1082 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

There is no real evidence to suggest that Tranquils can't think in such a way, either.

Yes there is.  If they could think and reason this way, we would have seen evidence for it.
 

Logically, what would Orwain do to help you? He has no magic, no martial skills. He would be a hinderance and would probably die quickly. There is no reason to basically commit suicide without any gain.

Perhaps at first, but Orwain would at least hide and then offer to help, perhaps even offer items and such from the storeroom.  The point is that Orwain doesn't do any of that.  He basically seeks to escape first (like a firedrill routine) and when that fails, he shuts down.  He isn't stupid.  He knows what's going on, but he is unable to act on it ethically because he lacks emotional context.  We see this over and over again with all the tranqil of the game.

In order to place initial values (that is make premises) for any moral calculus, you need the emotional context with which do so.  Tranquil lack this utterly.

-Polaris

[KainD]

Zanallen wrote...

Tranquil can make moral decisions. They would just chose the outcome with the most benefit. Save your wife or save ten people? The Tranquil, not influenced by emotions, would choose to save the then people. It have the greatest benefit. It would be the logical choice.

What would be the rational behind saving people at all for this tranquil person? Why would the tranquil bother in the first place? 

[IanPolaris]

KainD wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Tranquil can make moral decisions. They would just chose the outcome with the most benefit. Save your wife or save ten people? The Tranquil, not influenced by emotions, would choose to save the then people. It have the greatest benefit. It would be the logical choice.

What would be the rational behind saving people at all for this tranquil person? Why would the tranquil bother in the first place? 

The classic answer via Utilitarien Ethics would be that life is inherently valuable and it's worth saving as much life as possible.  However the premise, "Life is inherently valuable" is an emotional premise and it's one that not everyone shares (there are some demented people that deny that life is valuable except their own).  Without emotions, the tranquil can not make the necessary premise to apply the Utiitarian Calculus which is my point.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

I cited evidence that I said was suggestive. I never said it was declarative so the burden does not shift. What I am saying is that you need to prove a morally problematic system is the best way to solve a problem. That burden of proof hasn't shifted. I suggest that it's probably wrong anyway and I cite a lot of compelling evidence that backs this (making my guess an educated one), but I never claimed it was proof.

I say you are wrong. You are assuming that any alternative also isn't morally problematic.

I say that letting the mages out of the Circles endangers everyones lives and is thus also morally repugnant.

Burden on proof? It lies on everyone equally. By trying to shift all of it on the pro-templar side, you are basily just muddying the water.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So...all of this basicly proves is that you're willing to argue with the creator to death if you don't agree with some aspect of canon.

If DG sez tranquil have full free will, then that is so regardless of any rationale you want to offer.

If the Dev doesn't know his own lore then yes.  I dispute that a person can have 'freewill' in any moral or ethical sense without the emotional context to base it from.  DG has never shown otherwise.  I did say that it was an old and longstanding dispute between us.

I do note that DA2 strongly implies that tranquil don't in fact have freewill in the ethical/moral sense.

-Polaris

So now you are acusing DG of not knowing his own universe and setting?

By god, the arrogance level is over 9000.

Look, it doesn't matter how (you think) the real world works, nor whatever logical construct you assembeld. Your pre-concpetions on how sentiance and reasoning works is IRRELEVANT.

You could maybe argue that the world of DA:O is wrong from a sceintific point - that is if you could prove your point, which you can't in this case.
But arguing that doesn't change anything. Canon is as canon is. If DG sez that fire is wet, then fire is wet, no matter how wrong you or I or Bob think that is.

And if DG sez that tranquil have free will, then they have free will, no matter how much you disagree with it or how much it challenges your perconcpetion of the workings of the universe or reality.

I certanly can (and did) argue for more realism or how I feel some things should be, but I'm not that dellusional to utterly challange the creator and calling him wrong.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 03 juin 2013 - 09:03 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I certanly can (and did) argue for more realism or how I feel some things should be, but I'm not that dellusional to utterly challange the creator and calling him wrong.

DG isn't the sole developer or writer of Dragon Age, and DG has been wrong before (the human Warden can be an Atheist).

In this case DG and I have a longstanding difference of opinion of what constitutes 'freewill'.

-POlaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

Unfortunately, DG's definition trumps yours since it is his definition that defines the workings of the DA universe, not yours.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Unfortunately, DG's definition trumps yours since it is his definition that defines the workings of the DA universe, not yours.

I have no doubt that DG believes what he says sincerely.  He doesn't seem to grok the nature of true freewill.  Take away the emotional context required to make an ethical choice, and it's not possible to make a true ethical choice,and that makes any sense of "choice" or "freedom" to be a joke in the worst possible taste.

I don't think DG gets it or understands why freewill and tranquility (on an ethical plane) are incompatible.

-Polaris

[Heimdall]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Unfortunately, DG's definition trumps yours since it is his definition that defines the workings of the DA universe, not yours.

I have no doubt that DG believes what he says sincerely.  He doesn't seem to grok the nature of true freewill.  Take away the emotional context required to make an ethical choice, and it's not possible to make a true ethical choice,and that makes any sense of "choice" or "freedom" to be a joke in the worst possible taste.

I don't think DG gets it or understands why freewill and tranquility (on an ethical plane) are incompatible.

-Polaris

DG probably only meant that Tranquil aren't mindless drones that do whatever their told.

[Fallstar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Unfortunately, DG's definition trumps yours since it is his definition that defines the workings of the DA universe, not yours.

He uses human ideas in his universe, however. Free will is free will; whether it's in the DA universe, ME universe, or real life. Since the tranquil are human, then they conform to human definitions of such concepts. I personally haven't seem him state that the Tranquil have free will, but if he did then he would be wrong. He doesn't get to define a concept like free will, even in his own universe - something I doubt he'd disagree with. 

The only case where a Tranquil could be considered to have free will would be a case in which the mage chose to become tranquil and chose that they wanted all the consequences that they knew of. Given the horror that Carl feels at the idea of returning to a tranquil state, I doubt that is commonplace. 

When someone is made tranquil their abilitiy to feel emotion is either removed or significantly dampened. The reasoning in their mind has been altered. Even if the tranquil made every decision in his life in the exact same way as the mage would have done, the way in which the tranquil arrives at those decisions has been forcibly changed by another being.

Free will isn't just about your ability to choose - it's about how you choose and why you choose. Even the most logical and detached human being would consider some emotion when making decisions, even if it's only fear. A tranquil person cannot consider such emotions in their decision making process and therefore no longer has free will.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 03 juin 2013 - 11:11 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Unfortunately, DG's definition trumps yours since it is his definition that defines the workings of the DA universe, not yours.

I have no doubt that DG believes what he says sincerely.  He doesn't seem to grok the nature of true freewill.  Take away the emotional context required to make an ethical choice, and it's not possible to make a true ethical choice,and that makes any sense of "choice" or "freedom" to be a joke in the worst possible taste.

I don't think DG gets it or understands why freewill and tranquility (on an ethical plane) are incompatible.

-Polaris

I don't think you understand it.
And given that plenty of people here disagree with your theory, you cannto claim a monopoly on truth of how free will works.
Especially given that nothing you said can be proven. It's all philosophy. you cannto even imagine a life without emotions, and yet you claim as a fact that such peoeple don't have free will...Because you choose to define free will strictly trough emotions, and thus a person using different parameters to make decision does not"truly" make decision and is not "free".

I challenge each and every part of that entire trainwreck of a thought.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DuskWarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Unfortunately, DG's definition trumps yours since it is his definition that defines the workings of the DA universe, not yours.

He uses human ideas in his universe, however. Free will is free will; whether it's in the DA universe, ME universe, or real life. Since the tranquil are human, then they conform to human definitions of such concepts. I personally haven't seem him state that the Tranquil have free will, but if he did then he would be wrong. He doesn't get to define a concept like free will, even in his own universe - something I doubt he'd disagree with.

Actually he can if he wants to.
Wether or not you can wrap you head around such twisted concepts is irrelevant.

Furthermore, YOU don't get to define what free will is either. So why should anyone follow your definition?

When someone is made tranquil their abilitiy to feel emotion is either removed or significantly dampened. The reasoning in their mind has been altered. Even if the tranquil made every decision in his life in the exact same way as the mage would have done, the way in which the tranquil arrives at those decisions has been forcibly changed by another being.

Free will isn't just about your ability to choose - it's about how you choose and why you choose. Even the most logical and detached human being would consider some emotion when making decisions, even if it's only fear. A tranquil person cannot consider such emotions in their decision making process and therefore no longer has free will.

Not really.

By that definition the tranqul still has free will. There is still a "how" and "why" - you just don't like them and refuse to acknowledge them as free will.

And as society shapes us, one could argue that how you arrive as some deicisions has been altered by other beings too.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 03 juin 2013 - 01:21 .

[KainD]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Especially given that nothing you said can be proven. It's all philosophy. you cannto even imagine a life without emotions, and yet you claim as a fact that such peoeple don't have free will...Because you choose to define free will strictly trough emotions, and thus a person using different parameters to make decision does not"truly" make decision and is not "free".

There are no other parameters other than emotions and physical body calls that influance peoples choices, they just don't exist. All morals are subjective and are based on emotions. Rationality says that life and world are meaningless if you don't put that rationaity into emotional contexts. 

Can you even name any other parametrs? 

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Especially given that nothing you said can be proven. It's all philosophy. you cannto even imagine a life without emotions, and yet you claim as a fact that such peoeple don't have free will...Because you choose to define free will strictly trough emotions, and thus a person using different parameters to make decision does not"truly" make decision and is not "free".

There are no other parameters other than emotions and physical body calls that influance peoples choices, they just don't exist. All morals are subjective and are based on emotions. Rationality says that life and world are meaningless if you don't put that rationaity into emotional contexts. 

Can you even name any other parametrs?

Rationality says?
Here we are again... same base preconceptions that allow only one conclusion.

You want to distill human behevior and thoughts into some simple formula. Unfortunately it is not so. It is the chaotic and undeterministic nature of a human brain that leads AI and nural researchers to conclude that a AI simulating a human brain will never be made.

You cannot get into a tranquils mind. You cannot know how he thinks.
Even the very concept and definition of free will is up to debate (as we've seen here).

[KainD]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Even the very concept and definition of free will is up to debate (as we've seen here).

I really don't want to offend, but I don't know how else to say this. But I believe that it is up for debate only because one side is less educated on the matter, and don't uderstand how it works. It's anything but a phylosophical debate. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Believe what you will about my education.

It will change nothing, because I said before, you have no provable evidence. Only philosophy.
And assertions that adding an emotional variable to a decision making process is what defines free will. Because that one variable is all that matters apprently.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I would argue (and this an old argument between me and DG) that if you don't have your emotions and your emotional context, then you are following orders, and that you no longer exist to make the decision.  Does anyone think for a nano-second that Karl would have agreed to follow the Templars orders and betray Anders (his lover) if he was still "Karl".

-Polaris

So...all of this basicly proves is that you're willing to argue with the creator to death if you don't agree with some aspect of canon.

As opposed to you? The person willing to blatantly ignore that the developers acknowledged that Leliana died if The Warden killed her?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If DG sez tranquil have full free will, then that is so regardless of any rationale you want to offer. 

While the narrative of the storyline had Karl beg for death instead of becoming a "templar puppet" again while we know how compliant the tranquil mages were to Alrik. Then there's the example of Owain, who thought that it was better to clean the storeroom instead of simply asking Wynne to lower the barrier to let him through. What kind of agency do you honestly think these emotionless husks have when they have been cut off from their emotions and their humanity?

If Karl is willing to betray his lover Anders to the templars as a tranquil, and Alrik can use female mages as sex slaves, then I don't see how Ian is wrong in his assertions about tranquility.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I would argue (and this an old argument between me and DG) that if you don't have your emotions and your emotional context, then you are following orders, and that you no longer exist to make the decision.  Does anyone think for a nano-second that Karl would have agreed to follow the Templars orders and betray Anders (his lover) if he was still "Karl".

-Polaris

So...all of this basicly proves is that you're willing to argue with the creator to death if you don't agree with some aspect of canon.

As opposed to you? The person willing to blatantly ignore that the developers acknowledged that Leliana died if The Warden killed her?

While I'm uncertain of the validity of this accusation, we've already covered how logically relevant it is. (If you were serious. If you were joking, I'll give you that one.)

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If DG sez tranquil have full free will, then that is so regardless of any rationale you want to offer. 

While the narrative of the storyline had Karl beg for death instead of becoming a "templar puppet" again while we know how compliant the tranquil mages were to Alrik. Then there's the example of Owain, who thought that it was better to clean the storeroom instead of simply asking Wynne to lower the barrier to let him through. What kind of agency do you honestly think these emotionless husks have when they have been cut off from their emotions and their humanity?

If Karl is willing to betray his lover Anders to the templars as a tranquil, and Alrik can use female mages as sex slaves, then I don't see how Ian is wrong in his assertions about tranquility.

It's largely because his assertions require quibbling about the canonicity of conflicting evidence. Here's the thing: Gaider has stated that if your game matches the events that lead up to Asunder, then Asunder is canon for you. Therefore, Asunder is potentially canon. As I previously mentioned, in Asunder Tranquil are shown to be capable of breaking rules and ignoring orders when they know they're less likely to get in trouble for it. What Polaris is trying to argue to discount the evidence of free will I cited is that the rules of this potential canon might be different than the rules of the canon proper, despite the choice that might alter the conversation having no influence on the rule it demonsrates.

I think Gaider has pretty well demonstrated that the Tranquil have agency. What you demonstrate is that they don't bother using it most of the time. (Which might make sense, at least in Karl's case. I think it's mentioned somewhere that the Kirkwall Templars beat their Tranquil? As for Owain, I have no idea what's going on. I think it's probably just that he's stupid, though, since if he lacked free will I don't think he would have bothered going back to the stockroom. Or even leaving it.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 04 juin 2013 - 12:00 .

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So...all of this basicly proves is that you're willing to argue with the creator to death if you don't agree with some aspect of canon. 

It's just delusions of an egoist. If he's wrong, it's not his fault but everyone else's fault. 

It's an issue of addressing how the tranquil actually are in Origins and Dragon Age II. The Rite of Tranquility seems incomperehensibly monstrous and dehumanizing in both storylines. Alrik used tranquility to sexually abuse women who he used the Rite on. Owain's behavior is hardly indicative of a rational, fully functional person. The comments from the tranquil you can save in the Circle Tower don't do anything to dissuade that viewpoint. In Kirkwall, Anders refers to tranquility as a figurative "beheading". Karl comments on how he wasn't whole when he was tranquil, and explicitly says: "I would rather die than live as a templar puppet".

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

It's largely because his assertions require quibbling about the canonicity of conflicting evidence. Here's the thing: Gaider has stated that if your game matches the events that lead up to Asunder, then Asunder is canon for you. Therefore, Asunder is potentially canon. As I previously mentioned, in Asunder Tranquil are shown to be capable of breaking rules and ignoring orders when they know they're less likely to get in trouble for it. What Polaris is trying to argue to discount the evidence of free will I cited is that the rules of this potential canon might be different than the rules of the canon proper, despite the choice that might alter the conversation having no influence on the rule it demonsrates.

You are grossly overweighing and grossly overstating your case from Asunder.  What we know is that a tranquil did not obey an order once in Asunder.  You have not told us (not all of us have read Asunder) the nature of the order, and the nature of the circumstances.   These details matter.  We DO have uncontestable cannnoical scenes that show the tranquil don't in fact have moral agency and thus don't have freewill in the moral sense.

I think Gaider has pretty well demonstrated that the Tranquil have agency. What you demonstrate is that they don't bother using it most of the time. (Which might make sense. I think it's mentioned somewhere that the Kirkwall Templars beat their Tranquil?)

If a tranquil can't generate the emotional context to use agency, then he doesn't have it.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
Actually one of the negative characteristics of a prefrontal lobotomy is an inability to make choices, and radical personality changes.  If it's not the same person, then how can you claim that the same person has freewill or even any will?

That's an effect of a lobotomy, but an overstatement. The prefrontal cortext deals a lot with behavioural regulation and higher order planning. 

So, one actual effect of lobotomies is that you get more raw impusilve behaviour, versus what actual people think is impulsive behaviour (the planned indulgence of urges). You also lose precisely those things that people identify with higher order reasoning. A phrase you often saw in the literature was "stimulus bound", because they'd just interact with whatever you put in front of them. 

As for it not being the same person, again, that's just not an accurate description of how it works. It's like saying that removing a chair leg turned the chair into a table. It's not that lobotomies don't radically alter a lot of higher order processing... but calling it a "change in personality" is just misleading. 

It's not that they don't make choices. It's that they don't plan in any meaningful sense of the word.

Anyway, you're not technically wrong on a lot of what you say about emotion (in the abstract). You're just totally wrong about what it means in practice. No living thing could actually survive without the kind of internal drivers we label "emotions". 

That the Tranquil don't waste away in a corner excreting on themselves is proof that the whole logic vs. emotion thing is just a trope that doens't apply well. 

Take the setting for what it is instead of applying your own half-baked theories to it. 

[In Exile]

KainD wrote...
It is impossible for it to be otherwise, because ALL the actions people do are governed by a) Survival. Emotions. 
If you take emotions away, a person will want nothing more than merely exist, sustain their physical body that demands it. 

A person won't "want" anything without emotions. Certainly not existing. The actual bodily demands are (although this is super simplified) your emotions. 

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
DG isn't the sole developer or writer of Dragon Age, and DG has been wrong before (the human Warden can be an Atheist).

DG wasn't wrong. What he said was that the didn't give any direction for DA:O to support an atheist PC (i.e., always ensure that those options were there). For content he didn't write, it turns out that there were atheist options. That just means he isn't a micromanager. 

[In Exile]

DuskWarden wrote...
Free will isn't just about your ability to choose - it's about how you choose and why you choose. Even the most logical and detached human being would consider some emotion when making decisions, even if it's only fear. A tranquil person cannot consider such emotions in their decision making process and therefore no longer has free will.

If people don't get to change concepts with personally held nonsense, then this sort of thing doesn't fly. Once you start talking about what it means to function without emotions, unless you've studied a fair amount of cognitive science, you're doing the equivalent of scrawling fan-fiction on a bathroom stall. 

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
DG isn't the sole developer or writer of Dragon Age, and DG has been wrong before (the human Warden can be an Atheist).

DG wasn't wrong. What he said was that the didn't give any direction for DA:O to support an atheist PC (i.e., always ensure that those options were there). For content he didn't write, it turns out that there were atheist options. That just means he isn't a micromanager. 

Nope.  I remember that tread.  DG's initial position was wrong.  He denied it was possible to be an atheist in DAO as a Warden.  Lob called him on it.

-Polaris