Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 375 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
 Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:30 pm 
Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
Offline
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:56 am
Posts: 848
JadedDragoon wrote:
Yeah I see what you bolded. And what you bolded actually proves my point. Not yours. My point being: YOU are claiming that -> WE are claiming that -> free will is when every single choice matters. What you bolded is actually an example of you parroting our own argument back to us as if we haven't been saying the exact same thing for... what? Two days now? Three?

Yes, I know you're basically a compatibilist. That doesn't allow for a hypothetical indeterminist into the conversation.

Quote:
No, causality (which choices matter) is objective. Our perception of it is what is subjective. And no one here is claiming causality only applies to humans.


If you're going to say that everything that happens in a chain of events is significant because it matters to the scientific chronicle of events, then, okay? That's trivially true? That makes everything equally significant and doesn't lead the discussion anywhere.

If you're saying that not all decisions are valuable to a person, nor have a guaranteed outcome of success, then you have already acknowledged that, no, not all choices matter.

Quote:
Again... no. I'm not claiming it has anything to do with ultimate origination. I've seen no one else claiming that either.

Okay very well, that may not apply to you. So I am unnecessarily heading off somebody who would say otherwise.

Quote:
Free will (as we have been using it here) has to do with causality. Causality is a principle in physics. As in science... not philosophy. And causality does not give a flying monkey fart about anyone's consent.


Uhhhh, no. I don't think I'll allow that. It's a philosophical question.
Yes, science is a valid topic for philosophy. Scientists themselves may have opinions on the subject of free will, but it's not something anybody actually studies.

Quote:
You want a technical definition of free will? Here: When one has enough control over enough of the right causes to alter the final effect along desirable lines AND the capacity to choose whether or not to do so one is said to have "free will."


That is not adequate.

What if you make a choice where your reasoning was flawed?
(Well I lost the last five times I played lotto, so I'm due for a win.)
Or choices that were made based on limited information?
What if the choice is one where you know its overall a bad idea?
(I really shouldn't have that last cookie. I really shouldn't have one more beer.)

We assume that nobody forced your hands in these decisions and that you could've been said to have wanted to make them. Whether they were rational decisions or not don't matter. You were free to make them.

By posing the question about whether the decision was free will at all, you're basically purity testing it for adequate freedomness to come to a valuation of its worthiness.

If you're just going to measure free will by how successful you are, or at least, how rational you are, then don't we have words for those?

And just to head it off, we can then further modify your definition to include any decisions which affect the final outcome at all -- whether the result is bad, good or netural. Except you know, sometimes there are false decisions too. (A rain dance gives me no power over the weather at all. Or perhaps a malicious genie forces me to make Sophie's choice but kills both children anyway.)

Quote:
Congrats on proving wrong yet another claim that no one has made. I never made any comment at all about who might have made what choice. My point was only that the choice in the 21st case had a causal relationship with the desired effect. A point which stands, btw.

Well you didn't have adequate information to fully know whether the first twenty times "mattered." So you couldn't guarantee your success in any given attempt. Nobody made you go to the first twenty times. But only the twenty-first attempt matters because all the casual links clicked into place to a desired outcome that you liked?

That's sort of my point. I don't know what you're getting at with this example. It's confusing to talk about how only the last time matters because it was successful. It's also confusing to talk about twenty failed attempts, but then vindicate them as meaningful because it's a great show of perseverance (i.e. personal virtue). And therefore because your decisions showed great personal virtue, therefore the decisions were meaningful.

Which basically makes two arguments:
1) Free will are successful decisions.
2) Free will are decisions exhibiting virtue.

Quote:
No I haven't claimed free will and choice are equivalent. I've claimed that choice is a key components of free will. Claiming they are interchangeable is like saying an engine block is interchangeable with a car. Good luck getting to work sitting on the valve covers of a naked engine block with no transmission, steering wheel, drive shaft, tires, brake, or any other those other components that make up a functioning car. That said... go luck getting to work with all those other things and no engine block.


You haven't. But my point is that you're using the phrase in ways which are meaningless when you do use it. I agree with the rest of what you write, because then we can start with the notion that we have a choice and that it is a metaphorical car component, but not one that is necessarily valuable nor guarantees success on its own. (This one is no good because it's got a big crack in it.)

Just in this conversation alone you're saying free will must be a successful decision or meritorious. You've said or implied them unintentionally. Free will makes a bunch of implicit assumptions and arguments every time you use them and people aren't even often aware that they do.

It's just a lot simpler to say, "I made a choice." And then afterwards maybe qualify the choice as a good one, a free one, a bad one and so on. There's less confusion that way.

In fairness, you may not have made an argument about ultimate origination. But, just because you didn't doesn't mean that somebody else wouldn't. That's why I hate the concept. It's not just one bad idea. It's a constellation of them selected at random with every new participant.
(Fucking hell, there's a poster that basically says the illusion of free will is an evolutionary-selected survival trait or something along those lines and that it is impossible to break the illusion without becoming psychologically damaged.)


Last edited by DVL on Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:05 pm, edited 10 times in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:37 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:02 pm
    Posts: 222
    I see Marie is biased to her view of what's important as it applies to her discipline.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:13 pm 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:49 pm
    Posts: 166
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Fuzzy Izmit wrote:
    This is a really fun thread to read, just saying.


    You prefer contract debates and whining about Jillian? Cause I'm sure I could get one of those going if I tried.


    I think we're fated to do one or the other somewhere beyond page 10 of every discussion thread. No choice involved there, I believe.

    _________________
    I did a thing: http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/55086 ... redth-king

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:21 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 10:02 am
    Posts: 62
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    One time I dreamt that I read on wikipedia that during the history of Chess the bishop was known as a "Courtier", which inspired me to try writing an Erf fanfic about a Courtier who would never travel directly East, West, North or South, believing that traveling in such directions were "Cardinal sins". Travelling North-east, North-West, South-East or South-west was fine though.

    Then I woke up, realised dreams weren't a REALIABLE SOURCE, and scrapped that erf-fic.


    Of all the nearly 1337 number of things you've posted here... that was by far the most awesome, and you TOTALLY should have run with it... at a 45 degree angle to what everyone else was doing!

  • Tipped by 2 people!
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:22 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:33 pm
    Posts: 60
    Darkstar7613 wrote:
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    One time I dreamt that I read on wikipedia that during the history of Chess the bishop was known as a "Courtier", which inspired me to try writing an Erf fanfic about a Courtier who would never travel directly East, West, North or South, believing that traveling in such directions were "Cardinal sins". Travelling North-east, North-West, South-East or South-west was fine though.

    Then I woke up, realised dreams weren't a REALIABLE SOURCE, and scrapped that erf-fic.


    Of all the nearly 1337 number of things you've posted here... that was by far the most awesome, and you TOTALLY should have run with it... at a 45 degree angle to what everyone else was doing!



    Seconded. That sounds like a marvelous story, even if the Bishop was never called that.

    Wikipedia says the original piece was a war elephant, and has since been translated "officer", "Standard-Bearer", "Crocodile", "Archer", "Jester" , "Messenger", "Runner", "Spear/Lance", "Hunter", and "Chieftain".


    I guess no one really knows what to make of this piece. But you could just grab one and rewrite your story around it, if historical accuracy is something you care about . But if it's Erfworld you're writing for, having a bishop also be a courtier is easily defensible, especially if the story's cool.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:56 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 594
    Or you could posit that Bishop is a rank of courtier, which would make sense.

    A lot of the difference between 'civilized' expressions of traits and 'uncivilized' expressions of those traits comes down to the fact that civilization exists to alleviate selective pressure. When civilization doesn't reduce selective pressure, we regard it as less civilized. In a civilized setting, the expression of a trait that would be subject to selective pressure in a natural setting may seem very different, it is a commonplace that it does not result in noticeably early death.

    Which is rather a big difference by itself.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:03 pm 
    User avatar
    This user got funny with a rodent Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:47 am
    Posts: 183
    DVL wrote:
    Which choices matter is subjective by its nature anyway. It's anthropocentric.


    I have to disagree with that. There are some choices which genuinely do not matter, since they have a limited ripple effect, ie: whatever the choice's outcome, the consequences are the same.

    There are some choices which definitely make a difference. Most of these are extreme. For example, the choice to start a nuclear war which ends all life on Earth and leaves it a barren rock in space until the sun swallows it. That'd be a choice which extinguished a hell of a lot of possibilities. Some of these extinguished possibilities (such as humanity becoming a spacefaring species) could have had ramifications on a galactic scale. So, the choice which ended these possibilities was an important one. It mattered. The outcome was drastically different than some of the potential eventual outcomes of the other outcome.

    But sometimes, it's the little things that make a difference.

    Like deciding not to give a chance to a young artist, who ends up taking out his frustration by seizing the reins of power in a war-torn nation, starting a global conflict, and perpetrating genocide. That one happened. That ultimately came down to the choices that a few individuals made (notably, one of those choices was not pulling out :hamstard: :P ).

    Little choices. Tiny things. They can matter absolutely, when they're the start of a chain of events which snowball into grand events which sweep other people along with them.

    I mean, either the choices like that matter for definite, or else nothing matters at all. I mean, one way or the other, the universe will end. Stars will burn out. The cosmic expansion will continue to accelerate and drive galaxies further apart. Even black holes will evaporate. Electrons will go -poof- after a few hundred trillion years. Heat death will be a lonely, cold, and miserable hell for everything to sit in until spacetime undergoes spontaneous collapse. When you look at things on that scale, nothing matters at all since there's nothing we can do to avoid it.

    But we have another scale, and another metric by which to measure what "matters", and we're able to create our own meaning. Which means that if something "matters" in any objective sense then it also matters subjectively - after all, it produces an effect which diverges from at least one other possibility which existed, and this changes the overall path that the universe takes to its eventual demise.

    Compare two universes to one another to see the differences, and I think that it'll be apparent that they differ because of choices made, and therefore there are choices that matter. Even if only to the dude comparing universes to see which one he's taking to the science fair.

    I apologize for the tangent here, but I do not regret my choice.

    _________________
    My Erfworld Side

    My Hamstards

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:27 pm 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:00 pm
    Posts: 293
    pendell wrote:
    Darkstar7613 wrote:
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    One time I dreamt that I read on wikipedia that during the history of Chess the bishop was known as a "Courtier", which inspired me to try writing an Erf fanfic about a Courtier who would never travel directly East, West, North or South, believing that traveling in such directions were "Cardinal sins". Travelling North-east, North-West, South-East or South-west was fine though.

    Then I woke up, realised dreams weren't a REALIABLE SOURCE, and scrapped that erf-fic.


    Of all the nearly 1337 number of things you've posted here... that was by far the most awesome, and you TOTALLY should have run with it... at a 45 degree angle to what everyone else was doing!



    Seconded. That sounds like a marvelous story, even if the Bishop was never called that.

    Wikipedia says the original piece was a war elephant, and has since been translated "officer", "Standard-Bearer", "Crocodile", "Archer", "Jester" , "Messenger", "Runner", "Spear/Lance", "Hunter", and "Chieftain".


    I guess no one really knows what to make of this piece. But you could just grab one and rewrite your story around it, if historical accuracy is something you care about . But if it's Erfworld you're writing for, having a bishop also be a courtier is easily defensible, especially if the story's cool.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.

    So let's see, if we translated chess pieces to Erfworld what would we get?

    King would stay the same. You could call it ruler, but I don't think that would add any real flavor.

    Queen goes to Chief Warlord.

    Bishop: do you want courtier, or caster?

    Knight--no real reason to change this.

    Rook(castle)-- ???

    Pawn would be Stabber.

    Any suggestions?

    _________________
    For those of us in the USA: Have you wondered what you would do during in the civil rights movement, or in 1930 Germany? Well, what did you do yesterday? Now you know.

    A tale from Erfworld: The Retconjurer

    A tale of Rhyme-o-mancy: The Noble Gasses

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:39 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Year of the Dwagon Supporter This user has been published! Armored Dwagon Monthly Winner Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user got funny with a rodent Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:45 am
    Posts: 826
    tadthornhill wrote:
    King would stay the same. You could call it ruler, but I don't think that would add any real flavor.

    Queen goes to Chief Warlord.

    Bishop: do you want courtier, or caster?

    Knight--no real reason to change this.

    Rook(castle)-- ???

    Pawn would be Stabber.

    Any suggestions?


    Rook: Chief Caster

    Bishop: Heavy

    And for added coolness points, you could customize the King, Chief Warlord, Chief Caster, knights, and heavies based on the side! Although it might be a little aesthetically odd to have Parson being Stanley's queen. :)

    _________________
    Here's my "Charlie as Hitler" Downfall video for Erfworld: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-EA8xQOf_s

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:50 pm 
    User avatar
    This user got funny with a rodent Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:53 pm
    Posts: 93
    If I was artistically inclined in any way, I would make that chess set a reality. The opposing side would of course be Charlescomm, with Jillian being the pawns. :roll:

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:39 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 594
    Jillian is obviously a Queen. She can be opposite Wanda. Archons and Juggles are knights, the pawns are ordinary units (for both sides, cause CC uses everyone else as pawns).

    Parson and Charlie make good opposing kings. You could use pikers that look like Stanley as pawns for GK (cause he's totally a pawn).

    Casters for Bishops works. Casters are kinda like a priest caste for the competing religious interpretations in Erfworld. They do all the high-level theological reasoning about exactly how the and why the Titans created Erfworld, as well as being significant strategic assets. The problem is finding a caster for CC who's not likely to end up working for GK in the near future. Jojo is called "Dodger" by CC, suggesting he gets away.

    Rooks can be warlords, standing on a generic defensive tower, if you like. But CC doesn't have any warlords. Hmmm.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:47 pm 
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:25 pm
    Posts: 278
    Morgaln wrote:
    JadedDragoon wrote:
    Fuzzy Izmit wrote:
    This is a really fun thread to read, just saying.


    You prefer contract debates and whining about Jillian? Cause I'm sure I could get one of those going if I tried.


    I think we're fated to do one or the other somewhere beyond page 10 of every discussion thread. No choice involved there, I believe.


    Fate cares about the discussions that really matter. :)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:56 pm 
    User avatar
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit This user has been published!
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:49 pm
    Posts: 166
    Rooks could be towers, so GK would have Jed as Rook.

    _________________
    I did a thing: http://www.erfworld.com/blog/view/55086 ... redth-king

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:28 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am
    Posts: 780
    totalnerduk wrote:
    DVL wrote:
    Which choices matter is subjective by its nature anyway. It's anthropocentric.


    I have to disagree with that. There are some choices which genuinely do not matter, since they have a limited ripple effect, ie: whatever the choice's outcome, the consequences are the same.

    There are some choices which definitely make a difference. Most of these are extreme. For example, the choice to start a nuclear war which ends all life on Earth and leaves it a barren rock in space until the sun swallows it. That'd be a choice which extinguished a hell of a lot of possibilities. Some of these extinguished possibilities (such as humanity becoming a spacefaring species) could have had ramifications on a galactic scale. So, the choice which ended these possibilities was an important one. It mattered. The outcome was drastically different than some of the potential eventual outcomes of the other outcome.

    But sometimes, it's the little things that make a difference.

    Like deciding not to give a chance to a young artist, who ends up taking out his frustration by seizing the reins of power in a war-torn nation, starting a global conflict, and perpetrating genocide. That one happened. That ultimately came down to the choices that a few individuals made (notably, one of those choices was not pulling out :hamstard: :P ).

    Little choices. Tiny things. They can matter absolutely, when they're the start of a chain of events which snowball into grand events which sweep other people along with them.

    I mean, either the choices like that matter for definite, or else nothing matters at all. I mean, one way or the other, the universe will end. Stars will burn out. The cosmic expansion will continue to accelerate and drive galaxies further apart. Even black holes will evaporate. Electrons will go -poof- after a few hundred trillion years. Heat death will be a lonely, cold, and miserable hell for everything to sit in until spacetime undergoes spontaneous collapse. When you look at things on that scale, nothing matters at all since there's nothing we can do to avoid it.

    But we have another scale, and another metric by which to measure what "matters", and we're able to create our own meaning. Which means that if something "matters" in any objective sense then it also matters subjectively - after all, it produces an effect which diverges from at least one other possibility which existed, and this changes the overall path that the universe takes to its eventual demise.

    Compare two universes to one another to see the differences, and I think that it'll be apparent that they differ because of choices made, and therefore there are choices that matter. Even if only to the dude comparing universes to see which one he's taking to the science fair.

    I apologize for the tangent here, but I do not regret my choice.

    You make assumptions that could be true but could be wrong. If a young artist got his chance, someone else may have seized power in his place and done much the same thing... he was able to seize power because the situation was ripe for that, and he to a degree was a puppet of a greater group of people or cause.

    If someone chose "nuclear war" it is possible their choice would be stopped one way or another no matter how they tried. For all we know some higher power "Fate" may not allow certain things to happen, for example we all could be really in a computer simulation created by someone else.

    Suppose for example after enough billions of years all the yellow stars are burned out and all that is left are smaller red ones. Advanced civilization looks at real universe, decides much left, lets build a big super computer around each red star and live out next 10x+ as much time in a computer simulation of a younger universe. If things ever go wrong like nuclear war, the system simply restores from a previous saved/backup then manipulates things as "Fate" and runs the simulation further till ok outcome.

    If it is plausible that humans could one day create a simulation that seems as real as real life, then it is plausible that we live in such a simulation and "Fate" or "god" or whatever watches over it. If such a simulation is likely and likely to last many times longer than real world, it could be argued that it is more likely we are in a simulation than the "real world" that came before it.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:10 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 594
    Everyone already lives in a simulation.

    It's just that the simulators aren't connected directly, but only through the medium of reality.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:44 pm 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:19 am
    Posts: 14
    carrion pigeons wrote:
    The stuff that's Fated to happen is exactly the stuff that doesn't matter, because there's nothing you can do about it.


    This is so not true. You can do a number of things about it. Take for a example a prediction from Book 0, where Jillian was warned about incoming attack. The details where unknown. The only thing known was that the attack will happen.

    She tried to run away from it. Stupid. She should have prepared for battle. Fortify or set up an ambush. Move towards the weakest potential enemy. Provoke some weak ferals to attack her.

    Marie must have predicted her croaking, and instead of running away from it, she arranged her come back. This is something she had to actively do. If she did nothing, she would not be decrypted.

    In conclusion: If you are presented with unfavorable prediction, your course of action should be to mitigate or alter the possible consequences of what is predicted. An effort to avoid the predicted event is a waste of resources.


    P.S.: The whole Charlie vs Thinkamancers and summon perfect warlord affair is a result of Marie's intrigue so that Wanda could acquire Arkenpliers from Jetstone. Marie just didn't care to disband from lack of upkeep, or to be accidentally croaked in a bar fight one of those boring days in MK. ;)

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:12 am 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:06 am
    Posts: 201
    Chiu ChunLing wrote:
    Or you could posit that Bishop is a rank of courtier, which would make sense.

    A lot of the difference between 'civilized' expressions of traits and 'uncivilized' expressions of those traits comes down to the fact that civilization exists to alleviate selective pressure. When civilization doesn't reduce selective pressure, we regard it as less civilized. In a civilized setting, the expression of a trait that would be subject to selective pressure in a natural setting may seem very different, it is a commonplace that it does not result in noticeably early death.

    Which is rather a big difference by itself.
    The thing is, the lines of thought discussed here wouldn't show up in an "uncivilized" setting. It doesn't even need "selective pressure" - people just wouldn't have the time to wonder and ponder about free will and choice while distracted by "now where do I get some food". Only once you get people who don't have to constantly think about survival do you start to get people thinking about the nature of reality. Not because of selective pressure, but because of limited time and priorities - which any other thought is subjected to, too.

    Questions about the nature of reality had no bigger impact on natural selection than the obsessive correction of other people's grammar.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:56 am 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:43 pm
    Posts: 24
    Mecharic wrote:
    easter wrote:
    2 things.

    1) I am no longer convinced that "The Diciplines That Matter" have anything to do with the erf axis or matter element. Or even that they have anything to do with who the GM thought were important. I think they might literally be the diciplines that MATTER for the war in erfworld.

    2) I have the same issue with Parson as a protagonist with in universe fate that eras10 does. You can't be the underdog if there an all powerful god literally bending events to serve your goal. The second fate wants you to die you are the underdog to me and the person I am most interested in seeing succeed. (hashtag team :charlie: )

    Like, maybe if Charlie was some tyrannical overlord terrorizing erf I'd be against him but from what I can see he's a cripple trying his damndest to not get him and his entire family murdered by god pulling the underhanded tricks he needs to to try to overthrow the ACTUAL tyranical overlord terrorizing erf.

    Parson meanwhile is that overlord's main general. Sure, he MIGHT come up with clever plans sometimes. But really, he doesn't need to because things will always work out to his advantage in the end.


    1) I think that the Disciplines that Matter are still the Erf Axis. Just because Fate doesn't give a damn about them doesn't mean that the MK thinks the same as Fate. If there's anything we've see through this story, it's that units & sides don't often agree with whatever plan Fate has for them, if they even know it at all.

    2) I still think that at the end of this Charlie & Parson are going to end up allied. Parson doesn't seem like the sort of person who can tolerate the existence of Fate. In fact, I think the two people who are most similar in Erfworld are Parson and Charlie. They both want to protect their people, but understand that losses happen. They both get incredibly angry when their people are hurt or threatened. They both seem to believe, or in Charlie's case, demand that everyone should Matter. I can definitely see Parson & Charlie coming face to face and Charlie being honest with Parson, and Parson realizing that Fate is the 'evil' of Erfworld. Parson may not forgive Charlie, but he *could* make a promise to him swearing to destroy Fate on his behalf.


    Ehhh, I don't think so, just from a meta standpoint. Opposite sides of the coin make for very engaging interactions between a hero and villain. If anything, I think they are too similar to ever team up. Or if they do, it will be very shortly before one is croaked. They occupy too similar a niche to be long term allies. And to top it all off, they are both deceitful, manipulative, cunning, and dangerously genre savvy, a combination that means even if they wanted to team up they could never trust one another.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:00 am 
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:13 am
    Posts: 106
    pendell wrote:
    Darkstar7613 wrote:
    Anomynous 167 wrote:
    One time I dreamt that I read on wikipedia that during the history of Chess the bishop was known as a "Courtier", which inspired me to try writing an Erf fanfic about a Courtier who would never travel directly East, West, North or South, believing that traveling in such directions were "Cardinal sins". Travelling North-east, North-West, South-East or South-west was fine though.

    Then I woke up, realised dreams weren't a REALIABLE SOURCE, and scrapped that erf-fic.


    Of all the nearly 1337 number of things you've posted here... that was by far the most awesome, and you TOTALLY should have run with it... at a 45 degree angle to what everyone else was doing!



    Seconded. That sounds like a marvelous story, even if the Bishop was never called that.

    Wikipedia says the original piece was a war elephant, and has since been translated "officer", "Standard-Bearer", "Crocodile", "Archer", "Jester" , "Messenger", "Runner", "Spear/Lance", "Hunter", and "Chieftain".


    I guess no one really knows what to make of this piece. (...)


    Modern Chess was derived from Persian Shatranj, itself derived from Indian Chaturanga. The original piece was called a war elephant, or gajah/alfil because war elephants feature prominently in armies of those cultures. Most people from European cultures back then probably don't know what to make out of it as the concept of an elephant would be utterly alien to them, so quite likely they came out with alternative names either based on the function and power of the piece to flank and slip/shoot past enemy lines (hence "archer", "messenger", "runner", etc.), or from the form of the piece itself which sometimes featured a prominent groove to symbolize an elephant's tusk (the same groove can be seen as a Jester's hat, or a Bishop's mitre).

    pendell wrote:
    But you could just grab one and rewrite your story around it, if historical accuracy is something you care about . But if it's Erfworld you're writing for, having a bishop also be a courtier is easily defensible, especially if the story's cool.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.


    Well, there is a Courtier, the Ferz (counselor), the prototypical Queen piece (the Ferz itself was derived from Chaturanga's Mantri, or Minister) who could only move one square diagonally (so, basically a one-move bishop). When the game was spread to Europe the piece would often be called (colloquially) a Queen due to its proximity with the King, and in most (European) languages the term stuck, with the colloquial term eventually becoming official.

    (Modern Russian, notably, still calls the Queen in modern Western chess a Ферзь, or Ferz, 'though it's often colloquially called Королева, or Koroleva (Queen), but not by professional chess players.)

    Later on in Spain during the reign of Queen Isabella I the Queen was given expanded move (likely inspired by Isabella I's tremendous political power during that time), and this chess variant then spread to the rest of Europe (perhaps aided by the expulsion of Jews from Spain that time).

    If we go by the original piece name and power, the Ferz/Mantri would be equivalent to a (Chief) Courtier. Perhaps Chief Caster, even, if we give it Queen's powers.

    Interestingly, of all modern Chaturanga variants, Xiangqi (Chinese chess) is the arguably the one that most retain the original function and power of the original Mantri. The General (xiangqi equivalent of King) is flanked by two shì (roughly scholar official or gentleman, often translated as "advisor" or "mandarin", but the term can also mean guardian and is cognate with Japanese "samurai"). Both shì move exactly the same as the original Mantri, but they are confined in a 3x3 'palace box' together with the General.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post subject: Re: Book 3 - Page 244
     Post Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:43 am 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:20 pm
    Posts: 594
    Lord Dominator wrote:
    The thing is, the lines of thought discussed here wouldn't show up in an "uncivilized" setting. It doesn't even need "selective pressure" - people just wouldn't have the time to wonder and ponder about free will and choice while distracted by "now where do I get some food". Only once you get people who don't have to constantly think about survival do you start to get people thinking about the nature of reality. Not because of selective pressure, but because of limited time and priorities - which any other thought is subjected to, too.

    Questions about the nature of reality had no bigger impact on natural selection than the obsessive correction of other people's grammar.
    You get that the reason they don't show up is because the people who pursue them die and everyone else thinks they were stupid and tries not to follow their example, right?

    That's what "selective pressure" actually means.

    People who are under selective pressure actually have plenty of time to think about the nature of reality, thinking about the nature of reality so as to have the ability to adaptively respond to it is the survival value of intellect. The thinking is less abstract and more confined to figuring out how to survive rather then whether there is any point in survival because sitting around trying to figure out whether to survive doesn't help as much as jumping right to figuring out how.

    This is why so many advanced philosophers in every civilized age have been enamored of getting "back to nature" in some form or other. Whether it is exploring instinctive desires, or climbing mountains, or spending a year fishing, or stepping into a river and realizing that moment will never return, the great philosophers (right or wrong, and I do think at least some of them had to be wrong) were always interested in understanding nature in terms of their own place in reality as humans within nature.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 375 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Altus, DoctorD, JadedDragoon, Mighke, nnescio, WittyAppellation and 9 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: