for the other. Some terms are not even defined in one of the two. Trying to make them co-exist inside the same thesis or worse trying to disproof one using the other can lead to epic fails :)
Two examples:
1) [science] while talking about the heart muscle one comes up saying/asking about the centre of human emotions, the scientist can rightfully say "what?? geez I'm talking about the blood pump what are you talking about?!"
2) [philosophy] think of what happened in 17th century when the catholic church was forcefully supporting the heliocentric thesis and using the bible as a proof. We all know how this turned out in the end --> epic fail.
If you're looking for references I will try to provide them but it will take me a bit more time (iirc there's some interesting theorem around talking about a similar problem), however this was the result I come up with after several years past trying to push one against the other or trying to rely on one to come up with answers for questions meant for the other.
-
Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) formulated many interesting philosophical theories the falsification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) being one of the most interesting. And using the falsification method we surprisingly discover a lot of metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Metaphysics) theories cannot be falsified. This show how difficult is for science (especially for science) and philosophy to play on the same playground.
-
That hurts! One of my parent had to do the same recently and it was a real pain... take your time, recover yourself and best luck :)
Thanks. I'll jump back in when I'm sure I can keep a complex thought straight.
-
while talking about the heart muscle one comes up saying/asking about the centre of human emotions, the scientist can rightfully say "what?? geez I'm talking about the blood pump what are you talking about?!"
This is just a matter of equivocation on the word heart, but fine, I get your point. If the discussion is meant to be philosophical, then philosophical terminology should be assumed. I was just busting your chops with the bit about the heart. :p
2) [philosophy] think of what happened in 17th century when the catholic church was forcefully supporting the heliocentric thesis and using the bible as a proof. We all know how this turned out in the end --> epic fail.
Well, this is my main point of contention with religious ideology - when its taken into *real life* ( Sorry, I'm not sure what else to call it ) and treated not as a religious truth, but as an absolute truth. ( Again, the terms used here are awkward.)
In the case of Galileo ( if that's what you are referring to ), it looks like it was a case of "Might makes Right". xD
"Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
-
Regarding falsification: "Gender Studies" belong to the concepts without ... in a way that counterexamples (the case of Davir Reimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)) are simply denied. Instead, the syntax of language is being perverted to denounce quite any grammatical form (e.g. nouns in German do have a gender) as ableism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism) (the simplified use of the grammatically male form of e.g. a profession title is considered as denouncing females, and syntax is invented which is meant to express a neutral representation of both genders, with the result of a heavily disturbed readability of the whole text).
I am sad that there are people who get paid for the destruction of the language and the society, while others hardly survive with reasonable jobs.
-
Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) formulated many interesting philosophical theories the falsification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) being one of the most interesting. And using the falsification method we surprisingly discover a lot of metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Metaphysics) theories cannot be falsified. This show how difficult is for science (especially for science) and philosophy to play on the same playground.
Hmm, I really would like to add something to this. You strictly distinguish between science and philosophy. I am pretty sure that the philosophers will have your skin for that. You can study philosophy and it is a very strict science, completely logically derivable.
In this context, discussing metaphysics, at least in our everyday context, is really bad. One cannot mix philosophy with esoteric junkfood...
In general, I agree with what you said before (maybe less than with Pierre, but ...). Just this bit is really disturbing.
-
Regarding falsification: "Gender Studies" belong to the concepts without ... in a way that counterexamples (the case of Davir Reimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)) are simply denied. Instead, the syntax of language is being perverted to denounce quite any grammatical form (e.g. nouns in German do have a gender) as ableism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism) (the simplified use of the grammatically male form of e.g. a profession title is considered as denouncing females, and syntax is invented which is meant to express a neutral representation of both genders, with the result of a heavily disturbed readability of the whole text).
I am sad that there are people who get paid for the destruction of the language and the society, while others hardly survive with reasonable jobs.
I agree. Funny thing is they're trying to make this silliness pass as science and social positive evolution. What i most disturbing is they're trying to push the concept by teaching it to child since at early age >:(
Hmm, I really would like to add something to this. You strictly distinguish between science and philosophy. I am pretty sure that the philosophers will have your skin for that. You can study philosophy and it is a very strict science, completely logically derivable.
In this context, discussing metaphysics, at least in our everyday context, is really bad. One cannot mix philosophy with esoteric junkfood...
In general, I agree with what you said before (maybe less than with Pierre, but ...). Just this bit is really disturbing.
well imo your point is true and not true at the same time... the point is there is no single unique philosophy, there are the philosophies, many of them are incompatible with each other while still being true (both). Some follow strict logic other doesn't and they are still true.
Metaphysic is not esoteric junk (well... not all of them) and falls under the category of philosophy, however I agree that when tossing around uncarefully metaphysic concepts and theories in our everyday context, is really bad and can lead to nowhere at best.
Well, this is my main point of contention with religious ideology - when its taken into *real life* ( Sorry, I'm not sure what else to call it ) and treated not as a religious truth, but as an absolute truth. ( Again, the terms used here are awkward.)
In the case of Galileo ( if that's what you are referring to ), it looks like it was a case of "Might makes Right". xD
"Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
I agree and it leads back to my main point... trying to push things that belongs to different "realms" into "realms" they don't belong to can only lead to epic fails.
And this brings up another point: religion Vs. politic. Of course you can't completely separate and ignore religious beliefs and political behaviors in a human being (as much as you can't separate its mind from its heart) and not even in a society but history already proved what disasters can happen when the two overlaps. In my opinion the same can be said for science Vs. politic: while the latter should respect and encourage the first (within moral limits) it should not take the latest discoveries as "religious" truth and adequate itself (too) hastily.
Interesting enough who is in charge to define moral limits and ethic is philosophy and this leads back to religions as one of the many philosophic paths.
P.S. Just to make it clear I'm not saying religions are the only in charge to define moral limits and ethic.
-
Illy, you've been lurking this forum like a lost child in a used tire store with creepy 70's era elevator music playing in the background to assuage the silence.
Are you bored? o.O
-
Dramatically so, I'm just too worn out to necro any dead arguments or start new ones. RL has been rough. X-/
-
Besides the genocide and assimilation, I think the borg have a very desirable way of life. Convince me I'm wrong.
-
How about starting off with a convincing argument?
-
You can't desire their way of life once you join the collective as you cease to have wants and desires once you are part of the collective. And... dismemberment. That's always a downside. :whistling:
Afterthought: Ok, here is a topic... What is with Australia and large bugs and various other creepy and or deadly creature?. I've seen several giant bug scary bug pics this week and like all of them are from Australia. :(
-
Might be a climate thing? I know here in the Northern part of the US, wildlife is pretty tame as compared to some of the Southern states - Florida especially. Seems like in Florida, nature is out to get you.
-
(http://cdn.themetapicture.com/media/funny-big-bug-little-kid.jpg) (http://themetapicture.com/honey-there-is-a-kid-on-our-bug/)
Perhaps, but with the harmless things looking like this, I think I'm good. I kinda want to visit Australia, but not necessarily long enough to run into the wildlife. ::| This kid has a Walking Tree on his back. However, lots of stuff is out to get you the further south you go. The Deserts have some pretty nasty things too. I've been stung by scorpions twice already.
-
gotta watch out for that florida wildlife
http://www.reddit.com/r/floridaman
-
"Florida Man wants to open city council meeting with a prayer to Satan"
Way to go, Floridaman!
-
Ok, get all the nice people and nice theme parks out of Florida, then...
http://themetapicture.com/what-i-thought-when-i-read-about-the-face-eater-in-miami/
-
Mmmm... the point is not to promote Satanism ( which I think is about as silly as other mainstream religions ), but to cause people to reject any form of prayer or religious expression in public/govt. meetings. Such expression imho, belongs at home, not in public - where people of conflicting religions ( and the lack thereof ) convene.
-
Sündigen! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3m8MVxlmd8) ("Little Asshole" movie - "To Sin")
-
While I can see them making a point about prayer in government places, not that I think that is the way to go about it, that does nothing about those other headlines on the blog, the bugs and critters, and issues regarding certain laws.
-
I think what we really need to take out of this, is that the best headlines come from Florida.
-
I'm going to be in Florida next week. :]
-
If the animals don't kill you, the criminals will.
-
I'm going to be in Florida next week. :]
http://themetapicture.com/what-not-to-do-when-you-meet-an-alligator/
To be forewarned is to be forearmed.... or at least keep your arms.
-
Your picture shows up blank. So did the last one.
Try using a jpg, gif or png instead of jpe
-
the url says .jpg. I added the links so you can go straight back to the page the pics came from if the image doesn't show.
-
Odd, I can't view it on the source page either. o.o
-
What browser are you using?
Ok let's try sounds since pics aren't working. You will loose some time on this. :P
http://sayingimages.com/click-the-squares-to-make-music/
-
Firefox 29
Anyway, the last link you posted worked.
Prolly my browser.
-
Yep, it's firefox. I brought it up in Firefox, I normally use Chrome, and got the same problem. I have an old browser version and it still seems to have that issue. Tried it in Internet Explorer and got the same issue too. Weird. However, I seem to be able to bring it up on the source page.
-
Maybe its some trick to prevent cross linking? Dunno...
Anyway..
-
Does anyone have suggestions for building ones own laptop? After being burned by both Dell and HP I am leery of buying another already put together. >.>
Is it really so much to want a computer that can actually run the games at normal speed and lasts more than 2 months before starting to break?
-
You can get bare bones laptop kits. I've never tried it though.
I've built my own desktops and servers before, but found that it didn't save me money.
Are you talking about custom building the hardware?
If you are, its no different than a regular PC. Its just going to be a little harder to find that parts you want... methinks.
-
That picture was a one pixel white dot. or as it is also known, a web bug.
Apparently not a reputable site.
-
TheMetaPicture possibly doesn't like direct image linking and substituted the image with a blank to spare bandwidth.
Save the image, upload it to a different image hoster (e.g. frupic), link it there.
(http://frupic.frubar.net/thumbs/31761.png) (http://frupic.frubar.net/shots/31761.jpg)
-
Currently I'm playing using a MacBook late 2009 without problems, just not great performances. Since it's getting quite old I want to buy a new one and the Asus N550JV-CM160P seems a real bargain! :)
-
TheMetaPicture possibly doesn't like direct image linking and substituted the image with a blank to spare bandwidth.
Possibly. I'll just remove the images then as the links are there.
You can get bare bones laptop kits. I've never tried it though.
I've built my own desktops and servers before, but found that it didn't save me money.
The problem is less about saving money and more about being able to see if I'm getting what I'm paying for. For instance, I paid 1500 for my current laptop only to have to send it back not long after due to the fact they made it with cheap plastic and the hinges on the model were known to break easily. And all the other little break downs and now at about 3 years it's starting to come apart. At this point, I've been burned twice by "good deals" and I'm less inclined to go the cheaper route, but I don't want to waste money needlessly.
Its just going to be a little harder to find that parts you want... methinks.
I've heard that it is much harder to build laptops than PCs. I might just concede the point and save until I can get a desktop and a kindle or something so that I have the workhorse at home and something I can travel and read with.
Currently I'm playing using a MacBook late 2009 without problems, just not great performances. Since it's getting quite old I want to buy a new one and the Asus N550JV-CM160P seems a real bargain! :)
It does look like a bargain, but after the last two times I felt that way about a computer I'm inclined to avoid such things now. XD I'm a bad judge of computer character.
-
Fundamentally, pc's and laptops are the same. The main difference is space and choice of parts. Personally, I would not bother trying to build my own laptop. Maybe check out tomshardware.com or arstechnica.com for a review on current models.
-
Well according to one guide I found, it's the lack of a variety of parts for the task that makes it difficult. However, I will take a look at these websites.
-
In most cases building a laptop yourself will cost you more than buying one with the specs you'd like. Here in NL it is hardly done and the only places that provided that service actually quit.
I build my own pc for less then €150 using some spare parts I already aqcuired over time but are still relevant (HD, screen, wifi, etc)..
-
Is there a Free Geek (http://www.freegeek.org/) location near you? They'll only have old parts but they'll also recycle your busted machine by salvaging the usable bits.
-
In most cases building a laptop yourself will cost you more than buying one with the specs you'd like. Here in NL it is hardly done and the only places that provided that service actually quit.
I might just have to put together a Desktop or play Laptop roulette and see if I get a company that isn't trying to cheat me. :-\
Is there a Free Geek (http://www.freegeek.org/) location near you? They'll only have old parts but they'll also recycle your busted machine by salvaging the usable bits.
Apparently there aren't any around here but it sounds like a good idea though.
-
From what I've heard Lenovo seems to be a good choice ... ofcourse ASUS always is...
Anyway.. if you ask me.. they're all out to cheat their customers
-
I've had a Toshiba Qosmio for at least 7 years now. Its large and bulky, but served as decent portable workstation. I wouldn't buy another one only because of their reluctance to support Linux ( which is not really an issue for windows users )
-
I've never looked into any of those brands but I suppose I should. I was inclined to start looking at Toshiba or Lenovo but I'm not sure what I am looking for I guess. But, what I need is something that will let me render 3D graphics without dying more than anything I guess. I'd probably do more arting if my computer wasn't so resistant to the idea.
-
Buy a customizable gaming laptop.
-
Get rock. Get bigger flatter rock. Smash rock against bigger rock. Now you play.
-
Buy a customizable gaming laptop.
Or at least have a good look at the hardware that they use.. cause they definetly arent the cheapest laptops... For these heavy duty tasks I'd recommend a pc so you have more opportunities to add or adjust your hardware. Brand name laptops usually have to have the original part or made by the same manufacturer...
-
We'll see. Either way, I'll have to get money together first and that might take awhile. ;)