Yes. There's evidence that it can work.So you don't believe that the evidence is predictive, but you're using the evidence to support your activity of trying to convince Bioware to use a silent protagonist?
I'm not infallible.How inductive of you to assume that everyone can do a thing just because you can.
I already have. I stopped playing for enjoyment after ME2.Precisely my point. Mass Effect has strayed further and further from the kind of game you want to play. If the series has strayed so far from the kind of game you want to play, why not just cut your losses?
But that aggregate won't exhibit characteristics distinct from those of its constituent members. The group is not an entity. The group does not exist.What you've described just now is the definition of a group. The fact that you can aggregate people together means that you can run psychological tests on that aggregate.
I deny the validity of psychological conclusions.How can you deny the validity of psychological research, yet use this psychological research as the basis of your argument?
The label doesn't change the thing. What we call something doesn't change what it is.The difference is that one created first is labeled original, and the other is labeled copy.
As I said, it never occurred to me that people couldn't compartmentalize. It's such a basic part of so many things.
As for how one's brain works, I'll concede that I'm assuming that people have free will. If they don't, all of this is moot anyway.
Compartmentalizing is a defensive mechanism considered to be part of the unconscious mind. That means that even though many people do it, most don't have complete control over it. It also doesn't require that many people be unable to do it, but rather even 1% of the population not being able to do it makes your argument no longer logically sound using your own argument.
Free will has never meant that you have full control over how your brain processes information, but rather you have control over how you act on that information.
I don't have full control over my brain processing "When I assume my own tones of voice, these NPCs don't seem real". I do however, have complete control over the action I take as a result, which is to stop assuming my own tones of voice because it negatively impacts my enjoyment of the game.
I could pretend like I originally processed the information as "These NPCs seem perfectly real when I use my own tones of voice", but that's not the same as actually having reached that conclusion. If I lie to myself so much that even I start thinking maybe it's true, that is no longer compartmentalizing but becomes delusion.
This is why I don't believe in communication. Communication is merely expression and interpretation taken in the aggregate. A complete description of the constituent parts, individually, would be equivalent to a description of the group.
Communication is actually merely the exchange of ideas and information between two or more people.
If you don't believe in that, it doesn't really matter because you're doing it with every post you make here. Not having communication is actually arguably impossible, because it's not limited to just spoken language.
He's explicitly assuming that the physical laws of the universe are constant (else the entire scientific endeavour would be pointless). Given that they are constant, a false results shows you conclusively what they are not. A positive result tells you nothing.
The problem of induction, as I understand it, is typically formulated with respect to Hume. Sure you can just assume a constant physical world, but with that Popper didn't actually solve Hume's puzzle, which is related to whether the laws of the universe can even be considered constant and whether causation has any meaning.
Success and failure work very differently here. If the turkey had concluded that he is never fed breakfast based on a failure (or a string of failures) he would have been equally wrong. But if he were to conclude that it is not the case that he is always fed, then he would have been correct, as this would have been demonstrably true.
But that doesn't alleviate the issue of how you're using the theory. Sure, you've shifted the focus onto disproving a set of claims, instead of proving a pattern. But there's nothing concretely different about your new approach to problem-solving. Wrong was the incorrect word to use in describing Poppers' methods, "redundant" would be more accurate.
An inductivist turkey could say "I've noticed a pattern that I am fed consistently at 9 a.m. every morning" and say that I will likely be fed at 9 a.m. once more. If the turkey isn't fed, that becomes additional evidence on which to consider his beliefs. Somebody who follows inductive reasoning (to my knowledge) doesn't mean they simply ignore any/all evidence which contradicts their claims; a belief that all swans are white wouldn't stop an inductivist from accepting the existence of a black swan, with observable evidence.
For all his claims of being against inductive reasoning, how does a Popperian turkey behave that contrasts with the inductivist turkey? They're still using an observed trend in the behavior of the universe as a basis for their actions, regardless of whether you express it in a positive or negative sense.
The turkey should assume nothing. Every day, it is testing the theory that it is always fed. He learns nothing until that theory fails.
At this point, this turns into a semantics game. If we're really going to be pedantic, we can say the turkey should assume nothing. I'll say the turkey "knows" that he is going to be fed, until it doesn't happen, which seems to achieve the same thing.
Is there any demonstrable difference in behavior between someone who claims they don't assume the existence of gravity and someone who simply says "gravity exists"?
Accepting or discarding a possible conclusionis an action.Free will has never meant that you have full control over how your brain processes information, but rather you have control over how you act on that information.
I would also expect you to have control over what counts as real when you're playing the game. I suspect you're able to accept different physical rules. How about moral rules? Or standards of "real" behaviour?I don't have full control over my brain processing "When I assume my own tones of voice, these NPCs don't seem real". I do however, have complete control over the action I take as a result, which is to stop assuming my own tones of voice because it negatively impacts my enjoyment of the game.
This is basically how I do it. Someone here once described my approach as "the wilful induction of psychosis". I suspect that was intended derisively, but it seems pretty accurate.I could pretend like I originally processed the information as "These NPCs seem perfectly real when I use my own tones of voice", but that's not the same as actually having reached that conclusion. If I lie to myself so much that even I start thinking maybe it's true, that is no longer compartmentalizing but becomes delusion.
Each participant acts independently, though. One person can't exchange anything. Exchange would require at least two people, but two people is a group.Communication is actually merely the exchange of ideas and information between two or more people.
I'm expressing ideas. I can't control (or even predict) what you do with them.If you don't believe in that, it doesn't really matter because you're doing it with every post you make here. Not having communication is actually arguably impossible, because it's not limited to just spoken language.
Popper didn't solve Hume's puzzle. He just sidestepped it.The problem of induction, as I understand it, is typically formulated with respect to Hume. Sure you can just assume a constant physical world, but with that Popper didn't actually solve Hume's puzzle, which is related to whether the laws of the universe can even be considered constant and whether causation has any meaning.
But until that black swam was found, he would wrongly think they didn't exist.But that doesn't alleviate the issue of how you're using the theory. Sure, you've shifted the focus onto disproving a set of claims, instead of proving a pattern. But there's nothing concretely different about your new approach to problem-solving. Wrong was the incorrect word to use in describing Poppers' methods, "redundant" would be more accurate.
An inductivist turkey could say "I've noticed a pattern that I am fed consistently at 9 a.m. every morning" and say that I will likely be fed at 9 a.m. once more. If the turkey isn't fed, that becomes additional evidence on which to consider his beliefs. Somebody who follows inductive reasoning (to my knowledge) doesn't mean they simply ignore any/all evidence which contradicts their claims; a belief that all swans are white wouldn't stop an inductivist from accepting the existence of a black swan, with observable evidence.
The Popperian turkey wouldn't hold a predicitve belief.For all his claims of being against inductive reasoning, how does a Popperian turkey behave that contrasts with the inductivist turkey? They're still using an observed trend in the behavior of the universe as a basis for their actions, regardless of whether you express it in a positive or negative sense.
Confirmation bias.At this point, this turns into a semantics game. If we're really going to be pedantic, we can say the turkey should assume nothing. I'll say the turkey "knows" that he is going to be fed, until it doesn't happen, which seems to achieve the same thing.
Is there any demonstrable difference in behavior between someone who claims they don't assume the existence of gravity and someone who simply says "gravity exists"?
But until that black swam was found, he would wrongly think they didn't exist.
Correct, and that belief, while incorrect, would be subsequently modified, which is just the scientific method in action. Scientists (hell, pretty much everyone) were doing this before Karl Popper reframed the question, hence his redundancy. Popper side-stepped the issue as above, but he didn't give us a meaningful solution to the question - he's still just relying on induction while claiming it's something else.
Now let's look at your example using gravity below.
The Popperian turkey wouldn't hold a predicitve belief.
My question was: how would this change his behavior? What actions can you point to that a Popperian turkey would or wouldn't take that would be in contrast to the Inductivist turkey? The same argument that prevents our Popperian turkey from believing he'll be fed breakfast in the morning also prevents his belief in gravity, which is problematic.
My point was that, even after you frame the question differently, there is no notable distinction in their behaviors, while still relying on the same premises. Sure you could claim you don't believe in gravity. Maybe like with Cyonan, you can claim that we might have a habitual response to the idea of gravity and we just need to compartmentalize it.
But at the end of the day, if someone were to ask if it's safe to jump off a cliff, I'm going to take a shot and say that Karl Popper would be telling them no. And the only way he could do that would be to frame the answer in terms of the near infinite examples of gravity functioning. Insisting Popper and his turkey wouldn't hold predictive belief is meaningless in that context.
I am a creator. The creation of the narrative is a collaborative enterprise. It must be, since I'm the one making choices for my character.
Except every possible avenue you might pursue with those choices was designed by the actual creator.
Your collaboration is an illusion, because you don't own any of the responsibility of the creator's job. You aren't held accountable. If I ask a bartender to make me a drink with part this and part that, and then drink it in some creative way, I don't share ownership of the drink with them. I'm still the consumer. I can control the speed at which I drink and the size of my sips, even whether/how much I warm the glass with my hand and possibly ruin my own drinking experience, but I still didn't make the drink.
Of course there can be a story. It just won't be the same story for all players or all playthroughs.
This dramatically increases replayability, as well.
Story requires conflict, usually some kind of obstacle in the way to the protagonist's happiness. To have that, something must be assumed about the protagonist's interest.
The protagonist can't just walk into a room and hang themselves, and they can't just sit in a field and smell flowers the whole game.
They could, but it would be a stupid thing to bother designing in a game. Total freedom isn't a plausible consideration, there will always be a boundary.
Accepting or discarding a possible conclusionis an action.
You don't accept the conclusion if you didn't reach it yourself, and you can't change how your brain processes information to reach a conclusion.
I would also expect you to have control over what counts as real when you're playing the game. I suspect you're able to accept different physical rules. How about moral rules? Or standards of "real" behaviour?
I can accept a change in the rules if the game explains why that change in the rules have happened and they can make for a better setting.
I accept that in Star Wars some people can use the force because that's a well documented part of the universe, same with magic in Dragon Age or biotics in Mass Effect. They're also fantastical elements that make the setting more interesting.
Unfortunately in this case I generally expect the characters in a setting to exhibit characteristics of normal Human behaviour because that makes the characters more enjoyable to interact with, unless the story provides a very good in-lore reason for some characters not being that way. It can make for an interesting hook for a single character, but not for a whole universe of characters.
This is basically how I do it. Someone here once described my approach as "the wilful induction of psychosis". I suspect that was intended derisively, but it seems pretty accurate.
I already greatly enjoyed DA:O playing it the way I played it. I also greatly enjoyed Mass Effect, and it's one of my favourite game series of all time.
I see no value to be gained in deluding myself into thinking your way is fun, when my way already is fun for me.
Each participant acts independently, though. One person can't exchange anything. Exchange would require at least two people, but two people is a group.
I'm expressing ideas. I can't control (or even predict) what you do with them.
Expressing ideas is the exchange of them. We have exchanged ideas about the use of player assumed tones of voice with a silent protagonist in this thread. Exchanging does not mean anything is actually done with that information.
Communication is the act of expressing those ideas and doesn't require the other person actually do anything with those ideas. If you were trying to influence what I do with those ideas then that would be diplomacy. If you were trying to have complete control over what I do with them, that would be brainwashing.
Both diplomacy and brainwashing would be considered a form of communication, but they do not make up the whole of it.
This is basically how I do it. Someone here once described my approach as "the wilful induction of psychosis". I suspect that was intended derisively, but it seems pretty accurate.
Sounds like something In Exile would say.
Except every possible avenue you might pursue with those choices was designed by the actual creator.
Your collaboration is an illusion, because you don't own any of the responsibility of the creator's job. You aren't held accountable. If I ask a bartender to make me a drink with part this and part that, and then drink it in some creative way, I don't share ownership of the drink with them.
I'm still the consumer. I can control the speed at which I drink and the size of my sips, even whether/how much I warm the glass with my hand and possibly ruin my own drinking experience, but I still didn't make the drink.
The protagonist can't just walk into a room and hang themselves, and they can't just sit in a field and smell flowers the whole game.
They could, but it would be a stupid thing to bother designing in a game. Total freedom isn't a plausible consideration, there will always be a boundary.
At this point, I would find a silent protagonist distracting. I found it occasionally distracting in DA:O even though it was the norm in RPG's at that point. It's one of those issues where you will never be able to please everyone. A lot of developer choices are like that because gamers' tastes are so varied. You can make a compelling argument for doing it one way and an equally valid one for doing it the other. In spite of the persistent misuse of the word, there is no objective standard when it comes to personal tastes.
I disagree.You don't accept the conclusion if you didn't reach it yourself, and you can't change how your brain processes information to reach a conclusion.
I'm glad you enjoy it.I already greatly enjoyed DA:O playing it the way I played it. I also greatly enjoyed Mass Effect, and it's one of my favourite game series of all time.
I see no value to be gained in deluding myself into thinking your way is fun, when my way already is fun for me.
Then "exchange" is a strange word to use, because that's not what exchange means.Expressing ideas is the exchange of them. We have exchanged ideas about the use of player assumed tones of voice with a silent protagonist in this thread. Exchanging does not mean anything is actually done with that information.
That's not true at all. My character's motives are entirely mine. His decision-making process is mine.Except every possible avenue you might pursue with those choices was designed by the actual creator.
Yes I am. I'm responsible for my own enjoyment. No one else could be, because no one else knows what I like.Your collaboration is an illusion, because you don't own any of the responsibility of the creator's job. You aren't held accountable.
But you were a co-creator of the experience of drinking it. You helped create the story of the drink.If I ask a bartender to make me a drink with part this and part that, and then drink it in some creative way, I don't share ownership of the drink with them. I'm still the consumer. I can control the speed at which I drink and the size of my sips, even whether/how much I warm the glass with my hand and possibly ruin my own drinking experience, but I still didn't make the drink.
That would only be true if the source of the conflict was created aolely by the designers, but that's not necessarily true.Story requires conflict, usually some kind of obstacle in the way to the protagonist's happiness. To have that, something must be assumed about the protagonist's interest.
Freedom and control are not the same thing. Stop equating them.The protagonist can't just walk into a room and hang themselves, and they can't just sit in a field and smell flowers the whole game.
They could, but it would be a stupid thing to bother designing in a game. Total freedom isn't a plausible consideration, there will always be a boundary.
That's nonsense. Verificationist science wouldn't work, but verificationist science arguable isn't science. Wasn't that Karl Popper's whole point?
Falsification does not require logical induction. It's a purely deductive process.
Are we really doing the problem of induction here? As far as I could ever tell, it was always just a special case of the problem of the criterion. One could easily construct a problem of deduction: How do you know your deductive inferences are reliable? Well, it seems like you need some method of showing this. But it's seemingly impossible to devise such a method that will itself avoid any use of deductive inferences, so it looks like you're stuck in a loop of circular reasoning again. Similar arguments can be constructed for introspection, sensory perception, etc. There's nothing special about induction that renders it particularly vulnerable to this sort of argument. So it looks like inductive skepticism is not really an option unless you're also prepared to embrace global skepticism.
The problem is that every method of cognition is going to involve what Crispin Wright calls "cornerstone propositions": Propositions such that, if you were unjustified in believing them, you could not acquire justification for any beliefs using the method. For sensory perception, a cornerstone might be "I'm not a brain in a vat." And any deductive system is going to have some axioms that are not derived from any other part of the system (e.g. excluded middle, etc.). These cornerstone propositions can always be exploited by skeptics simply by asking "How do you know that proposition?" From there you can generate a skeptical argument of the kind seen above.
Reading this discussion(s) really show me how much I don't know about philosophy and psychology. 
And I'm not sure if I understand half the things, but it is interesting to read. 
I'm glad you enjoy it.
I'm trying to present a possible way of playing that might work for people who don't already enjoy the silent protagonist.
You were actually originally arguing that tone of voice is a good argument in favour of a silent protagonist while I said it was not, and I maintain that is still is not a good argument for it given that the best argument you have provided for making it work boils down to "delude yourself into thinking it's good".
I could make the exact same counter-argument for you: Delude yourself into thinking action combat is fun. That's a possible way it would work for you to enjoy Mass Effect as is.
Simply presenting a way of playing is entirely useless in a debate. You have to convince people that your way of doing things has more value to it than our current way if you want to get more people on your side to "increase the PR cost of not being a RPG" for Mass Effect.
Right now people who don't like the silent protagonist see more value in requesting BioWare continue to use a voiced protagonist than to attempt your method of doing things.
Then "exchange" is a strange word to use, because that's not what exchange means.
Exchange is just the act of giving or receiving something. If I had somebody a $20 bill, then money has been exchanged. They don't have to do anything with it, it's just been exchanged and they have been given something.
In this case, it has been knowledge of ideas that has been exchanged the moment I read your posts. As soon as my brain processes your ideas or information, the exchange has happened regardless of the conclusion I reach about it.
For somebody who is so adamant that words in a discussion must be clearly defined, you seem to be very insistent on using your own made up definitions of things.
If I say "I don't believe in apples" but fail to denote that my definition of the word apples is not what is commonly used, then it is my fault when people misunderstand what I mean and think I'm crazy.
Or, ME could just give us mod tools like Fallout did and then each of us could play the game however we want.If this were Fallout, I'd be in agreement, but Mass Effect was created with cinematic conversations at its core. You know what isn't cinematic? The blank stare of a silent protagonist and NPCs acting like you said something or anything. I get that it opens up more role playing opportunities, but that's not what Mass Effect is about. That's you trying to enforce your preferences on a game that deviates from it.
Fallout didn't start that way and it should go back. Mass Effect started with a voiced protagonist and it should remain this way.
That would be equivalent if you were to give me a detailed explanation of exactly how to do that.You were actually originally arguing that tone of voice is a good argument in favour of a silent protagonist while I said it was not, and I maintain that is still is not a good argument for it given that the best argument you have provided for making it work boils down to "delude yourself into thinking it's good".
I could make the exact same counter-argument for you: Delude yourself into thinking action combat is fun. That's a possible way it would work for you to enjoy Mass Effect as is.
I'm not trying to convince people who like the voiced protagonist.Simply presenting a way of playing is entirely useless in a debate. You have to convince people that your way of doing things has more value to it than our current way if you want to get more people on your side to "increase the PR cost of not being a RPG" for Mass Effect.
Right now people who don't like the silent protagonist see more value in requesting BioWare continue to use a voiced protagonist than to attempt your method of doing things.
What if they don't take it and it just falls to the ground? Have you exchanged it then?Exchange is just the act of giving or receiving something. If I had somebody a $20 bill, then money has been exchanged. They don't have to do anything with it, it's just been exchanged and they have been given something.
That's exactly what I said. Exchange requires two of us acting in concert, each doing something different. The exchange itself isn't a thing. We exchange information when I present it and you receive it. But one person cannot exchange something.In this case, it has been knowledge of ideas that has been exchanged the moment I read your posts. As soon as my brain processes your ideas or information, the exchange has happened regardless of the conclusion I reach about it.
Well you jumped ahead a bit, but yes, this is the natural consequence of my point.Are we really doing the problem of induction here? As far as I could ever tell, it was always just a special case of the problem of the criterion. One could easily construct a problem of deduction: How do you know your deductive inferences are reliable? Well, it seems like you need some method of showing this. But it's seemingly impossible to devise such a method that will itself avoid any use of deductive inferences, so it looks like you're stuck in a loop of circular reasoning again. Similar arguments can be constructed for introspection, sensory perception, etc. There's nothing special about induction that renders it particularly vulnerable to this sort of argument. So it looks like inductive skepticism is not really an option unless you're also prepared to embrace global skepticism.
The problem is that every method of cognition is going to involve what Crispin Wright calls "cornerstone propositions": Propositions such that, if you were unjustified in believing them, you could not acquire justification for any beliefs using the method. For sensory perception, a cornerstone might be "I'm not a brain in a vat." And any deductive system is going to have some axioms that are not derived from any other part of the system (e.g. excluded middle, etc.). These cornerstone propositions can always be exploited by skeptics simply by asking "How do you know that proposition?" From there you can generate a skeptical argument of the kind seen above.
That would be equivalent if you were to give me a detailed explanation of exactly how to do that.
I'm waiting.
I'm still waiting on your detailed explanation of how Alistair in my example is a believable Human.
Until then I will offer the same argument you have offered me: Change your way of thinking so that the things that bother you right now are a non issue. If the way your brain processes information is a choice, then you should be able to do that with ease.
I'm not trying to convince people who like the voiced protagonist.
So you're not trying to convince people like me who enjoyed the silent protagonist with the writer's intended tone. You're also not trying to convince the people who like a voiced protagonist.
Who exactly are you trying to convince then?
What if they don't take it and it just falls to the ground? Have you exchanged it then?
That's exactly what I said. Exchange requires two of us acting in concert, each doing something different. The exchange itself isn't a thing. We exchange information when I present it and you receive it. But one person cannot exchange something.
You just said what I said.
If they don't take it then it wasn't exchanged. That would be the equivalent of me closing this tab on my browser and refusing to read any more of your posts. At that point, your exchange of ideas to me has stopped.
The exchange itself is a thing because it happened, it doesn't require only one person in order to be a thing. Since an exchange can happen, when that exchange is composed of ideas and information that is communication taking place.
To claim that communication isn't real is to claim that Humans cannot have a conversation or discussion, which is hilarious because the only way to make that claim is by communicating it.
Who exactly are you trying to convince then?
Stop with the horrible voice acting for main characters in RPGs. I want to be able to role play in my role playing games. I know Mass Effect never had a silent protagonist but its time to take the series in a bold new direction. No matter what you did or what choices you made Sheperd was always the same old Sheperd due to the voice acting be it good or bad. Have faith in us game developers. Some of us can still use our imaginations from time to time.
I believe that ME series had a best voice acting of all the BioWare´s games, the worse of ME was like Alers and Citadel DLC in which were some real atrocities with voice acting, however if they are going to avoid level of voice actors like in DA:I I am even willing to buy a game. Worse of voice acting so far was definetly DA:I, I cringed so many times, sometimes I play trough the game with sound turned off. I wish that they would keep Meer and Hale as voiceover for protagonist.
Retour en haut
