Bad Arguments

I gotta come clean. If there was any justice I'd come with a warning label. "Known to make bad arguments." I know it. I make bad arguments all the time. Not saying that all my arguments are bad, but I think a lot are. I try not to, but sometimes I just can't tell.

How do I know then? Because a few hours/days/weeks later, even I'm not convinced by them. And I'm the one who made it in the first place! I use terrible analogies, unfitting metaphors, maybe some hypocrisy, and occasionally some bad logic. Plus a bad habit of playing Devil's advocate or making ironic arguments just for the hell of it.

So please, please, please; when ever I go off on some bullsh*t argument, or when you know I'm wrong, just tell me. Or better yet, convince me. I try to listen to reason, but it can take awhile to sink in so I'll probably be an ass until I realize what a buffoon I am (or hold character for joke arguments). Thanks, in advance, for your patience.

The Undead Monkey

My Lord,

I am but a humble philosopher, but I heard reports of undead pirate group that has been terrorizing our holdings in the Caribbean. These uncouth criminals must be stopped, but I putting forth my request to allow me to investigate the matter before they are totally eliminate. You see, there has been one thing that has perplexed me ever since I had heard it. Reports mention the pirates have with them a monkey who is similarly afflicted by their unnatural condition. While it may seem like a small matter, this has the potential to changing our understanding of morality and the animal kingdom.

Rumor has it that the pirates were cursed to be living dead for their greed. However, why is the monkey cursed? Was he cursed simply by proximity, just by being the pirates' pet? Then the monkey cursed unjustly, as he would not be responsible for the pirates' actions. This would lend credence that there is some warlock who has great power that cannot be allowed to act with impunity, which would mean that we would need a greater force in the Caribbean that would appear.

Or is it possible that the monkey was punished for his greed as well? Could it that monkeys are able to be greedy, and therefore to sin. And if they can sin, then they are moral agents. If that can be proven, then we have to rethink our whole stance of treatment of (some) animals. While I am not positing that that monkeys and chimpanzees should be treated as humans, but we do have to treat them ethically, if they are capable of making moral decisions. Our claim that we can own animals is based mostly on the premise that they are not agents who can make their own decisions. Similar to how parents can make decisions on behalf of their children and why we do not hold children responsible in the same way as adults. However, if this is proved false, then we have to expand our understanding of justice itself.

I urge you to permit me to accompany any investigation or military force that will sent after this criminals so that I may delve deeper into this matters and discover if what we hold as moral truths are, in fact, true.

My Lord,
Your Lordship,
Most Humble
And Devoted,
Servant

I choose free will

I believe in free will but perhaps I am just determined to think that way.

Playing the Philosopher

So, a funny seed of an idea popped into brain. What about some story-driven game (RPGish perhaps) where you play a philosopher. The philosopher collects different arguments and beliefs and then evaluates them. Criticizing your arguments will make them stronger, but become too skeptical (possibly in conjunctions with other arguments or beliefs) and you can no longer use that argument or hold that belief.

Do that the latter enough, and then you become a nihilist. And goddamn it we hate nihilists. Fuck me! Let's say that they are the enemy or something. You don't want to do that.

In life, I've always considered becoming a nihilist like playing the game of philosophy and losing. You tried to come away with stronger beliefs and you ended up with none. You failed it. Maybe I'm wrong, though. /me shrugs.

Then you take this interesting subsystem and apply it to a broader context. Having certain beliefs allows you to do certain things, like say cast certain spells. Being able to perform certain arguments allows you to do certain things in a social context. Get people to act a certain way or whatever. Or simply just spread your ethos.

I'd work on this right now, if I wasn't busy trying to bang out something else out for the EGW. Maybe after...

Philosophizing

So as part of my finals, I wrote a few essays. Here are two in case anyone is interested. I'm using Google Docs to share them. If anyone wants nicely formatted pdfs, just shoot me an email and I get one to yah. I'm make put them up somewhere if it turns out that there is some interest in it.

Abstraction :
George C. Berkeley in the Introduction of A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge has an argument against Abstraction (having abstract ideas of things) that bothered me for awhile. It's just not necessary at all to his Immaterialism. So I decided to write a paper objecting to that.

Learning and The Extended Mind :
So in the Philosophy of Mind there is this pretty cool theory of 'an extended mind.' The idea is that cognition may be a process that's not entirely in the head. Our brains may be taking advantage of external processes to do some of the cognitive work. Thinking may involve a causal loop that uses both internal and external states. That's the super quick gloss. The paper, really, is still kind of a gloss since the topic is so deep, but whatev. I even got to talk about videogames a little in this paper!

approaching games

Sorry about the absence from blogging but who would have thought that having philosophy as major would mean so much reading and writing? Anyways...

I've been thinking about my approach to games (go figure) and I find that I need to clarify my thinking by putting some words down in text, and I intend to subject the Internet with my rambling.

First off, games are means to some end, they are not ends themselves. A game for the sake of itself is silly. You can have a basic end i.e. fun for a game but it is still not for itself. Now, like Aristotle said you can't really reason about ends, only about means.[in Nicomachean Ethics] Strictly speaking, we can choose any end that we want, or that makes sense to us, but of course some ends are better than others...

Having a well defined end makes determining the means much easier. You can tell from the game design blogs out there that those with strong, robust theories and interesting thoughts are those with a firm idea of they want to do. For Perko, one of his ends is creating robust social simulations, for Corvus its story creation. etc... (I know those are really huge glosses but bear with me) One of my problems I've noticed is that I don't have any well defined ends with regards to games. Some vague ideas about creating an "experience" and maybe "weirding people out" but those are so general as to be worthless (or nearly so).

I have been working on this though. Stay tuned...

Birds, Beauty, and What We Eat

I was watching birds a little today. I was musing on the sexual dimorphism in birds and how extreme it is in many species, and (almost) always the males. The males are brighter and the color more vibrant. Some species have a fantastic spectrum of colors. The females are more subdued and more practical. Well, someone needs to tend to the nest. I was wondering why that is, and not so in mammals. Dimorphism in mammals, if present, tends to be more about body shape, or exaggerated features. In human culture, masculinity has alternatively associated with bright colors or subdued tones.

Then I noticed a bright yellow butterfly flitting about. I thought, well, consider what birds eat. Insects and seeds. Many various insects and seeds are multicolored for whatever reasons. Beauty could be linked to what is good to eat. A constant evolutionary force (because it definitely affects reproduction over long terms) acting with or against practicality.

In all animals, down to the lowliest of jellyfish, the brain is never far from the mouth. Eating is the basic action of life, it would make sense the decision maker be various close to the eating information center. Consider kissing, we explore each other by eating each other. Kind of an odd thought isn't it, but, I'm sure I'm not the first person to think beauty and eating are connected on a fundamental biological level. I should really take an aesthetics class.

What does this have to with games? (not that you were thinking that but it's a nice transition) That eating is an easy verb that should be done more in games. Pac-man and Katamari are not enough!

Everything/Nothing Fallacy

I always hate when I hear someone say something in the form "If you x everything, than you x nothing." Like if you believe in everything than you believe in nothing, or if everyone is special than no one is. The latter, of course, being an always trendy thing for guy into counterculture platitudes. The shorter version is "If everyone's unique then nobody is." The more correct argument is "If everyone's unique than nobody is, in particular." I mean, you wouldn't say, "If everyone's alive than no one is" because that is retarded... I mean absurd. It's also a premise used against an egalitarian distribution of wealth or equal education. Probably other ideas too. Point is, it's a bad argument that keeps getting repeated. Stop it. Please.

Disclaimer: This only applies to non comparative x's. If everything is hot, then nothing is makes sense. Special is not a necessarily an adjective that compares.

Philosophy Majors...

So I'm was studying with few other people in my Philosophy 297 class which is entitled, "The Metaphysics of Truth" and we worked our brains so much on some nuances of a particular theory of truth we all got really hungry. So we ordered pizza instead of wings (the best foods available) because every time we were about to decide wings, we spiraled into this debate about what is the "nature of wings," "what is it?" "what makes a wing, a wing?" "whether boneless wings are subtype of wings or something else closer to chicken fingers" were all things we discussed until a wave of hunger hit one us reminding us of the immediate problem of feeding ourselves. There's a moral here. I think its don't let philosophy majors make a fast decision.



Nothing about games here, just something funny that happened.