769 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm still waiting on your detailed explanation of how Alistair in my example is a believable Human.

I don't understand why you think he isn't. Humans don't make sense to me, so if Alistair doesn't make sense to me then that's a win.

Predictable NPCs are a problem. I don't want to be able to control or predict NPCs.

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?

I'm trying to create the appearance of dissent, so that this population here on BSN doesn't look homogeneous when it comes to the question of the value of the voiced protagonist.

By having this long and detailed discussion with me, you're helping.

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.

Exactly. Do you understand now?

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.

No, it is to say that the expression and interpretation of ideas together constitute conversation, rather than positing some overaching third entity called exchange.

[Cyonan]

I don't understand why you think he isn't. Humans don't make sense to me, so if Alistair doesn't make sense to me then that's a win.

Predictable NPCs are a problem. I don't want to be able to control or predict NPCs.

 

Because Humans do make quite a bit of sense to me, so when Alistair doesn't it's a lose.

 

I'm trying to create the appearance of dissent, so that this population here on BSN doesn't look homogeneous when it comes to the question of the value of the voiced protagonist.

By having this long and detailed discussion with me, you're helping.

 

If this thread is any indication, more people are siding against silent protagonists.

 

Only a fool would look at this thread and think there is dissent about the value of a voiced protagonist. Most would just see it for what it is: One person arguing vehemently in favour of silent protagonists.

 

Exactly. Do you understand now?

No, it is to say that the expression and interpretation of ideas together constitute conversation, rather than positing some overaching third entity called exchange.

 

I always understood exchanging something requires two people and never said otherwise. What I don't understand is what this has to do with communication not being a thing.

 

All communication is an exchange, but not all exchange is communication. Me handing somebody else a $20 bill and them taking it and putting it in their pocket is not communication, but it is an exchange. That's why the term exchange is still needed, because it's more than just ideas and information being given or received.

[Monk]

Couldn't you conceivably imagine that your character sounds a certain way but intends to mean something different?

 

This is where ultimately the silent protagonist fails because the emphasis, context, … is lost if not written properly. I recall a few times where the game failed because i had expected, for example, Alistair to laugh and, instead, gets pissy and the conversation is over. Thank goodness for saves!

 

 

I've wondered that myself. It's difficult to test that with the paraphrase system in place.

And why then did he say it that way? I suppose I could imagine that he said it differently, but then wouldn't just disabling the voice be even better?

The voice adds nothing to the game. It provides no new information that we can use, since we don't get to hear the line (and its tone) until after we've chosen the dialogue option.

A preview would help a lot. Let us hear the line before choosing it.

 

 

I think this is why they attempt to make the decisions as clear cut as possible now. DA:O had some problems with nuance. I think this is where the pictures, like in DA2, are perfect. Even without the entire sentence, you're given a sense of how it's meant to play out. Being visually-focused, i felt this was a great improvement.

 

Maybe this is one of those times were specialty options are required. Because short of having them enact how the statement/question is going to be received, there's always some risk what you select won't be perfect. The best you can do is match the icon with the receiver's facial expression to get the jist of how it's all going to play out.

[SKAR]

How is this topic still up for debate? Silent protagonist are inferior. The end.

[GeneralXIV]

Silent characters are good. I always like imagining how my characters sound in The Elder Scrolls. They probably don't sound so good though, because they're always dying... i'm not so good at video games, but I love playing them. But I love hearing the character voices. It means I use my head less and I can concentrate on the game itself. I don't know though... I think silent characters work on some games but not others. x

[iM3GTR]

Another thread hijacked by Sylvius and Cyonan's arguements. Oh joy.

[In Exile]

Karl Popper was completely wrong on that whole point. Falsification is built on induction - he's basically using the same concept, but changing the some of the words around, which doesn't solve Hume's problem of induction.

The inductivist turkey is intended to demonstrate that you can't predicate future events on the success (or failure) of past predictions: case in point, the turkey thought he was going to be fed breakfast that morning, but instead he ended up as breakfast that morning. All that means, with Popper's theory in mind, is that the turkey will assume he's going to be fed, until he realizes he's about to be eaten, which would cause him to rewrite his theory.

There's also a logic problem with Popper's falsification - science isn't reducible to single premise statements. Any scientific prediction is actually the product of a substantial number of assumptions. Any of those assumptions (or multiple sets of assumptions) may well be falsified by a null result. There's no way pick which one without abduction. If needed, I can set it out with formal logic.

[In Exile]

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.

Yes, the problem of deduction is always a fun one to raise. Methods of inference can't be self-justifying. Except I guess abduction. But it cheats.

[Cyonan]

Another thread hijacked by Sylvius and Cyonan's arguements. Oh joy.

 

But it's entertaining =P

 

At least until BioWare gives us something else to actually talk about.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I always understood exchanging something requires two people and never said otherwise. What I don't understand is what this has to do with communication not being a thing.

Because it doesn't exhibit characteristics beyond those of its constituent parts.

As such, there's no reason to believe that it's there at all. The constituent parts are there, but the conglomerate doesn't add anything. There's no new entity that springs into being when you put the parts together.

[Lady Artifice]

But it's entertaining =P

 

At least until BioWare gives us something else to actually talk about.

 

It's also completely on topic. What else would even happen in a thread about silent protagonists other than arguing about whether they add to the experience?

[Il Divo]

There's also a logic problem with Popper's falsification - science isn't reducible to single premise statements. Any scientific prediction is actually the product of a substantial number of assumptions. Any of those assumptions (or multiple sets of assumptions) may well be falsified by a null result. There's no way pick which one without abduction. If needed, I can set it out with formal logic.

 

^Good point. That's something I can definitely attest to with my research - something goes wrong, and my entire group goes scrambling to figure out who the hell messed up, only to discover weeks later that our metal precursors just happened to go bad. 

 

If you have the time, I wouldn't mind having it laid out formally. It's been a while since I've done this sort of thing.

[Cyonan]

Because it doesn't exhibit characteristics beyond those of its constituent parts.

As such, there's no reason to believe that it's there at all. The constituent parts are there, but the conglomerate doesn't add anything. There's no new entity that springs into being when you put the parts together.

 

None of this has anything has anything to do with your point of an exchange not being possible with a single person.

 

There is more to communication than simply expressing ideas and information, though.

 

It's also completely on topic. What else would even happen in a thread about silent protagonists other than arguing about whether they add to the experience?

 

Apparently the denial that communication is real =P

[In Exile]

^Good point. That's something I can definitely attest to with my research - something goes wrong, and my entire group goes scrambling to figure out who the hell messed up, only to discover weeks later that our metal precursors just happened to go bad. 

 

If you have the time, I wouldn't mind having it laid out formally. It's been a while since I've done this sort of thing.

 

I'm not a scientist by trade (or a philosopher of science) so it's been a long time since I've worked with formal logic. I hope I remember the operators correctly.

 

The idea is basically as follows. Popper sets out falsification as simple modus ponens:

 

Theory T implies observation O, so we have T=> O, ~O => ~T.

 

So we can falsify a theory, and we've advanced knowledge by at least refuting out of some infinite magnitude of possible claims.

 

But this doesn't work, because it's actually Theory T alongside assumptions A1...An, where (as you point out) some of those assumptions involve assumptions that equipment works right and theoretical assumptions, which themselves involve scientific theories predicated on assumptions about equipment and theoretical assumptions. So it's more like (without bothering to write out the set of assumptions:

 

(T^A1^A2..^An) => O, and ~O => ~( T^A1...An), so what we really have is ~O => ~T v ~A1 v~A2... v~An

 

Any one assumptions alone (or any unknown number of assumptions) could be wrong. Like in your case, the equipment worked right.

 

There are other conceptual problems with science (you can read all of it if you google anti-realism). My favourite is Bas Van Fraseen's view of selection. Basically, he points out that there's no real fundamental link between (1) science producing empirically workable results and (2) scientific theories being correct. 

 

Our theories could be stupid nonsense, but that doesn't necessarily mean empirically what we do doesn't work. Think of bridges. We have two theories - modern physics, and invisible gnome theory (the bridge is held up by undetectable invisible gnomes). Invisible gnome theory could be true - our scientific theory might be garbage we use to explain why the stuff we do works.

 

A less facetious example is classical mechanics in physics. Newton had lots of theories explaining why his math worked - we now think most of that is wrong. We pretend modern physics is a continuation. It's really a novel theory explaining the same stuff. The fact the math is the same is just a consequence of it working - just like how phlogiston theory was wrong, but that had nothing to do with how oxidization never changed (just our concepts explaining it). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is where ultimately the silent protagonist fails because the emphasis, context, … is lost if not written properly. I recall a few times where the game failed because i had expected, for example, Alistair to laugh and, instead, gets pissy and the conversation is over. Thank goodness for saves!

I would consider Alistair doing this as far less damaging to the playthrough than Hawke or Shepard doing it. Those are the characters over which we're actually supposed to have some control.

Being able to control Alistair's reaction to something would be weird. What if your joke offended him? Maybe he's just really touchy on that subject (whatever is was).

I think this is why they attempt to make the decisions as clear cut as possible now. DA:O had some problems with nuance. I think this is where the pictures, like in DA2, are perfect.

I found the pictures incredibly unclear. I didn't know how to piece together the icon and the paraphrase to determie what the line was actually going to be.

Even without the entire sentence, you're given a sense of how it's meant to play out. Being visually-focused, i felt this was a great improvement.

What does that mean, "how it's meant to play out"?

Do you mean what the consequences of the choice will be? I don't want to know that. I certainly don't want to be able to control it.

The romance icon added in DA2 is a travesty. I really wish we could turn it off.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's also a logic problem with Popper's falsification - science isn't reducible to single premise statements.

You don't falsify single premises. You falsify whole hypotheses, which include myriad assumptions.

Any scientific prediction is actually the product of a substantial number of assumptions. Any of those assumptions (or multiple sets of assumptions) may well be falsified by a null result. There's no way pick which one without abduction. If needed, I can set it out with formal logic.

I don't recall having objected to abduction in this thread. Induction, yes. Abduction, no. Since abduction doesn't draw firm conclusions, it doesn't have the same problems induction does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

None of this has anything has anything to do with your point of an exchange not being possible with a single person.

If you're the only person in the universe, and there will never be another person or being in the universe who can witness what you, is it possible then for you to communicate?

If communication can be done by one person, then the answer is yes.

There is more to communication than simply expressing ideas and information, though.

Yes. There needs to be a second person to receive it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not a scientist by trade (or a philosopher of science) so it's been a long time since I've worked with formal logic. I hope I remember the operators correctly.

The idea is basically as follows. Popper sets out falsification as simple modus ponens:

Theory T implies observation O, so we have T=> O, ~O => ~T.

That's actually modus tollens, but otherwise correct.

So we can falsify a theory, and we've advanced knowledge by at least refuting out of some infinite magnitude of possible claims.

But this doesn't work, because it's actually Theory T alongside assumptions A1...An, where (as you point out) some of those assumptions involve assumptions that equipment works right and theoretical assumptions, which themselves involve scientific theories predicated on assumptions about equipment and theoretical assumptions. So it's more like (without bothering to write out the set of assumptions:

(T^A1^A2..^An) => O, and ~O => ~( T^A1...An), so what we really have is ~O => ~T v ~A1 v~A2... v~An

Right. The first formulation was a simplification to illustrate the principle, but what you've done here is wxactly how science works.

For every hypothesis, which consists of one or more theories and all of their requisite assumptions, there must be some falsficiation standard which would disprove the set.

Any one assumptions alone (or any unknown number of assumptions) could be wrong. Like in your case, the equipment worked right.

There are other conceptual problems with science (you can read all of it if you google anti-realism). My favourite is Bas Van Fraseen's view of selection. Basically, he points out that there's no real fundamental link between (1) science producing empirically workable results and (2) scientific theories being correct.

Well of course not. Whether scientific theories are correct is unknowable. If we're trying to use science in the real world, all that really matters is whether they make reasonably accurate predictions.

Our theories could be stupid nonsense, but that doesn't necessarily mean empirically what we do doesn't work. Think of bridges. We have two theories - modern physics, and invisible gnome theory (the bridge is held up by undetectable invisible gnomes). Invisible gnome theory could be true - our scientific theory might be garbage we use to explain why the stuff we do works.

There's even a real world example of this. Huygens's diffraction equations did a fine job of predicting the behaviour of waves, but his explanation for what was happening was laughable (and even demonstrably incompatible with his math). But we kept using his equations, because the math worked.

A less facetious example is classical mechanics in physics. Newton had lots of theories explaining why his math worked - we now think most of that is wrong. We pretend modern physics is a continuation. It's really a novel theory explaining the same stuff. The fact the math is the same is just a consequence of it working - just like how phlogiston theory was wrong, but that had nothing to do with how oxidization never changed (just our concepts explaining it).

Who pretends that? Newtonian mechanics have been falsified. They still make decent predictions at the macro level and at non-relativistic speeds, so the math is still useful (usually - things like non-Newtonian fluids cause problems), but no one should see modern physics as somehow an extension of Newton's.

[Cyonan]

If you're the only person in the universe, and there will never be another person or being in the universe who can witness what you, is it possible then for you to communicate?

If communication can be done by one person, then the answer is yes.

 

but what does any of this have to do with communication not being real?

 

You seem to be continually trying to tell me about how communication requires two or more people, but I never said that it didn't so I don't know why you keep repeating this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

but what does any of this have to do with communication not being real?

I said it's not a thing. It doesn't exist on its own. It is merely an aggregation of other things.

As such, referring to communication, or describing the features of communication, rather than talking about its constituent parts, adds nothing, and serves only to confuse people.

If we're talking about expression, let's talk about expression. If we're talking about interpretation, let's talk about interpretation. If we're talking about intent or motivation, let's talk about those things.

But talking about communication just muddies the water.

That's all I was saying about communication.

[RoboticWater]

As such, referring to communication, or describing the features of communication, rather than talking about its constituent parts, adds nothing, and serves only to confuse people.

Speak for yourself. I only got confused when you started denying the existence of communication.

[Dean_the_Young]

After debating with Sylvius about the existence of implication (my mind reeled), debating with him about whether or not gravity is a real phenomenon would not surprise me.

 

Sounds like someone didn't catch the joke of the Sokal affair.

 

(Likes for whoever knows what that's about.)

[Puddi III]

I said it's not a thing. It doesn't exist on its own. It is merely an aggregation of other things.

Isn't almost everything an aggregation of things? If none truly exist except the most fundamental of things, then conversation would become very laborious in describing the constituent parts every single thing instead of just describing them together as combinations of things.

[straykat]

Sounds like someone didn't catch the joke of the Sokal affair.

 

(Likes for whoever knows what that's about.)

 

I didn't, but I read up on it... it's pretty amusing. I've heard of something similar before, but with medical research journals. I can't remember the details.

[KaiserShep]

The romance icon added in DA2 is a travesty. I really wish we could turn it off.

 

 

What's the difference, really? Origins has lines that are clearly specific to initiating a romance. Even if you want to decide the tone and intention of these lines for yourself, these are still the lines that must be used to get to paramour mode.