The innovation of Nintendo is the roots 4 the holodeck tree

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

I've got a fantastic argument in favor of even the most mindless of entertainment: it's fun. It must be stressful to always attempt to justify every aspect of one's existence.

Molesting children and torturing people can be a lot of fun too.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Most of the benefits of communicating in a virtual world are purely aesthetic – because as Aaron suggests one speaks to the other in real time, similar to real life so the quality of the thoughts is degraded as one can no longer edit and contemplate slowly.

Although I listened to a lecture at Socrates Cafe in Second Life by A SCI-FI author and his thoughts were fairly drawn out, but I believe he prepared something before hand.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharan,

I think it'd be helpful to see Second Life as a glorified shopping mall. Ie. "Design my own credit card personality".

-------

Using an ad hominem argument to counter my statement that cyber-realities are ultimately the same as ordinary realities is actually pointless.

The reason is, if my statement is false, then there's no wisdom in me at all. So, why not just focus on the statement?

Your argument seems to be that, since there's obviously a deep fascination with extraordinary realities, (i) they should be explored, and (ii) this will inevitably lead to greater levels of consciousness.

I have no problem with (i), but i don't think (ii) follows. More below.

Tharan: Anything is both perceptive and nourishing, and non-perceptive and non-nourishing. It depends on the perciever.

Kelly: Well, is there really a perceiver in this particular context? I mean, "something one trades consciousness/thought for" is nourishing and cultivating unconsciousness.

The perceiver comes out of the environment. If Second Life doesn't actually stimulate thought, but suffocates it, then the perceiver fades.

I'm currently more contra than pro, because i haven't yet seen anything more than post-modernist themes. I.e. intellectual suffocation.

From a PlanetKDE feed on Second Life: "The most important thing about the world of Second Life is that it is constantly changing and growing. Here's why: Thousands of new residents join each day and Create an Avatar; Those avatars Explore the World and Meet People; These people discover the thousands of ways to Have Fun; Some people decide to purchase Virtual Land, which allows them to open a business, build their own virtual paradise, and more! Linden Lab creates new land to keep up with demand."

There's so little writing and thinking happening there. That's not a good thing.

You show your emotions, Kelly. I like it.

You were getting sloppy. The technique may have woken you up just a tad.

One of the biggest hurdles after the first stage is to get people out of the I-think-I-am-a-sage-now mindset.

If a person knows without doubt what enlightenment means, and can maintain it, then it would be logical to say "I am a sage".

You slipped out easily, resorted to namecalling, and yet quickly shifted your eyes back to the prize. It tells me you are not overly ashamed of who you were, which is good. I like it real.

I noticed you use the title "Warmongering Pussy" on Common Ascent. It suits your current character.

So it's not really name-calling in the way you mean.

As far as your opinions on what is real, how you might masturbate your hypothetical penis, ect. I have no comment on.

Well, how about this:

Can a second cyber life really be a second life, if an ordinary life isn't ultimately real?



.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kelly,

I think you're rather neurotic over proving that these virtual worlds like Second Life have absolutely no value at all, but I'm not ready to dismiss them so easily from what I have observed.

There is potential for intelligence to operate in games like Second Life - much greater potential than anything for the large consoles by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

These popular platforms have strict limitations and conditions for players, however games like Second Life give creative control over to the players, so if one is intelligent, then one can create intelligent gathering places in the world, and discussions can follow.

I must admit, it is in its early stages, so Second Life is mostly darkness, but there is potential there.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

Molesting children and torturing people can be a lot of fun too.

... if you're a sociopath. Such things sound downright repulsive to me.

[Kelly Jones]

I think you're rather neurotic over proving that these virtual worlds like Second Life have absolutely no value at all

I didn't state that. Just said that arguments for them were sloppy.

Also, i've started a thread on cyber-realities in the science forum, so i'll reply to the rest of your post there.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

EI: I've got a fantastic argument in favor of even the most mindless of entertainment: it's fun. It must be stressful to always attempt to justify every aspect of one's existence.

DQ: Molesting children and torturing people can be a lot of fun too.

EI: ... if you're a sociopath. Such things sound downright repulsive to me.

You're no fun. Like the Second Lifers, the molesters and torturers are engaging in mindless entertainment, so what's the problem?

-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

You're no fun. Like the Second Lifers, the molesters and torturers are engaging in mindless entertainment, so what's the problem?

You're trying to make a sweeping generalization here. It doesn't follow from the fact that some activities can't be justified on the basis of their being fun, that all activities then can't be justified on such a basis.

[David Quinn]

You ticked off Kelly for thinking about the consequences of her actions, holding up the virtue of mindless fun in its stead. So I'm wondering why you don't extend the same principle to child molesters and torturers.

How do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of mindless fun without actually analyzing each of the possibilities? Or do you just spontaneously know what is good behaviour and what is bad?

-

[Tharan]

It is within the context of social norms for that time and that place, obviously. Predators are not accepted as a non-harmful activity and are exposed and shunned, just like humans did with sabre tooth cats and bears and snakes.

[David Quinn]

As you know, the mere fact that a behaviour is shunned by society doesn't mean that it is good or bad. The likes of Socrates and Jesus are just as repulsive to normal society as child molesters are.

-

[Tharan]

Agreed. But I said nothing about "good." Species desire survival and act accordingly.

[Kelly Jones]

Are you this "species", Tharan?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

You ticked off Kelly for thinking about the consequences of her actions, holding up the virtue of mindless fun in its stead. So I'm wondering why you don't extend the same principle to child molesters and torturers.

The circumstances are different. It's as easy as that. Your comparing apples and oranges here. Anyone who isn't a sociopath can see the difference between harmless games and sadistic criminal behavior. Furthermore, your suggestion that I'm "holding up the virtue of mindless fun" is an outright straw man. I've never claimed that playing games was virtuous, only justifiable. I don't extend the same principle to both cases because they don't both entail the same social, ethical, and personal consequences. For one thing, you aren't going to end up in jail for playing a game.

How do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of mindless fun without actually analyzing each of the possibilities? Or do you just spontaneously know what is good behaviour and what is bad?

This is another man of straw. I never suggested that I didn't analyze both situations, and in fact, I anticipated that someone was going to respond exactly as you did prior to making my original post. Despite the fact that I generally do analyze such things, I will say that one more-or-less can spontaneously know what is right or wrong in this case, given that the consequences of both actions are extravagantly different. You can analyze them all you like, but they remain apples an oranges, and you'll have trouble justifying to any sane person that playing a computer game (or whatever it is that started this discussion) is the equivalent of torture.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

DQ: You ticked off Kelly for thinking about the consequences of her actions, holding up the virtue of mindless fun in its stead. So I'm wondering why you don't extend the same principle to child molesters and torturers.

EI: The circumstances are different. It's as easy as that. Your comparing apples and oranges here. Anyone who isn't a sociopath can see the difference between harmless games and sadistic criminal behavior.

What about computer games which involve molesting and torture? There are some games out there which feature rape, drive-by shootings, drug-dealing, running over children, etc. Is it harmful to play these games or not?

Furthermore, your suggestion that I'm "holding up the virtue of mindless fun" is an outright straw man. I've never claimed that playing games was virtuous, only justifiable.

Don't be coy. You were openly mocking Kelly for valuing thinking over mindless fun.

I don't extend the same principle to both cases because they don't both entail the same social, ethical, and personal consequences. For one thing, you aren't going to end up in jail for playing a game.

That may well be, but it doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of harmful consequences to playing computer games. How is one supposed to investigate this without analyzing the situation?

I still don't understand why you thought it worthwhile to come onto a philosophical forum and start mocking people for thinking.

DQ: How do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of mindless fun without actually analyzing each of the possibilities? Or do you just spontaneously know what is good behaviour and what is bad?

EI: This is another man of straw. I never suggested that I didn't analyze both situations, and in fact, I anticipated that someone was going to respond exactly as you did prior to making my original post. Despite the fact that I generally do analyze such things, I will say that one more-or-less can spontaneously know what is right or wrong in this case, given that the consequences of both actions are extravagantly different.

What about a computer game which focuses on seducing children and having sex with them? Are the consequences of playing such a game really going to be extravagantly different from the real thing?

Some people think that having sex with children is a good thing because it helps children become more relaxed about sexual intimacy and reduces their sexual hang-ups. And many people think that torture is a good thing in some circumstances - e.g. when trying to extract information from a Muslim fundamentalist about a possible terrorist attack.

So I don't think the issue is as stark and as black-and-white as you trying to make out.

-

[DHodges]

Anyone who isn't a sociopath can see the difference between harmless games and sadistic criminal behavior.

Really?? I'm pretty sure I could dig up some examples of behavior that in some societies - or in some contexts - would be considered harmless and normal, while in a different society or context would be seen as criminal or sadistic.

There were, for instance, practices involving extreme circumcision or female genital mutilation, some of which are still practiced today in some places.

I might have to dig a bit to find something considered a "game". Off the top of my head, the gladatorial games of ancient Rome spring to mind. Fun for the whole family; they taught Roman virtues.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

What about computer games which involve molesting and torture? There are some games out there which feature rape, drive-by shootings, drug-dealing, running over children, etc. Is it harmful to play these games or not?

It depends upon how mature the individual playing them is. That's really besides the point though, unless your insinuating that such things are the reason behind taking issue with the game in question.

Don't be coy. You were openly mocking Kelly for valuing thinking over mindless fun.

No, I really wasn't. I value thinking over mindless fun as well, although I find thinking to be fun (a mindful fun?). A person just doesn't have to choose one or the other. A person can easily spend some of their time pondering consciousness, and another part of their time playing Super Mario or whatnot.

I still don't understand why you thought it worthwhile to come onto a philosophical forum and start mocking people for thinking.

I'd contend that I'm encouraging thinking by exposing more sides of the issue.

Some people think that having sex with children is a good thing because it helps children become more relaxed about sexual intimacy and reduces their sexual hang-ups. And many people think that torture is a good thing in some circumstances - e.g. when trying to extract information from a Muslim fundamentalist about a possible terrorist attack.

I really don't see what this has to do with the matter at hand. Are you suggesting that fun isn't a valid motivation for action when mitigating circumstances don't exist to trump it? If not, then I don't even know what point you're trying to make, because it's got nothing to do with what I've said.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

DHodges,

Really?? I'm pretty sure I could dig up some examples of behavior that in some societies - or in some contexts - would be considered harmless and normal, while in a different society or context would be seen as criminal or sadistic.

I'm talking about this society and context. Regardless, what's your point here? Are you suggesting that you can't see the difference between the video game mentioned in this thread and child molestation? You'll have to forgive me for my lack of precision in wording there, but try to understand what I say in it's proper context, as it has to do with the overall point. I tend to frame what I say around my point, and thus I don't always ensure that every sentence when taken in isolation says something 100% accurate. In fact, W. O. Quine once suggested that no proposition can be true when taken in isolation of a larger context.

[DHodges]

I'm talking about this society and context.

Okay, fair enough.

[Kelly Jones]

EI,


Is it stressful to attempt to justify every aspect of one's existence?

No, stress arises when one can't justify any aspect of one's existence.

I tend to frame what I say around my point, and thus I don't always ensure that every sentence when taken in isolation says something 100% accurate. In fact, W. O. Quine once suggested that no proposition can be true when taken in isolation of a larger context.

So which is it? Do you place every point in relation to the largest context (everything), or do you not bother justifying every point in relation to that context?

Ethical decisions are up the creek otherwise, aren't they.......?


.

[Tharan]

You are calling for decisions out of context, Kelly. It is like pulling a fish from the water, holding it up so your students can watch it die, and saying "See? See, how weak these creatures really are?"

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic,

DQ: What about computer games which involve molesting and torture? There are some games out there which feature rape, drive-by shootings, drug-dealing, running over children, etc. Is it harmful to play these games or not?

EI: It depends upon how mature the individual playing them is.

Is it possible for a mature person to experience pleasure in such things?

The pleasure in computer rape and killing is a case of experiencing vicariously the pleasure of real rape and killing. Or at the very least, it desensitizes the mind to their occurrence while one is trying to accumulate points and reach the next level of the game.

So if nothing else, these games help foster a narcissistic, unsensitive mentality in wider society, one that finds the killing and rape of others pleasurable, or at least acceptable, as though it were the norm. It can only be a matter of time before a less mature member of society, conditioned by this mentality, will go out and actually engage in real killings and rapes.

DQ: Don't be coy. You were openly mocking Kelly for valuing thinking over mindless fun.

EI: No, I really wasn't.

You said mindless fun was a "fantastic argument".

I value thinking over mindless fun as well, although I find thinking to be fun (a mindful fun?). A person just doesn't have to choose one or the other. A person can easily spend some of their time pondering consciousness, and another part of their time playing Super Mario or whatnot.

Or just as easily, he could spend some of his time pondering consciousness and another part of his time raping children and bashing old ladies over the head.

DQ: Some people think that having sex with children is a good thing because it helps children become more relaxed about sexual intimacy and reduces their sexual hang-ups. And many people think that torture is a good thing in some circumstances - e.g. when trying to extract information from a Muslim fundamentalist about a possible terrorist attack.

EI: I really don't see what this has to do with the matter at hand. Are you suggesting that fun isn't a valid motivation for action when mitigating circumstances don't exist to trump it?

The very nature of mindless fun is to block out all thought and negate the possibility to discovering mitigating circumstances.

If not, then I don't even know what point you're trying to make, because it's got nothing to do with what I've said.

I suppose my main point is that everything we do has consequences and there is really no such thing as harmless behaviour. Our every action, big or small, has positive and negative consequences, and the thoughtful, responsible person is obliged to be aware of them.

-

[clyde]

I suppose my main point is that everything we do has consequences and there is really no such thing as harmless behaviour. Our every action, big or small, has positive and negative consequences, and the thoughtful, responsible person is obliged to be aware of them.

That seems like a very sensible approach if you add that the awareness should guide one's actions to minimize the harm.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Kelly Jones]

Tharan,

You are calling for decisions out of context, Kelly. It is like pulling a fish from the water, holding it up so your students can watch it die, and saying "See? See, how weak these creatures really are?"

Some students are like trapped fish, who desire nothing so much as the freedom of the open sea.

We all benefit from exposing ego, and any force that drives us closer to the open sea.

[Tharan]

Some, but not all. You offer only the sea?