Griefers at the Engineers

Some things can be refuted though. I was not talking about altering or contradicting reality.

Predictive powers are all great and such but we are talking human behaviour, therefore sample sizes and even more statistics noise.

I also like replicability and cold fusion :)
Are you suggesting that human behaviour can't be predictable?

Because I would argue otherwise. It wasn't that long ago that human behaviour was completely unpredictable, but the more we learn through science, the more predictable it becomes. Science is a process of learning. What we don't know today, we will know tomorrow. You would have been more accurate to suggest that, as of right now, human behaviour isn't entirely predictable, because the reality is, a lot of what we do is very predictable to the point of raising the philosophical conundrum of do we even really have free will at all, because almost everything we do is as a response to external stimuli. Why did you respond to my post, for example? Was it free will? Why am I responding to you? I could choose not to as a measure of demonstrating my free will but who would I be demonstrating it to? Myself? And why the need to demonstrate it at all?

The fact is, there is lots about human behaviour that is very predictable. For example, resistance to ideas that one holds as personal values, such as the idea that one is not selfish, something that we try to convince ourselves of to selfishly feel more virtuous about ourselves.
 
Are you suggesting that human behaviour can't be predictable?

Because I would argue otherwise. It wasn't that long ago that human behaviour was completely unpredictable, but the more we learn through science, the more predictable it becomes. Science is a process of learning. What we don't know today, we will know tomorrow. You would have been more accurate to suggest that, as of right now, human behaviour isn't entirely predictable, because the reality is, a lot of what we do is very predictable to the point of raising the philosophical conundrum of do we even really have free will at all, because almost everything we do is as a response to external stimuli. Why did you respond to my post, for example? Was it free will? Why am I responding to you? I could choose not to as a measure of demonstrating my free will but who would I be demonstrating it to? Myself? And why the need to demonstrate it at all?

The fact is, there is lots about human behaviour that is very predictable. For example, resistance to ideas that one holds as personal values, such as the idea that one is not selfish, something that we try to convince ourselves of to selfishly feel more virtuous about ourselves.
Not denying human behaviour cannot be predictable, to some extent.

Variability does exist. Not everyone reacts the same all the time. I have not seen many studies where behaviour was predicted 100% of the time. Then there is pathology of course.

You are giving me a headache :cry:
 
Not denying human behaviour cannot be predictable, to some extent.

Variability does exist. Not everyone reacts the same all the time. I have not seen many studies where behaviour was predicted 100% of the time. Then there is pathology of course.

You are giving me a headache :cry:
That's the most annoying thing about discovery. It gives us headaches when it takes us to task on what we think we know.
 
I have no clue what topic this rollercoaster of a thread is on now but I posted this in another thread and thought it would fit here quite nicely.


I would argue that ganking brings more people into PvP. I have over a dozen players on my friends list that I met because I ganked them and they sent me a message asking how I was able to do it and in turn I took em under my wing and taught them how to PvP, build ships and helped em unlock engineers. When I played as a white knight (with IED) I never met anyone cause I could only fight players that were already pvpers.
 
I can't tell whether this is deliberately disingenuous or a genuine misunderstanding, but it's wrong either way.

  • On November 6th, 2012, solo online play was pitched as part of the original Kickstarter campaign:
    • "And the best part - you can do all this online with your friends, or other "Elite" pilots like yourself, or even alone. The choice is yours..."
  • Shortly thereafter (the exact date is lost due to an update overwriting it) a clarifying FAQ entry was added, headed How will single player work? Will I need to connect to a server to play?:
    • "All of the meta data for the galaxy is shared between players. This includes the galaxy itself as well as transient information like economies. The aim here is that a player's actions will influence the development of the galaxy, without necessarily having to play multiplayer."
  • On December 11th, 2012, this FAQ was updated to include the newly proposed single player offline mode:
    • "The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server."
  • On November 14th, 2014, the cancellation of offline mode was announced in Newsletter 49:
    • "A fully offline experience would be unacceptably limited and static compared to the dynamic, ever unfolding experience we are delivering."
(emphasis is mine)
Solo predated offline mode by more than a month, and had been part of the design for over two years when offline was cancelled. Solo was never "tacked on."
Thanks for the correction, my understanding was based on hearsay. /cheers
 
I have no clue what topic this rollercoaster of a thread is on now but I posted this in another thread and thought it would fit here quite nicely.


I would argue that ganking brings more people into PvP. I have over a dozen players on my friends list that I met because I ganked them and they sent me a message asking how I was able to do it and in turn I took em under my wing and taught them how to PvP, build ships and helped em unlock engineers. When I played as a white knight (with IED) I never met anyone cause I could only fight players that were already pvpers.
ITT: Internet intellectuals reveal their true colours and try to argue morality on a video game forum
 
Are you suggesting that human behaviour can't be predictable?
I'll disagree with both of you. There is not an just epistemological lack of knowledge which makes predictions difficult, but also a methodological problem. Because the structure of repetion is different in regard to complex psychological repetitions and the basic natural repetition(physical, chemical etc.). Natural repetition has no memory effect, it doesn't relate to former repetitions except by being ruled by the same natural laws. Psychological repetition on the other hand, if it happens in a sufficently complex neurological structure, includes a memory of its former appearance. This makes predictions very difficult, because it forces the inclusion of a virtual (in the logical sense) space of possibilities into the "rule" governing the repetition. This is an major field of research in modern neuroscience and also logics. This is also one of the reasons why some types evolutionary psychology are at the least problematic, if (!) they try to imitate the methods of physics. Statistical noise on the other hand is usually not that big of a problem, because the problem resides already the mathematical sets, since the inclusion of virtual possibilities opens up the Gödelian box of Pandora.
Additionally "free will" is in most philosophical concepts in no way random. Starting with Plato the truly free will is mostly understood as a will following the reasoning of the "logos". Which is something different from the modern concept of logic, but can be roughly translated as a combination of deductive and axiomatic reasoning. This makes this concept of free will quite predictable ;-)
 
As if most people follow logos?
Actually yes, they do. There is just the problem that the axioms they follow are often structured through pathological processes. This is one of the core beliefs of nearly every school of psychology, that madness and normality are not random. As to their predictability, I would say the modern logics of virtuality are not included by plato ;-)
 
Thanks for the correction, my understanding was based on hearsay. /cheers
No worries. The hearsay is common, and sometimes it is deliberately repeated to serve an agenda, which just adds to the confusion.

And after that rare, fact-based interlude I'm going to slowly back out of the thread again, like Homer going through Flanders' hedge, because I've absolutely no idea what's going on in here any more. :confused:
 
It appears to me that what void is trying to say, when he speaks, at great length, of selfishness in isolation, is that:
“Selfishness is natural instinct and should therefore be celebrated above all other things
“If I, therefore, just do everything from my own selfish motivation, then you need to accept, or even congratulate me, even if my selfishness has a negative impact on you in our interaction together.”
“I’m simply the messenger that we all do everything solely from selfish motivation”

Erm. How about No.
and No.
and No.

I already posted about the parallel primary motivators, and the thing here is that void clearly knows all about these things, but has deliberately failed to take these into consideration, state them to confirm his diatribe is balanced, or weigh them up in a balanced manner.
Void talks about selfishness as the be-all and end-all. Despite that he knows it is NOT the be-all and end-all, because of all the other factors I’ve previously listed and factors, as an intelligent and well read individual, he clearly is aware of.

So here we are in a social gaming experience, and void simply promotes selfishness as the one motivator that should be respected above all others.
That is the antithesis of a balanced social interaction and most people can see this clearly and transparently.

But reasons, I guess. Anything to justify being a negative impact to other players.

Ho hum.
 
No worries. The hearsay is common, and sometimes it is deliberately repeated to serve an agenda, which just adds to the confusion.

And after that rare, fact-based interlude I'm going to slowly back out of the thread again, like Homer going through Flanders' hedge, because I've absolutely no idea what's going on in here any more. :confused:
128182


Thank me later.
 
Actually yes, they do. There is just the problem that the axioms they follow are often structured through pathological processes. This is one of the core beliefs of nearly every school of psychology, that madness and normality are not random. As to their predictability, I would say the modern logics of virtuality are not included by plato ;-)

Broken logos /= logos.
It retains none of the predictability becasue it's pathological.
Most people respond more to pathos and ethos.
That's why we're unpredictable.
 
Broken logos /= logos.
That's the classical pre-Socratic position, but things get more complicated already within the Sophist dialogue, because there is a difference introduced between relative non-being (coffee without crème) and absolute non-being (the void, nothing).

This holds up for the concept of logos as it is used for example in neuroscience. It's a logos without crème or to be more exact without a strong relation to reality, but its fuctions still hold up, even within a pathological example. This is, in a short vurlgarized way, one of the explanations for OCD.

Edit: Grammar Error
 
Last edited:
Broken logos /= logos.
It retains none of the predictability becasue it's pathological.
Most people respond more to pathos and ethos.
That's why we're unpredictable.

I will say even calling it pathological is in most cases very unfair too.
Even following basic syllogisms a learned skill, so that's nothing more than privilege speaking in most cases.
 
That's the classical pre-Socratic position, but things get more complicated already within the Sophist dialogue, because there is a difference introduced between relative non-being (coffee without crème) and absolute non-being (the void, nothing).

This hold up for the concept of logos as it is used for example in neuroscience. It's a logos without crème or to be more exact without a strong relation to reality, but its fuctions still hold up, even within a pathological example. This is, in a short vurlgarized way, one of the explanations for OCD.

I call that obfuscation.
Pathological people can't even follow their own trains of thought!

This whole thread is about appeals to emotion and virtue signaling, ie pathos and ethos.
 
Top Bottom