Quote from: Cave Bear;1010018Evidently, that's irrelevant. ]

Only for people not really interested in the truth, or ...you know... doing real science, and maybe, ...just maybe, advancing our skills and knowledge for everyone's benefit. But then there's the slavers, who don't care what you think. Which camp are you in?

This is poltics now.  Lock it or move it.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1010020Only for people not really interested in the truth, or ...you know... doing real science, and maybe, ...just maybe, advancing our skills and knowledge for everyone's benefit. But then there's the slavers, who don't care what you think. Which camp are you in?

Henry and June are given a task. They must consider complex information and make a decision. Henry is given time to commit his full and undivided attention to the task in order to make a conscious decision. June is distracted with crossword puzzles; she has to make her decision unconsciously.

June is 5% more likely to make the correct decision.

The truth, at least as far as current neurological research suggests, is that consciousness is less important than we like to think it is. Your 'self', your self-transparent model of consciousness likes to think it is in charge. Your 'self' is more like a pointy-haired boss taking credit for ideas that came from below and telling elaborate stories about it.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1010026Henry and June are given a task. They must make consider complex information and make a decision. Henry is given time to commit his full and undivided attention to the task, in order to make a conscious decision. June is distracted with crossword puzzles; she has to make her decision unconsciously.

June is 5% more likely to make the correct decision.

The truth, at least as far as current neurological research suggests, is that consciousness is less important than we like to think it is. Your 'self', your self-transparent model of consciousness likes to think it is in charge. Your 'self' is more like a pointy-haired boss taking credit for ideas that came from below, and telling elaborate stories about it.

Eh, So now you are claiming that it is science that the person who spends no time committing their full and undivided attention on a task is going to make the best decision about it. Every single blacksmith that ever forged a Damascus steel sword for the armies that you,... even now, ...bow down to, respectfully disagrees. No smith who was unconscious about what they were doing, ever forged a remarkable blade.

As for you Headless... STFU. Take your raggedy A$$ed RPG.net political dilettante philosophy back to RPG.net and do not interfere anymore with our discussions about truth and science.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1010028Eh, So now you are claiming that it is science that the person who spends no time committing their full and undivided attention on a task is going to make the best decision about it.

No. These guys do.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1010018http://rifters.com/real/articles/Neuropsychologia_Rosenthal_2008.pdf
http://rifters.com/real/articles/Science_The_Right_Choice.pdf
http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14321/jdm14321.html

Quote from: GameDaddy;1010028Every single blacksmith that ever forged a Damascus steel sword for the armies that you,... even now, ...bow down to, respectfully disagrees. No smith who was unconscious about what they were doing, ever forged a remarkable blade.

Even brain-surgeons zone out. You've never absently drifted off during a complex task, and realized only after the fact that you've finished flawlessly without even thinking about it? It's called being "in the zone". Maybe dwarven blacksmiths don't do that in your campaign, but we aren't talking about Dungeons & Dragons right now so fuck off.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1010032No. These guys do.

Even brain-surgeons zone out. You've never absently drifted off during a complex task, and realized only after the fact that you've finished flawlessly without even thinking about it? It's called being "in the zone". Maybe dwarven blacksmiths don't do that in your campaign, but we aren't talking about Dungeons & Dragons right now so fuck off.

Being "in the zone" gets many more people killed than helps them make good decisions, or successfully evolve. ...You're driving, unconsciously your mind takes over. When you start focusing again, you find you are many miles away and almost at your destination. You don't remember the roads you have driven on, or what cars have been in front of you, or behind you. You only know today, you made it.

Then there's the guy that was driving like that, that plowed into the car in front of them, and died instantly, completely unaware he was totally f*^&%*& up. I know of at least two (no three, ...thinking about it) people personally that have done that, and they are dead now. Pretty sure, even without looking, that the scientists you are quoting, didn't bother to expand their study to see what happened to the other half, that failed half of those unconscious retards. Maybe if they did real science, they would know better than to make such ill-researched ridiculous unsupportable claims.

Also, don't be mad at me for calling you on your BS. Be thankful, because now you know more, and can make better decisions than when you are drifting along in ignorance.

...Also, we are talking about real life now, not D&D, although the same lesson applies. The guy that consciously puts time into being a better GM is automatically going to do better at GMing more often, than the guy who doesn't practice. That's also why the term "bitter non-gamer" came into it's own. Gamers need to actually be at a table running games, or at least playing in order to make better and more entertaining games.

Sure. Whatever you say, then.

You sound like a fish:
Man this water is wet.  This is bullshit, when did water get so wet.  I won't stand for it, down with the liberal media and their wet water agenda."

There is no natural, what is, is becuase of accident or choice.  It can change, it has changed and when it changes next those that are doing well currently will howl.

There is no neutral.  Every law or absense of law creats winners and losers.

Quote from: Headless;1010068You sound like a fish:
Man this water is wet.  This is bullshit, when did water get so wet.  I won't stand for it, down with the liberal media and their wet water agenda."

There is no natural, what is, is becuase of accident or choice.  It can change, it has changed and when it changes next those that are doing well currently will howl.

There is no neutral.  Every law or absense of law creats winners and losers.

Who are you addressing?

The fish part? Not you.

The second part is more pontificating than adderessing any one in particular.  But if you find it edifying you're welcome.

Quote from: Headless;1010072The fish part? Not you.

The second part is more pontificating than adderessing any one in particular.  But if you find it edifying you're welcome.

No, I was just confused about who that post was directed at. Thank you for clearing that up.

Alright, let's trace our steps.

First we were talking about the post-apocalyptic future.
We were talking about how people in the post-apocalyptic future might interpret the ruins and relics of our time.
We form our ideas of how future people might behave by extrapolating from our own behavior.
We have a history of academics publishing questionable ideas about past civilizations, and we fear that the academics of the future might publish spurious conjectures about us.

Somebody suggested that academics should not publish articles on things we don't know about.
I replied that academics have to publish work in academic journals to continue working in academia.
As usual, the Pundit expressed some opinions about that.
Some people checking the Pundit...
...Pundit pontificating...
Ah, he says something about unconscious confirmation bias and continues on to "But not everyone..."

I see the word unconscious and post scientific articles in neurological research regarding the illusory nature of consciousness.

Then there was GameDaddy, and his... whatever that was about.

Headless said something about fish.




Here's an idea. What if future people don't give a flying fuck about any of us?

Thousands of years from now someone will find a copy of the Bible, Mein Kampf, the AD&D Player's Handbook, or Dark Albion, and their companion will say to them:

"That doesn't mean anything. Throw it into the fire."

Quote from: Cave Bear;1010077Thousands of years from now someone will find a copy of the Bible, Mein Kampf, the AD&D Player's Handbook, or Dark Albion, and their companion will say to them:

"That doesn't mean anything. Throw it into the fire."

...Not remotely interested in what they prefer, know, ...or learn. I'm sure there are plenty of psychopaths right now that disagree with me, and are working hard to get to a place where they, or their descendants, may get an opportunity to make some sort of decision about that.

(Not replying to anybody, just continuing along a train of thought.)

Look at the following images. What do these look like to you?

Spoiler

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1987[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1986[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1985[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1984[/ATTACH]

These are images from a Victorian fashion magazine. These are predictions of what 20th century people might wear, based on extrapolations of current trends and advancements in textile technology. Look at the poofy, ornate designs. That seemed to be where the wind was blowing.

Then World War I happened.

Sudden scarcity bottle-necked fashion, and forced it to move in a different direction. Imagine how backwards we might look to those Victorian fashion futurists.

Our whole idea of post-apocalyptic cargo cults is based on seemingly logical extrapolations of our own history. But unexpected events occur constantly, and any black swan event big enough to destroy our global civilization is likely to change us deeply in ways we cannot anticipate.

What if we have post-apocalyptic people all wrong? They look like tribalistic cargo-cultists to us only because our perception is colored by our own biases, but perhaps they understand us just fine. If they have a different perspective on our culture, maybe it isn't because they see us through the veil of ignorance but because they see us through the lens of hindsight.

That's possible, Cave Bear, but it doesn't take into account the potential for lost contexts due to a massive collapse of civilization, and learning.