[MUD-Dev] You, the game of philosophy.

[Derrick Jones]

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

> Derrick Jones <gunther at online1.magnus1.com> wrote:
> Ola wrote:
> >> Correction, the characters YOU play are puppets. Or at least you
> >> believe so.  How can you be so certain that my puppet isn't me?
>
> >Pretty much so.  You'll still wake up tomorrow if my game-world proves t=
oo
> >dangerous a place for your puppet to survive.
>=20
> Oh, but the puppet is still me.  You've just killed a part of me. Like
> cutting off a limb, maybe a part of my brain.  Very nasty, indeed!
>
There seems to be a contradiction here.  Your arm is not you.  Your arm is
a _part_ of you, but not you.  My character can be conscidered part of
what defines who I am.  Just as is being stopped at a red light last
Tuesday.  I would not be the exact same person if I hadn't stopped at that
light, nor would I be 100% the person I am today if I had never had a mud
character.  Yes, playing a mud influences the thoughts of the player, and
IMO, the design has failed if it doesn't; But that doesn't equate players
and characters.
In coding terms, it would be a HAS_A relationship. Player HAS_A character,
in as much as character HAS_A armor_stat. are armor_stat and character
equivalent?
> >>Are you that obsessed with my exterior?
> >I think I missed this one.  I'm going out on a limb to guess that you me=
an
> >that the character appears differently from the player.  Well, yeah.  Th=
e
> >character is a series of 1's and 0's stored magnetically on disk, while
> >you are real.
>=20
> Are you sure that I cannot be encoded with 1's and 0's ?  In fact a
> large part of me is encoded in strings of 4 symbols, almost everything
> of my physical body is.  What is the essential difference?
Yes, but would they be _the_same_ 1's and 0's that encapsulate your
character?  simular !=3D same
>=20
> >>  Another thing to think about, I have total control over a real puppet=
=2E
> >Put a sock puppet on your hand.  Now make it fly.  You don't have comple=
te
> >control over the puppet.  The puppet is constrained by the (real world's=
)
> >laws of physics.  Now tell your puppet to compute the last digit of pi.
>=20
> Sure, it can do all of this.
[snip example]
Ahh I see your point...puppets can perform anything because you believe
that the puppet performs these acts.  Valid argument, although the same
can be argued for characters:
=09>think
=09You wear your Thinking Cap on your head.
=09>compute last digit of pi
=09okay.
=09>fly
=09You tike flight.
You've actually shown how puppets and characters are simular.  Note that
both puppets and characters are dissimular from players in the same manner
here.
> That's the wonder of real Puppets, they can even do what we might
> otherwise think to be intractable.  It is a matter of artistic
> freedom.
Much like characters.  More so on MUSHES than muds generally.
>=20
> >> What you suggest is that I control the puppet intelectually with a
> >> proper mental distance, but I find myself emotionally involved.
> >> That's where the fun is.  That distance you value would block my fun.
> >
> >I 'suggest' that you realize that it is only a game.  That you keep enou=
gh
> >emotional and intellectual distance to realize that the mud-world isn't
> >real.  I'd also 'suggest' seeking help if the distinction is blurred in
> >your mind.
>=20
> I suggest you think about the fact that you cannot assume what other
> users SHOULD think, do, feel or believe.  You can only try to observe
> these things and feed that information back into your design.
>=20
I was merely suggesting that a person who thinks that if they are stabbed
and killed with a sword will merely need to hit a few buttons on a
keyboard to return to being alive has a fairly good probability of making
a poor judgement decision if mugged.  If the distinction between character
and player is not drawn, the player will merely view his own life only to
be worth a few hours work, because if player =3D character, then the value
of the two must also be equivalent.  This having been said I will smash
the proverbial soapbox into many pieces.
=09>junk soapbox
=09You pound the soapbox into an unrecognizable lump.
As to feeding other points of view into my game, I have one hard-and-fast
rule when accepting suggestions:  I will not impliment any design feature
that will detract from my vision of a game that I would most like to play.
Administrating by Democracy has proven quite unsuccessful in the past, and
I plan to learn from others mistakes. ("I think we should have cheap
potions of full heal sold in every town.")

> (and I suggest you look up some books of philosophy and psychology,
> where I believe you would find support for this idea.)

I do have quite a background in both areas, but my true love has always
been pure science.  The difference between the two areas is that flawed
logic has a shorter life expectancy in the mathmatical sciences.

> >Yes, it could be argued that what we refer to as 'the real world' is
> >merely an illusion, and we are merely computer simulations playing what
> >the designers argue to be a non-realistic game.  But I prefer to approac=
h
> >life thru the assumption that I do exist, as does my environment.
>=20
> "as does my environment", but a virtual world is "my environment" !!

No, it is your character's environment.  Your (extended) environment
contains the computer on which the character's environment is stored.
Once again it is a matter of subsets.  The character's world does not
include the red light that made me late for work on Tuesday (On a side
note, I apologize for keep being up that traffic light, but I've been
cmouting for 3 years the same route, and they added a traffic light that
adds 5 minutes to my comute...growl).  The mudworld !=3D RL.  Yes, they may
be simular but simular !=3D same.

> The information in a virtual world is just as "real" as the=20
> information contained in the physical world. If I build a castle of
Yes, but by definition the mudworld is a subset of the 'real' world
insofar as the mudworld is merely a collection of 1's and 0's stored
magnetically completely within the 'real' world.  This is another HAS_A
relationship.  The dog HAS_A collar, but collar !=3D dog.

> bricks and somebody pulls it down to annoy me, I will get terribly
> upset. I will get equally upset if this happens in a computer world.

Yet in the following senario:
=09>light dynamite
=09The 5 second fuse begins to burn.
=09>swallow dynamite
=09With a Herculean effort, you try to swallow the dynamite, but fail.
=09You're dead.  Better luck next time.

You're still alive.  Your character isn't.  if character =3D=3D player, the=
n
the same fate should befall both.  My parents call me 'son'.  My friends
call me 'Derrick'.  I propose that the particular son of my parents in
question is Derrick.  If Derrick is late for work, then so is that
particular son.  As a matter of fact, any fate befallen Derrick also
befalls upon that same son.  If something could concievable happen to one
and not the other, then the are not the same entity.

> >However, there is seemingly inconvrovertable evidence that the world
> >simulated in the code I wrote is not real (I'd be real impressed if I
> >managed to create a real universe).
>=20
> It is real, if the user deals with it that way.  Maybe not PHYSCIAL,
> but just as real.  What is "a real universe"?  Something equal to what
> you belive you KNOW about the physical universe you live in?

Hrm...you concede that the mudworld isn't physical and that the 'real'
world is.  They are different, so they cannot possiblly be the same thing.
And, to expand this line of reasoning, I assert that every being is
influenced by its environment.  Given this assumption, it follows that two
beings in different environments cannot be _EXACTLY_ alike.  If a
character differs in any way from a player, then they connot be
equivalent, and since the character and player are shaped by different
(one physical the other not) environments, they cannot be the same.
Therefore player !=3D character.

>=20
> Assume you did create a real universe, totally compatible with the
> ideas you have about te physical universe which you belive you live
> in. And then later had a giant paradigmshift in science telling you
> that your physical universe is totally different from what you
> previously assumed.  Would the fact that your created universe now is
> believed to be fundamentally different from the physical universe,
> make it less real?

No, different.  I'm stating that the mudworld !=3D the 'real' world.
Nor do I deny that characters exist and are real.  It would be a rather
fruitless venture to create a mud without acknowledging that characters
exist.  I should know better than anyone that characters exist. I defined
them...Last I checked every character in the mudworld is described by the
C struct char_data.  Characters don't (physically) exist outside that
struct.
>=20
> >People realize that under normal circumstances a lottery ticket is a poo=
r
> >investment, but the 'thrill' of gambling is worth the price of a ticket.
> >If there is a decent jackpot, buying a ticket may initiate hours of
> >pleasant daydreaming with those closest to you.  How much is that
> >experience worth?  If you play the lottery and _expect_ to win, then you=
r
> >perception of reality is a bit distorted, as it is distorted if you
> >believe it is not you shelling out the money for tickets, win or lose.
>=20
> Ah, but where is the "thrill" coming from?  Not from a realistic
> (probability based) judgement.

No, from quite the opposite.  People are trained to think intelligently
(although an argument can be made that this is poor training), and revel
at the acceptable opportunity of rebelling from this training.  Modern
Culture is characterized by the lack of true intellectual freedom.  The
'thrill' can be said to be generated, as with other, more 'rational'
emotions, by the environment of the  person feeling said thrill.

But still, the very fact that people can be deluded does not prove either
point.  It merely means that the logic of the situation must be examined
before you can declare one viewpoint 'more correct' than another.

> >> that one part of your brain might accept that this is "only a game"
> >> while another part of your brain ignore that "fact".  Which part of
> >> your brain is more "you" than the other?  Which part is dominating
> >> during gameplay?
> >definitions:
> >=09player--the human being sitting at the computer.
> >=09character--a virtual being existing only within the confines of
> >the game, controlled by the player.
>=20
> Where is this simpleminded "atomic" classification scheme coming from?
Granted, these are merely the physical constructs used to represent the
two things.  However, that since the definitions are not interchangable
without changing the meanings of the words, the two cannot be the same
thing.=20
> Where is the human mind? Are you suggesting that my character does not
> exist in my head?  If that is the case, why bother to play at all??
> :^)
The human mind, as generally defined throughout the philosophies (c.f. the
mind-brain duality argument that's been raging for centuries) does not
exist.
Yes, your brain stores a copy (not always perfect) of your character and
embellishes it with combinations of objects from your environment.  That
portion of the character is only affected by the code because the portion
of the character as defined above is used to make the copy that resides
within your head.  I cannot edit the character within your head.  I cannot
kill the character within your head.  You, the player, control the only
means of altering that portion of the character, and it is therefore not
within the scope of design.  player HAS_A head which HAS_A character.
People have metal lates in their heads. Are you suggesting that therefore
person =3D=3D metal plate? I fail to see the logic in asserting that player=
 =3D=3D
character.

> (Of course, your position is understandable, but I don't think it is
> valid in general. It is very pragmatic and very biased by typical
> oversimplified human classification.  Same thing that leads to totally
> illogical conclusions of the type "looks similar =3D> is equal".)

Hrm...perhaps agruing on purely philisophical terms we will never _prove_
that (player =3D=3D character) or (puppet =3D=3D character).   It comes dow=
n to
which object (puppet or player) resembles a character more closely.

A puppet can compute pi.  (see your own argument above)
My character can compute pi.
I cannot compute pi.

If a puppet if burned to ashes, I will be alive.
If my character is burned to ashes, I will be alive.
If I am burned to ashes, I will not be alive.

My environment affects the puppet through my personality.
My environment affects my character through my personalitly.
My environment forms my personality.

A puppet continues to exist without me continuing to exist.
My character continues to exist without me continuing to exist.
I do not continue to exist if I do not continue to exist.

I will continue to exist if a puppet stops existing.
I will continue to exist if my character stops existing.
I will not exist if I stop existing.

And, the whole point of this argument can be summed up in the following:

Assumption: If a _is_ b, then everything that happens to a will happen to
b and in the exact same manner as it happens to a, and those occurences
will affect b in the same way as they affect a.

Insert 'the player' for b and 'the character' for a, and you should see
the dangerous consequences of believing the statement that the character
is you, especially if the character has no real reason to fear death.

Therefore, the mudworld is not harsh towards the _player_ just because it
is harsh towards the _character_.  Quite the opposite can be argued, and
has been many times.  It would be quite sadistic to create a game where
the players died, and very few people would willingly play such a game.

I hope that the distinction between player and character is becoming more
clear.

Gunther