Person vs. `Puter

[xechnao]

Less constraint always means more freedom, by definition of both words. Unless, of course, we aren't using the accepted definitions of either.

Reread my message if you will. Humans do have constraints or needs by their nature. So we can't say by this definition that humans with less constraints will be more free or better -because he is using the "free" word to intend a positive-desirable condition. If they had not the constraints necessary they would not be humans anymore. This is why tabletop human communication can't be replaced by software. Unless you build a software that can really feed you and the like.

 

[jdrakeh]

Reread my message if you will.

Okay. . . .

Humans do have constraints or needs by their nature. So we can't say by this definition that humans with less constraints will be more free or better

We can't? Why not? You feel justified saying absolutely that humans would be worse off and sub-human if they had more freedom (which seems like a funny thing to say, honestly). Seems to me, though, that if you can pose one hypothesis, you should be able to pose the other as neither position can be conclusively proven.

-because he is using the "free" word to intend a positive-desirable condition.

So? Fewer constraints can be desireable in many situations, including social interaction (indeed, many people lobby for such freedoms daily, around the globe). Incidentally, when is being 'free' not a positive, desireable, condition? I need a feasible example.

If they had not the constraints necessary they would not be humans anymore.

Is surrendering humanity necessary to play or enjoy CRPGs? I don't think that it is. Is enjoying all interaction with other people a requirement to be human? I don't beleive so. Tell, me. . . what constraints or restrictions are necessary to qualify as human in this regard?

 

[xechnao]

Okay. . . .



We can't? Why not? You say absolutely that they'd be worse off and sub-human. Seems to me, if you can pose one hypothesis, you should be able to pose the other.



So? Fewer contraints can be desireable in many situations, including social interaction. Incidentally, when is being 'free' not a positive, desireable, condition? I need an example.

You are playing with semantics here. I believe my point was clear enough.

Is surrendering humanity necessary to play or enjoy CRPGs? I don't think that it is.

In the long run yes. As long as a crpg makes you get bored of it, you can't enjoy it anymore.

Is enjoying all interaction with all other people a requirement to be human? I don't beleive so.

You believe wrong then because if you were correct the human race would not exist as it is. Unless you put the "all" there to play another semantic game.

 

[jdrakeh]

You are playing with semantics here. I believe my point was clear enough.

No, I"m not playing with semantics. Your point is vey unclear, unless you're genuinely arguing that playing and enjoying CRPGs makes you subhuman. In which case, I see your point but was floored by the fact that somebody would actually say this thing in dead seriousness.

You believe wrong then because if you were correct the human race would not exist as it is.

The fact that people do not always get along with one another and enjoy each other's company is exactly why the human race currently exists as it does.

Unless you put the "all" there to play another semantic game.

No, but I did edit and remove it for clarity.

 

[blargney the second]

DMs are input/output generators with crazy good random number engines.
-blarg

 

[xechnao]

The fact that people do not always get along with one another and enjoy each other's company is exactly why the human race currently exists as it does.

No. Humans always have relations among them. Their progress can be harmonious or not harmonious. But it is relations that are a must to be human. So humans enjoy their relations or the fact that they have relations. This is unconditional and this is the fact.

 

[jdrakeh]

No. Humans always have relations among them. Their progress can be harmonious or not harmonious. But it is relations that are a must to be human. So humans enjoy their relations or the fact that they have relations. This is unconditional and this is the fact.

I never said that humans didn't have relations or that relations weren't necessary to perpetuate human existence. What I said was that humans don't always get along and/or enjoy working with one another. The argument that because something exists, people (as a whole or as individuals) must always enjoy it is a logical fallacy. These two things are fundamentally unrelated (i.e., existence and enjoyment).

 

[xechnao]

Incidentally, the argument that because something exists, people (as a whole or as individuals) must enjoy it is a logical fallacy. These two things are fundamentally unrelated (i.e., existence and enjoyment).

See, this is semantics regarding the meaning of enjoyment. My original point was developed on the basic assumption that we can't compare (and even worse, favor) something that lacks the respect to human constraints or the limits of degrees of human freedom (our need of certain things) with something human. Since we are already talking about software development and possibilities and social constraints. If we are humans we can't compare things not human to our enjoyment or humanity (so here enjoyment and humanity have the same value in my argument- since enjoyment is a human characteristic).

EDIT: better clarification.

 

[Korgoth]

Social constraints take the place of silicon constraints. A player who insists on self-destructive behaviour for his PC is likely to piss off the other players, and get booted (assuming the group doesn't suffer from the geek social fallacies). That's your "I stop working".

OK, but "analogous" does not equal "same". Otherwise you're stuck saying that tree sap is human blood and a bunch of other stupid things.

Sure, you can pretend that there are no distinctions between things but that just sucks any content out of your thinking.

TTRPGS are not CRPGS because the former requires relationship and negotiation with people, and the latter with computers, which are two different kinds of things. You don't have to be polite to a computer and you don't have to plug a human being into a wall outlet.

Are there similarities? Sure. Do similiarities necessitate or even remotely imply sameness? Nope.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not quite sure what this means? What do you mean it gets you nothing?

There is nothing to distinguish WoW being operated by an AI versus WoW being operated by a human, because the game is mechanized.

If you put an AI in charge of D&D versus a a human in charge of D&D, there is also little to distinguish them, because the AI can make decisions like a human.

If you put a bunch of AIs in control of invidual orcs, but not in charge of the game world, then CRPGs still offer less freedom than TRPGs. You just have smarter orcs. You can still hit the edge of the map, or want to do something not permitted by the interface.