raspberry jam, on 30 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:
No. Absolutely not, under no circumstances, do you believe that in an MMO or in life in general the more difficult thing will bring the greater reward. That is completely illogical in any way whatsoever. There are literally tons of very difficult things that you could do all around you - I look around this room and I can literally think of 10 different and very difficult things, none of which would bring any reward whatsoever.
Breaking your left arm using only your right is a pretty difficult task yet totally unrewarding.
What you mean is that most rewards that are easy to get are already claimed, so that going through something difficult is the only remaining viable path to the reward you seek. Yet, of course, if you don't seek the reward, you have no reason to go through the difficult thing. In other words, the perception of the reward always happens before the perception of the challenge. It is only after perceiving the reward that you will weigh the challenge and determine that the difficulty involved is something you want to get involved with, or not.
You do not want a broken left arm, so you never even considered the challenge of breaking it.
The expectation you talk about is the one that the donkey has when he sees the carrot dangling from the stick. If he can just get the carrot, it will taste so good. If he just runs a little faster, it will taste even better, won't it? Of course reward is expected, but why is it? You claim to bring in the assumption from the outside, but where did you get it from? Other games, perhaps?
And yes, we are just programs lol. If you think that humans are anything but biological machines then I don't know why I am talking to you.
Yes. Yes I believe that, and many people have SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU that they believe that. Stop with the denial already, making an if statement out of vacuum does not help the case when the if statement clearly is not satisfied. Do you have a better way of telling what I believe than me telling you what I believe? If not, listen to me: THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE!
You've been going back and forth with different definition of "reward", and I've been trying to be cooperative by switching to your terms of language, only to have you come back and use it in a previously self-denied term. When I use the term to refer to "reward specific to the level of realism, such as game items in a game", you try to label it as "reward in general, INCLUDING psychological joy". When I used the term to refer to "reward in general", you try to argue as if I'm only talking about a particular object or concept. On that note, YES, more difficult things bring more reward, of course! Don't you realize that both "difficult" and "reward" are subject to interpretation and therefore, this statement simply cannot be wrong when used as a "general rule of thumb"?! To argue that a statement is not "thorough" is one thing, to argue it as "wrong" is another, you've got to be kidding me if you're mixing those two up. That's all fine and all, but ultimately: what's with all these finger snapping "no"? You've got no ground to be snappy!
You're simply arguing for the sake of arguing at that point.
And I've no idea that you're stuck on the fundamentals. I'm not challenging you with those statements, you don't have to answer them to show your "knowledge of the case". I assume those to be understood, the only reason that I'm listing those is because I'm going to talk about something relevant and those simply serve as memory refresh. Maybe it's because I've been hearing them everyday at work, but I swear if I hear another cliche regarding the human brain WHILE trying to make it sound like something people don't know (or should be awed by), I'm going to run into some temper issues. Hearing "consciousness is most likely due to connectivity" 50 times a day is worse enough, having people stating those simply as "true" when the scientists themselves are still wondering about it, just isn't right.
Why did people bring assumptions from outside? Oh I can tell you it's FAR from a simple answer like "oh must be the other games" or "oh people are doing it wrong". The thing is, if you can't get past the previous things that we were discussing, there's no way I'm going to list all the reasons and potential factors and experiments and proofs for this problem when you're just going to skip between the lines and ignore all the core contents. This is a forum, it's meant for communication, which means at least an effort into trying to understand each other, not being cynical and critical on minor details and completely avoiding core matters such that I have to come back and spend 5000 words explaining things that I CLEARLY didn't/did mean every time --- I have journal review committee to do that to me on a daily basis thank you very much.
Lastly, the limit of a program is limited by the platform, a closed system with a set of rules can only contain variables adhering to those particular rules. When we say "computer program", we mean the digital system and all the rules that apply there. When we say "humans are programmed", we're talking about the closed system that is this universal world. Changing of concept within a same statement is a violation of logic, so you simply cannot say "people behaving similar as computer program" is the same thing as "people behaving like a program (in the world through biological and causal rules)". Let's not make this into a neon show about how much we understand first year undergraduate philosophy/psychology/neuroscience.
We've derailed this thread far enough, if by this stage there still isn't a consensus (look into my last few threads, I've been trying to come to an agreement to stop these walls of threads which I myself surely is partially responsible for, well I could've tried harder but I certainly refrained from bringing in more topics through picking out minor details, and I tried to emphasis my final claim so that we can get a once sentence agreement on that. But that's clearly not working since I feel you just took 5 seconds to skip through them and just pick out lines that you want to argue against), then it's better to just stop this argument all together. You can think of these things whichever way you want, I've got your message and I've already spoken my mind about it. Let's end it here.
Edited by CepaCepa, 30 January 2013 - 10:49 PM.
0
And a human is just a self-programming machine.
