Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7834456" data-attributes="member: 71699">Possibly you think I'm arguing something that I am not arguing. Of course everyone has details in mind, and everyone has details that are omitted. In background study on cognition the extent to which the brain accepts incomplete representations of a thing as the thing, is well established. For example, we assign things in our peripheral vision colour, but our sensitivity to colour drops off with the angle of vision. There are other examples: when it comes to ogres, the version in our minds will be just-complete-enough to be accepted as its representation, even though we omit a lot of details. The colour of the soles of its feet would be an example.It's true we can fill in those details: my claim is that they do not exist until we do. Also, we're not capable of filling in every detail of an ogre. My claim is that there will always be omissions.The more important claim that I make, however, is not about that. It is about the mapping between an intentionally less-complete model (simulations are necessarily incomplete) and the partially incomplete and progressively sketched-in fiction. I don't think you are arguing against that. The 1d4 for guidance then is at the model level - we don't imagine that the guided ogre stops and rolls a d4! But it does model something that is intended to exist at the fiction level - we do imagine that the guided ogre feels guided. And the model tells us things about that - it tells us that the ogre can tell when it could be guided.What I believe one would need to be arguing to not believe this, would be that there are modelled things that have no mapping at all to the fiction. (Notice the directional arrow there.) Say there was a thing in the model that gets a player to roll a d12... but that doesn't translate into anything at all in the fiction. Just... roll a d12. Okay, good, let's move on shall we...</blockquote>

Verification