Monday, September 17, 2012

Comic Book Brain Missconceptions: Are you amongst the wrong?

I flipped through 'Deadpool kills the marvel universe' today. Not really digging on the theme - but that's just one strike.

Then *spoiler, kiddies - though it's near the start anyway* Deadpool gets his head exploded (some sort of kinetic control attack).

That's fine.

Then he gets up, having regenerated his head, and continues his doings. Delivering a line telling his attacker about their mistake.

Oh jeez.

You've got Bakker going on about blind brain theory, whereas this is where the general public are AT when it comes to the brain.

It shows how wacked the grasp is - oh, if you can regenerate your head, you're absolutely cool. I mean, talk extreme dualism - as long as the drivers cab comes back, the driver just hops back in!

For a start, information in your head is NOT genetically encoded! It's stored as strengths between synapses in the tendrils that connect them. Unless you have a record of this - like a stored copy of the brain, that ain't coming back. Deadpool loses his head and it regens - he'd come back as a kind of baby. He wouldn't even know how to speak!

Even if you took the idea you can healing factor back this memory - how the heck does that work? It resets your mind? So how do you think? Your thinking adjusts the strengths between synapses - if you cannot modify those strengths (because they keep 'healing' back to what they were before), you just cannot think! The healing factor would effectively KILL you, for the way you'd be locked in a mental blue screen of death.

And artists are at this level of thinking about how the brain works?

It reminds me of an Aeon Flux episode where she gets cloned...and the clone has all her memories. The thing was I raised this and my friend was insistent she'd get the memories. I had to really outline the difference between genetic information and information stored in the brain between synapses.

Need some popular stuff that starts to iron out the practicalities of the situation.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

The sematically unabiguous frame

Originally from here, I'll strip it of being about a particular individual and instead describe a particular mindset. Hopefully this mindset is purely a work of fiction on my part!

To this mind, there are no semantically ambiguous words. When he sees a word or phrase which could be interpreted in two or more ways, he sees only one interpretation (his). Seriously I’m betting he couldn’t give any example of a ambiguous sentence – to him everything is ‘obvious’ and ‘clear cut’. How long is a piece of string? This mind will tell you. You can’t even appeal to ambiguity in words and try to establish between parties a definition both use in the same way – because he doesn’t recognise ambiguity occurring in the first place. It’s like one of those optical illusions where a few lines make it look like a triangle is there, because you're mind completes the form of a triangle. But you’re aware you’re doing it. This mind isn’t. Indeed I wonder if, even over that image he’d be going “For gods sake, it’s a triangle!”.

He then ‘catches out’ others ‘switching’ use of a definition. When it’s just a matter of them not using his definition, to which is like that idea of him being a slave of his interpreter, unable to see the wording could be interpreted another way.

Even that ‘catching out’ isn’t that big a deal or bad boo boo if the second party recognises alternative interpretations are possible and will work with the first party towards a definition they both use the same way.

But we’re stuck at the ridiculous ‘switching’ stage, where he treats his own interpretation as some sort of wonderful revelation of how the other person is wrong. Like someone looking at the woman illusion and cackling about how the other person is wrong and switching their definition in the age of the lady they saw.

Of course if just a handful of examples of ambiguously worded sentences that could be interpreted in two ways or more were given by the suspected mind in question, that puts a hole in the hypothesis this applies to them. Hopefully you'd get such examples!

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Pedestal-ation by Absence?

Looking at an article here - I'll preface (and prime, a lil') by saying when one party acts childish, that isn't some sort of excuse for another party to give violent threats.

Plus I'm just focusing on the bit about the author Watts.
Requires Only That You Hate is regularly showered with hatred for her thoughts on science fiction and fantasy–she was called a rabid animal by Peter Watts, a luminary in our field, who received very little public condemnation for his statements. (A rabid animal! Because she thought a book was sexist! I thought humorless feminists were the ones who took things too seriously!)
Now I'm just focusing on this point. Even if I proved something wrong with it, that does NOT prove the other points to be wrong.

I 'spose what gets me when I start adding to the heap, is the absence of permission.

Lets take it for a moment that 'rabid animal' isn't a childish slur but actually worse. Okay, so he can't say that...what can he say, in childish response?

It's the absence of permission for any sort of response that makes me suspect a 'on a pedistal' type of sexism. That if a woman, pushes a cream pie into someones face, she is above having a cream pie then pushed into her own face as well? Even if 'rabid animal' is just too much, what is an okay cream pie to use? On that, nothing is said and...that leads to a pedestal.

Yes, this is all amongst abhorrent death threats and rape threats. But it's exactly in threatening situations where were reflexive responce is to start to give up/take away liberties in the name of security - ie, start putting certain peoples on pedistals. We really have to watch out for that.

Plus the "doesn't mean male authors get to unload loaded slurs at them" bothers me, in that why is the sentence only aimed at what men don't get to do?

Ultimately what strikes me is in the power of what is un-said.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Screen shots for the game - titled: Bio Hackers

The bio hacker game is building up, and imaginatively named 'Bio Hackers', for now atleast. It's deliberately very much text based right now. So if that burns your eyes, look awaeeeee! If you're used to games built by big companies, you might wonder how anything without spiff graphics everywhere can be a game - well, there are alot of text based browser games on the net with quite a following. And basically you're spoiled - get over it a bit! Also the random chat in the shoutbox is smudged because it's all test stuff and upon reflecting on it, I realised anyone else reading it might get strange ideas! Click to enlarge.

This is kind of your main area, which would branch off to various stuff you can buy or sell.

This one is the conflict area where you basically pick a fight. This particular game is based on the idea of social conflict - ie, you're not beating the other guy to death, you're out posing him, out styling him. It'd be funny if that sounded more pretentious than killing for power.
Finally it's the combat, which is very basic and essentially there to watch the moment happen. Again, there are alot of browser games which have non interaction combat in them, with quite a few players.
Come to think of it, I might put the shout/chat box underneath that as well!

So that's the progress so far!

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

'I know why I did that - I wanted to...'

I think someone can have absolutely no idea why they did something, with those words.

You don't always get to do what you want. The interupt point between wanting something and yet not just instantly doing it is part of what identifies an adult. More specifically a self enacted interupt point. Self control.

And then maybe you get someone who is ostensibly an adult - but the instant they wanted to do something, they just did it. You can try and tell them they don't know why they were compelled to do it, but they will act like 'because I wanted to' is some kind of answer. There is nothing in between desire and enactment of desire. With nothing in between, there is only ignorance.

If your choosing what food you want to eat or what music your going to buy, it's cool enough to let go and just let desire go straight through to enactment (well, within certain limits with food, for health, and certain limits with music, for financial health). It's not like you have to do it for all things. But then again these exampless are mere frivolities.

Without any interupt between desire and enactment, without being able to describe any process of thought in terms of whether to let a desire 'through', I don't think anyone knows what they are doing, except at the most childish 'I wanna' level.

Side note: Just to give context if you haven't looked at my profile, this is a secondary blog for me. Like a sub folder. Yep, some people have more than one blog - golly! The other one is over here. Much video game and RPG talk there!

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Biopunk: Hashing out the theme of a text based browser game

I'm working on a text based browser game with a biopunk theme.

The main thematic element is a loss of humanity, which rears its head as apparent deprotagonisation of choice in terms of certain moral choices in the game.

It has a base line of battling for cash and XP/levels (well, actually it's social combat primarily, so your out-cooling the other guy to beat him. There may be an occasional actual fight, but its a rare exception).

But every so often you get pitched a moral question, like whether to help someone when it'll be out of your way to do so. Basically the code will watch for those situations where the player would do it (cause on some they wont - that's human diversity. But were focusing on where they will act). And it will report that that moral issue is to do with X layer of the brain. Where X is a made up name. And the whole 'layer' thing is a basically a made up approximation. The idea is simply to give a name to the source of these moral issues, rather if they don't exist, yet people do them anyway.

Now there's a range of bio mods you can get. Stuff like a mohawk that can flatten on command, stuff like that*. The thing is, in the latter levels there are 'brain upgrades' and these give you a really, really powerful boost in terms of out-cooling the other guy. Very desirable. Very more. Each one is said, in the description text, to affect a brain layer...

Ah, maybe you see where this is going - I'm not sure if it'll be blunt in the final program.

Also I'm not quite sure how I want to implement it. The first idea is the bluntest.

1#. The moral choice comes up and...there is no other option but for the players character to ignore it. There isn't even a sign of why, suddenly, the option of choice is gone. There's only a note on what layer of the brain this is associated with.

2#. Same as #1, except there's a 'hey, why can't I do it?' link, which informs the player that by getting a brain upgrade that affects layer X, they have ceased to be able to choose in terms of this moral choice that's to do with layer X.

3#. Same as #2 except the link only shows up after say about three moral choices have shown, to let them stew for awhile (assuming they even keep playing and aren't so pissed they stop, but hey...). This only bugs me because I'd have to put in extra code and space in the database to record it. Really it wouldn't be much code or space though, so maybe I'm being bitchy and don't wanna compromise.

4#. Paced out loss of control: Each brain upgrade to a layer adds a percentage chance of losing control on moral issues to do with that issue. Each time the moral choice comes up percentile dice are rolled and if it's below the percentage, the player gets no choice. Get enough brain upgrade on that layer and it'll add up to 100%, so always a fail. But this kind of doesn't hammer in the point - the lower the brain upgrades percentage add, the less likely the effect will show up in play. I mean, there's subtle...and then there's just obtuse.

#5. Strong decay: A brain upgrade to layer X has a percentage chance to affect AND that percentage chance grows over time (probably over three RL days, to capture the players attention) up to 80% or so. Another upgrade in that layer of the brain will by their own base percentage add take it to 100% straight off, or it's own degrading will take it to 100% over time.

#6 Same as #5, but the second implant decays you up to 90%. The third decays you to 95%. The fourth to 99%. The fifth...? Perhaps needlessly complicated, but this lends a sting to play because instead of just being able to shrug ones shoulders and discount the choice as gone, sometimes it will come up and...well, will you dust off the morality from before and act? Or will even the player give into the moral disruption effect and now not act? Whereas before in the moral question he did? However, this undermines the idea that you are altering the very fundiment of ones self - the idea is that you are not affecting yourself, what's happening is that you are replacing part of yourself. Really in terms of a specific moral issue (gawd that's a vague term but I use it a lot, I should give some examples but I'm feeling lazy - just a cliche examples come to mind right now, like helping an old lady carry her shopping, etc. I swear I can do something more nuanced!) if you've chopped out your response to it, then it's gone. It's like having your right hand chopped off - you don't slowly loose your capacity to pick things up with your right limb when that happens. It's just gone! Otherwise I like #6 for it's needling quality.

So, I'm not sure of the exact implementation method. Currently I have a basic social combat system down (essentially the same roll to hit system as a physical combat system - nothing mind blowing) and a chat room I pulled out of another project and smoothed off for this. Overall I'm definitely not looking to make a complicated or deep game. This implementation of theme is where I'm going to do the most deepity deep thinking.

* Personally I'm presenting a divide between external modification and direct brain modification. I'm not sure that getting a mechanical mohawk or such is going to really affect your morality. And it taps into the audience who thinks it's cool, to validate it somewhat.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Bio Mods affect the mind? Bio Mods fuel enthusiasm for Mental Mods?

Looking at physical, bodily bio mods, do they affect the baseline of the mind? Were not talking biomods that let you bend steel bars, but something like a mohawk that can flatten or raise? Or say they don't - but is the enthusiasm for such bodily modification simply going to be translated over to mental modification. Here's a link discussing the idea of body mods with great enthusiasm. I'd post there, but I'm not sure if body mods (of this scale) leads to mental paradigm shifts (as I note below, refering to it as gross physical augmentation).

The three pound brain post on the matter. And here's my comment (with some modification! *boom ting!*):

This seems to be augmentation on the grossly physical level? I mean, mechanical mohawks? Oh dear? If that affects the baseline of the mind, what about people who have lost limbs to accidents, or those who have had massectomies? Are these people dire abberations to what moral structure we carry?

Otherwise I get that that same enthusiasm she shows would, once actual brain changes become available, be used in terms of getting those brain changes made. I mean, look how many people here were keen on getting a tCDS cap? “But, see, but…”. And yeah, not quite realising that the enthusiasm she has/IS now might be blotted out by a brain augmentation.

How does one value the death of value? How can any given frame of inferential reference argue for its own destruction without lapsing into abject contradiction?

It'll be hard even pitching the idea of a contradition. How does a person blind to their position realise they are shifting the goalposts/contradicting themselves, when it feels to them they aren’t moving at all? Point out one way they contradict themselves, they shift value systems/perspective without even acknowleging it until it makes sense to them. Point out the contradiction in that, they shift again.

Quite the contrary, it means leaving them behind. In other words, given ‘semantic parochialism,’ transcending the human means transcending meaning and morality. Or put differently, embracing nihilism.

I don’t get why, particularly given the amazing number of moral attitudes across the planet, that somehow this would be embracing nihilism? How does this show up as the amazing departure after all that? To me it’d seem to be yet another morality being made up – except unlike the previous ones, these wont have undergone millions of years of field testing (and they will potentially be coming at a far faster rate than standard mutation produces)

Is there some sort of organic line that a brain augmenter really will be stepping over and so suddenly bang, they’re doing nihilism? Where does this line come from?
Not that I’m promoting it – as said, fuck all field testing and yeah, the base line, as little of a coherant baseline as can be observed, is being let go of person by person, in doing it.

If science reveals there’s no such thing as meaning and morality, why should anybody give a fuck one way or another?
Or it just makes ‘should’ a funny word.

Why should anybody not give a fuck? The nihilistic expanse sweeps in both directions, not just the ‘why give a fuck’ direction.

I’m still reminded of those riots that apprently happen in christian suburbs when the cops go on strike. Like some sort of ancient, not remembered, yet still acted upon promise…and that promise being explicitly broken.

Monday, January 23, 2012