1112: "Think Logically"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

RuneWarden
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:09 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby RuneWarden » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:03 pm UTC

Reminds me of an exchange with my friend playing Yugioh.
Him:"I activate my spell card!"
Me:"You can't, it's my turn."
Him:"Well why the hell not?"

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby J Thomas » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
J Thomas wrote:God does whatever God does, and then you are left to decide whether it's an example of Him doing bad, or whether it's an example of His limitations, or an example of Him not noticing the consequences of His actions.

And that's the entire point of the Problem of Evil: either one of those things is the case, or no evil happens. Our options are: nothing bad happens, or God intentionally makes or lets bad things happen, or God doesn't know to stop making or letting bad things happen, or God is unable to stop making or letting bad things happen, or God doesn't exist. So anyone who holds that there exists a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good is left with only one, prima facie absurd, option: nothing bad ever happens. Conversely, to avoid biting that bullet, you must pick (at least) one: God is weak, ignorant, malicious, or nonexistent.


Yes, except that you have put the problem on God instead of where it belongs, on you.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that nothing bad happens, except that you think bad things happen. This comes from your own understanding of "bad", and your own understanding of the world.

I'll restate it:

Either God doesn't know what's good for me as well as I do, or
God doesn't want me to have the good things I want, or
God can't get me what I want any more than I can on my own.

If God even exists, one of those three has to be true.

Because I know what I want and I don't have it. If God was good He would give me everything I wanted. Unless he couldn't, or he was too stupid to know what I wanted even though I tell Him.

It seems like I've heard that somewhere before. "If you really love me you'll do this one little thing for me." Yes. There was this one ex-girlfriend -- I dumped her right away. It wasn't that I didn't love her, I just noticed quick that I enjoyed being alone more than I enjoyed spending time with her.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:22 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote: There was obviously no difference at all between 2/2 and 4/4, or 3/2 and 3/4 and 6/8! They're all reducible to each other! Such a practice made no sense and I couldn't understand why they haven't been replaced with more logical notation. What was the point of indicating key signatures like that? And five staff lines? Why not have twelve lines, one for each tone? Musical notation as a whole was riddled with illogical conventions, and that was why I couldn't play anything!


To the best of my knowledge, 2/2 time, 4/4 time, and 8/8 time are all different in function, although they can look the same. (Each can have four quarter notes in a measure, for example.) More specifically, certain measures in each can be identical, and possibly an entire page of music look the same for certain instruments.


Better to focus on the diff between 3/4 and 6/8, as I did when I asked my drum teacher about this. The difference is that the accented beats come in different places: one and two and three and... vs one and a two and a.... Then he asked me if I was familiar with the song America from "West Side Story", which alternates between the two rhythms: I like to be in A-me-ri-ca, Okay by me in A-me-ri-ca, Ev'rything's free in A-me-ri-ca, For a small fee in A-me-ri-ca.

Years later I learned that the name for this kind of thing was "hemiola", which sounds like a blood disease.

Other time signatures have standard places to put the accented beats, like 9/8 which is typically in three groups of three, but something like Brubeck's Blue Rondo á la Turk breaks it up as 2+2+2+3 instead. (The whole "Time Out" album is full of strange rhythmic experiments, some as straightforward as alternating measures of 3/4 and 4/4, others as (ahem) offbeat as the iconic Take Five in 5/4 time.)

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby sigsfried » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm UTC

lofgren wrote:Chess isn't logical because it wasn't designed the way that modern games are designed. Arguably it wasn't "designed" at all, as any attempt to formalize and standardize the rules had to compete with already popular interpretations, which were emergent from the unplanned pruning of thousands of years of variations.

I think it is interesting that the two are thinking about the game differently. The beanie player is developing the best strategy within the existing environment. The "logical" guy views the rules as an artifice and believes they should be manipulated to produce the most intuitive result. That doesn't mean the "logical" guy is right in every respect, but this is exactly the way that variations on games get invented.

I empathize with the "think logical" guy. For example, here are some rules that my family has implemented in our Scrabble games:

1. If you have more than two of any letter, you can throw any additional tiles of that letter back into the pile and draw again until you get new letters.
2. You cannot make a single two-letter word.
3. You may consult the dictionary, but not during your turn.
4. (Special) You can substitute a letter from your tray for a blank tile on the board, if the resulting letters on the board still form a word.

1 makes the game more fun, faster, and more easily played by players of diverse ability level. Since we are playing for fun, it's considered inappropriate for the one 12-year-old at the table to sit staring at a tray full of Is, bored and frustrated. This rule ensures that players have a good level of variety on their trays and that the letterbag has a good variety for players who are drawing towards specific letters, without making the game so easy that more experienced players are bored.

2 makes the endgame more exciting, since actually emptying your tray becomes a challenge. If no player can empty his tray, nobody gets the bonus points from letters remaining on other players' trays. Instead, all players receive deductions. This helps prevent some of the tedium of the late game (again, especially in an environment where there are widely varied skill levels). Once all of the letters are out of the bag, players turn their attention to strategically using their remaining letters. Sometimes putting down a four letter word followed by a three letter word is more advantageous than playing the five letter word that would have gotten you more points. The disproportionate benefit of using all of your letters makes more sense since it is harder to achieve and occurs less often.

3 makes the game more educational, which is considered a benefit again when you are playing against much weaker players who are also twenty years younger than you.

4 is only used when playing with very young children. It keeps the blank tiles in play, and young'ns are more capable of playing with that flexibility. It is considered good form to give the youngest player the first opportunity for substitution, although if he doesn't have a suitable letter then other players may take the blank.

I happen to think that these rules improve Scrabble. Not sure I would say they are "logical," but we would not have created them if we weren't thinking critically about the game and its function for our family.


I know this is a complete aside

We found a fun game with younger children using scrabble letters.
First discard blanks.
Each person draws, face down, 13 tiles.
You all start at the same time and the first person to use up the tiles in a crossword type arrangement (individual but all words must be joined up) gets 10 points
Everyone else gets 10 points less the number of tiles they have left, you can't get negative points.

Young children get a head-start. It tends to avoid the problem of them getting bored part way through (partly because it is faster but also someone dropping out isn't a problem) and a bad set of letters isn't that big a problem as it only effects one round.

That said the rules did somewhat evolve, such as the number of tiles used to be 15.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5373
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:19 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:Yes, except that you have put the problem on God instead of where it belongs, on you.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that nothing bad happens, except that you think bad things happen. This comes from your own understanding of "bad", and your own understanding of the world.


I (and everyone else who has stated the Problem of Evil) left open that possibility. I merely highlighted its absurdity -- that to take that option is to bite a bullet and take a position which virtually everyone is going to vehemently disagree with. At that point we can argue about whether anyone really has good reasons to disagree with that, but on the surface it seems like something that everyone would take for granted as false, because...

I'll restate it:

Either God doesn't know what's good for me as well as I do, or
God doesn't want me to have the good things I want, or
God can't get me what I want any more than I can on my own.

If God even exists, one of those three has to be true.

Because I know what I want and I don't have it. If God was good He would give me everything I wanted. Unless he couldn't, or he was too stupid to know what I wanted even though I tell Him.

It seems like I've heard that somewhere before. "If you really love me you'll do this one little thing for me." Yes. There was this one ex-girlfriend -- I dumped her right away. It wasn't that I didn't love her, I just noticed quick that I enjoyed being alone more than I enjoyed spending time with her.

...this is only the most shallow, selfish implication of it. If nothing bad happens, that doesn't just mean that I'm not entitled to the things I want and don't have. It means that a guy who shoots up the adults at a day care center, rapes every kid in the place, slowly eating the meat off their bones piece by piece while they do so, and then mails their skeletons back to their parents, laced with anthrax, along with a video of the meal for their enjoyment -- did nothing wrong. I'm an adult and I don't work at a day care, so in that hypothetical scenario nothing bad happens to me. I'm not a parent and don't have any children in my close friends or family so nothing even happens to people I care about and will miss and mourn etc. But despite any occurrence of such an event having negligible impact on me, I would still vehemently say that it happening was wrong.

To frame that as "I don't get what I want" is to miss the point entirely. A truly moral person's conception of "good" is not about what they want, it's not about their emotional desires, it's not even about compassion, and it's definitely not about what any authority, tradition, or convention says is right or wrong, it's about what is reasoned to be right or wrong on principle. It sounds like you can't imagine anyone with more than a pre-conventional sense of morality, much less a post-conventional one.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

jpers36
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby jpers36 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

Pfhorrest, what is the value of moral agency?

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Max™ » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
mathmannix wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote: There was obviously no difference at all between 2/2 and 4/4, or 3/2 and 3/4 and 6/8! They're all reducible to each other! Such a practice made no sense and I couldn't understand why they haven't been replaced with more logical notation. What was the point of indicating key signatures like that? And five staff lines? Why not have twelve lines, one for each tone? Musical notation as a whole was riddled with illogical conventions, and that was why I couldn't play anything!


To the best of my knowledge, 2/2 time, 4/4 time, and 8/8 time are all different in function, although they can look the same. (Each can have four quarter notes in a measure, for example.) More specifically, certain measures in each can be identical, and possibly an entire page of music look the same for certain instruments.


Better to focus on the diff between 3/4 and 6/8, as I did when I asked my drum teacher about this. The difference is that the accented beats come in different places: one and two and three and... vs one and a two and a.... Then he asked me if I was familiar with the song America from "West Side Story", which alternates between the two rhythms: I like to be in A-me-ri-ca, Okay by me in A-me-ri-ca, Ev'rything's free in A-me-ri-ca, For a small fee in A-me-ri-ca.

Years later I learned that the name for this kind of thing was "hemiola", which sounds like a blood disease.

Other time signatures have standard places to put the accented beats, like 9/8 which is typically in three groups of three, but something like Brubeck's Blue Rondo á la Turk breaks it up as 2+2+2+3 instead. (The whole "Time Out" album is full of strange rhythmic experiments, some as straightforward as alternating measures of 3/4 and 4/4, others as (ahem) offbeat as the iconic Take Five in 5/4 time.)

You want fun with measures, go listen to Lateralus.

Course, if you want fun watching it, go youtube Meytal Cohen Lateralus. :mrgreen:
mu

lofgren
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:17 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby lofgren » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:43 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:We found a fun game with younger children using scrabble letters.
First discard blanks.
Each person draws, face down, 13 tiles.
You all start at the same time and the first person to use up the tiles in a crossword type arrangement (individual but all words must be joined up) gets 10 points
Everyone else gets 10 points less the number of tiles they have left, you can't get negative points.


We have played a variation on this which we call "Speed Scrabble." It's not to my personal tastes. When we play Scrabble it's usually after a nice long dinner. Individual turns can take up to ten minutes, and the game might take two hours or even get completed the next day. We spend most of the time talking and socializing. Coffee gets made, desert gets eaten, whoever isn't currently taking their turn in the game takes a turn doing some dishes. The frenetic pace of simultaneous play doesn't suit our needs.

Which I think might illustrate some of the problems with the Logicman's thinking. The "purpose" of chess for the beanie man is in thinking his way through a problem whose parameters he can't control. That's one of the fun aspects of games. If you go changing the rules everytime something doesn't "feel" right, you're going to miss out on the puzzle aspect of the game. Of course, designing a new game is also a fun puzzle.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby freezeblade » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:53 pm UTC

lofgren wrote:1. If you have more than two of any letter, you can throw any additional tiles of that letter back into the pile and draw again until you get new letters.
2. You cannot make a single two-letter word.
3. You may consult the dictionary, but not during your turn.
4. (Special) You can substitute a letter from your tray for a blank tile on the board, if the resulting letters on the board still form a word.


Also an aside (and far off track). After many a game of scrabble devolving into seething hatrid and heated words, there has been a near-ban upon scrabble in the house, and a set of house rules created.

I have to preface these rules with the reason for said rules; certain members of the house have memorized all the "legal" two letter combos which don't contain vowels or are so non-standard that they are unrecognizable as english. Their argument for use of these words are "well the scrabble dictionary says they are legal moves!" If asked what they mean, they can not tell you, nor can they use them in a sentence, knowing only that they are in the scrabble dictionary (words like xi). This defeats all purpose and fun (in my opinion) of the game, in the same way playing chess against someone who just memorizes opening and closing sequences does (as a player who does not).

anyway right. rules. When you play a word it can be challanged by a player, if you fail to provide a definition, and are not able to use the word in a non self-defining sentence, then you can not play the word. The amount of loathing produced over people trying to use Zee ("but it's how you write down the letter!"), some (non-english btw) word like "xi" or "bh," or whatever the words they use are. along with standard rules, which should go without saying, but the people in the house always try to sneak them in anyway:

No onamonapias, no proper nouns, no abbreviations, no acronyms, and no non-standard slang (I don't care if you use "huckbot" all the time, you can't bloody play it).

slightly ranty. but yeah.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby bantler » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:14 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote: This defeats all purpose and fun (in my opinion) of the game, in the same way playing chess against someone who just memorizes opening and closing sequences does (as a player who does not).


You’ve neutered some great games into social background-clatter.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5373
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:21 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:Pfhorrest, what is the value of moral agency?

I'm not certain this question even makes sense, so rather than guess at what you might mean and answer that, can you elaborate?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby freezeblade » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:28 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
freezeblade wrote: This defeats all purpose and fun (in my opinion) of the game, in the same way playing chess against someone who just memorizes opening and closing sequences does (as a player who does not).


You’ve neutered some great games into social background-clatter.


I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but more that people who do this should play against others that do the same, within a more "tournament" setting than "a game played among friends."

The people in question would play words like these and when challanged just hand you the scrabble dictionary and say "I don't know what it means, and that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the rules say it's ok, you could memorize them if you wanted to, then you could be as good of a player as I am." It's mainly the air of superiority which I dislike. They enjoy doing this to people who don't memorize letter combonations they will never use in their life outside of scrabble, then acting like supreme beings for knowing that zhi is in a little book defining "accepted words."

Don't you prefer to play people who are on a similar level to you in the game?
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:32 pm UTC

You have two major options for adjudicating challenged words in Scrabble - by consensus, and by reference to authority. Consensus has issues when one player knows a lot of words that the others don't - they end up having to guess which words they know will also be acceptable to the rest of the group. Reference to authority (usually a dictionary) has its own problems - there's a very real possibility of turning the game into one of memorising word lists rather than showing off your actual vocabulary (and there's also the vexed question of which dictionary to use...).

I consider consensus to be the better method whe it works, and people are more interested in playing well than in winning. If people are too set on winning at any cost, then the subjective judgement of the consensus method breaks down, and you need the objective judgement of an independent authority.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5373
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:44 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:You have two major options for adjudicating challenged words in Scrabble - by consensus, and by reference to authority. Consensus has issues when one player knows a lot of words that the others don't - they end up having to guess which words they know will also be acceptable to the rest of the group. Reference to authority (usually a dictionary) has its own problems - there's a very real possibility of turning the game into one of memorising word lists rather than showing off your actual vocabulary (and there's also the vexed question of which dictionary to use...).

I consider consensus to be the better method whe it works, and people are more interested in playing well than in winning. If people are too set on winning at any cost, then the subjective judgement of the consensus method breaks down, and you need the objective judgement of an independent authority.

How about a wiki-style consensus: "it's a word, I know it" isn't good enough, you need to show some authoritative source that contains it, but "I have a book that contains it" isn't good enough either, everyone else has to accept that book as authoritative. So anyone can pull out any dictionary they like, consensus decides which (possibly several) of them count as authoritative, and then any word that can be found in any of those dictionaries is good.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

billyswong
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:56 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby billyswong » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:05 am UTC

tally1996 wrote:
Azathfeld wrote:Chess is really poorly designed, though. You achieve objectively much greater complexity with a much smaller ruleset with games like Go. It significantly (if not as heavily as something like Dominion) favors the first player. Some of the rules are insanely counterintuitive, like castling or promotion. And for fuck's sake, anything that requires a rule like en passant in order to work properly is obviously bullshit.


Go, with its komidashi, is hardly a game to use as an example at the same time you bash chess for a heavy first move advantage.


The mention of Go is probably only about "greater complexity with a much smaller ruleset".

Go is one of the deepest open-information game zero-sum game, if not the deepest. Its rule, if described well, is the shortest in its reign.

0.1. Prepare a square board with a grid on it. The standard grid size is 19x19, counting the cross-point.
0.2. There are two kinds of stones, one white and one black for each players. They are assumed to never run-out.
1. Take turns and place a stone of one's own onto a cross-point. Black goes first.
2. Remove out-of-breath stones. A stone is breathing when
2.1 it touches empty cross-point(s), or
2.2 it touches breathing stone(s) with the same colour.
3. The checking and removal of out-of-breath stones applies to the opponent's stones first. After they are removed simultaneously do one check and remove stones of oneself.
4. Stone-placement that would make the game return to any previous game-states is prohibited.
5. The game ends when one of the players resigns. When shall one resign is subjected to consensus. One must resign when they has no valid "move" to play.

You can never find another game with both such depth of complexity and such conciseness of the rule.

VanI
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:54 am UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby VanI » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:15 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:
VanI wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote:XKCD ended at strip 1111. What is this impostor comic?

Yes, I'm an XKCD-vacantist.


I will meet with you in conclave, and we can elect our own XKCD pope.


Just make sure you also elect an XKCD antipope, and keep them far enough apart, for symmetry. I did a little research just now, and found that the most powerful antipopes in history were in Avignon, which I calculated to be roughly 666 km from the Vatican... (OK, 662.9 km between their palaces, to be more specific.)


I'll keep them far apart simply for the nuclear implications. Don't want to accidentally explode half the planet. And is your distance calculation straight line, or does it follow the curvature of the earth?
I swear, a fireball lied to me just the other day...

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5373
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:28 am UTC

VanI wrote:And is your distance calculation straight line, or does it follow the curvature of the earth?

Would that be "As the crow flies, or as the neutrino flies?"
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby J Thomas » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:44 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
J Thomas wrote:Yes, except that you have put the problem on God instead of where it belongs, on you.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that nothing bad happens, except that you think bad things happen. This comes from your own understanding of "bad", and your own understanding of the world.


I (and everyone else who has stated the Problem of Evil) left open that possibility. I merely highlighted its absurdity -- that to take that option is to bite a bullet and take a position which virtually everyone is going to vehemently disagree with. At that point we can argue about whether anyone really has good reasons to disagree with that, but on the surface it seems like something that everyone would take for granted as false, because...

I'll restate it:

Either God doesn't know what's good for me as well as I do, or
God doesn't want me to have the good things I want, or
God can't get me what I want any more than I can on my own.

If God even exists, one of those three has to be true.

Because I know what I want and I don't have it. If God was good He would give me everything I wanted. Unless he couldn't, or he was too stupid to know what I wanted even though I tell Him.

It seems like I've heard that somewhere before. "If you really love me you'll do this one little thing for me." Yes. There was this one ex-girlfriend -- I dumped her right away. It wasn't that I didn't love her, I just noticed quick that I enjoyed being alone more than I enjoyed spending time with her.

...this is only the most shallow, selfish implication of it. If nothing bad happens, that doesn't just mean that I'm not entitled to the things I want and don't have. It means that a guy who shoots up the adults at a day care center, rapes every kid in the place, slowly eating the meat off their bones piece by piece while they do so, and then mails their skeletons back to their parents, laced with anthrax, along with a video of the meal for their enjoyment -- did nothing wrong. I'm an adult and I don't work at a day care, so in that hypothetical scenario nothing bad happens to me. I'm not a parent and don't have any children in my close friends or family so nothing even happens to people I care about and will miss and mourn etc. But despite any occurrence of such an event having negligible impact on me, I would still vehemently say that it happening was wrong.
[

Yes, exactly. It's something you don't want so you say it's wrong.

To frame that as "I don't get what I want" is to miss the point entirely. A truly moral person's conception of "good" is not about what they want, it's not about their emotional desires, it's not even about compassion, and it's definitely not about what any authority, tradition, or convention says is right or wrong, it's about what is reasoned to be right or wrong on principle.


I strongly doubt that. People who reasoned it out on principle would agree with me, and they mostly don't. Instead people start with their gut feel and then they reason out justifications to fit in with what they already believe.

It sounds like you can't imagine anyone with more than a pre-conventional sense of morality, much less a post-conventional one.


I regard some of what your link calls "stage 5" as an expanding sense of self. If you identify with all of humanity, or with the ecosystems that support humanity etc, then acting in what you think is their interest is acting in your own self-interest. Because to some extent that's who you are.

What the link calls "stage 6" looks to me like some sort of delusion. When you are so sure that your abstractions are the best abstractions that you're ready to stake everything that you're right.... And yet I can see some principles tend to be valid most of the time. As one example: When you think you have a way to get something from nothing, chances are it's a form of Gambler's Ruin. You get something from nothing for awhile, maybe a long while, and suddenly everything lines up just wrong and you lose a whole lot. It isn't certain that economic schemes that appear to generate profits from nothing -- careful spreads, hedges etc -- will always backfire. But it's the way to bet in the medium run.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby VectorZero » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:18 am UTC

Think logically. One may logically derive erroneous conclusions from faulty postulates.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Max™ » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:23 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
VanI wrote:And is your distance calculation straight line, or does it follow the curvature of the earth?

Would that be "As the crow flies, or as the neutrino flies?"

It's funny you say that since the Opera neutrino experiments weren't too far from there either.
mu

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby neoliminal » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:28 am UTC

Here are mine:

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/main ... ling+Lewis

of which this variant takes all the complicated rules out of chess.

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdi ... lifiedches
Last edited by neoliminal on Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby neoliminal » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:50 am UTC

billyswong wrote:5. The game ends when one of the players resigns. When shall one resign is subjected to consensus. One must resign when they has no valid "move" to play.


What? That's not correct at all. I can have no "valid" move (because of board recursion) and yet still win. I can "pass". Winning in Go is based on the number of what you would called "breathing spaces" minus the number of captured stones you have at the end of the game.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

billyswong
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:56 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby billyswong » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:11 am UTC

neoliminal wrote:
billyswong wrote:5. The game ends when one of the players resigns. When shall one resign is subjected to consensus. One must resign when they has no valid "move" to play.


What? That's not correct at all. I can have no "valid" move (because of board recursion) and yet still win. I can "pass". Winning in Go is based on the number of what you would called "breathing spaces" minus the number of captured stones you have at the end of the game.

I choose a simpler variant which do not allow "pass".

Games originated from ancient China did not allow "pass". For example, in Chinese chess, when a player has no moves left unless giving way for the king being killed immediately, it is considered to be a lost, even if no opponent's pieces are checking the king currently. If a player has absolutely no moves left, he/she lose. So, no "pass".

There are variants in how to count and give score to the end-game scenario. Not all of them count the number of captured stones.

unhh
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:38 am UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby unhh » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:43 am UTC

This strip reminds me of a bit from Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, in which an alternate universe Harry pontificates on how horribly designed Quidditch is.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5373
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:07 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:
But despite any occurrence of such an event having negligible impact on me, I would still vehemently say that it happening was wrong.

Yes, exactly. It's something you don't want so you say it's wrong.

I don't know how you infer one from the other there when I mean exactly the opposite.

I am, in all honestly, a rather apathetic person. I don't, emotionally, care about a lot. Things which aren't happening to me personally don't move me much, emotionally. Someone woke me up the morning of 9/11 telling me to turn on the news, just in time to see the second plane hit; I told them not to panic, and went back to bed because that's on the other side of the continent and not worth getting up for. Throughout the day I broke the news to people who hadn't heard it yet, just as an unusual occurrence I heard about this morning, to make idle chit-chat, whereupon said people began to panic. If I read a news story about the horrific scenario I described earlier, I would be more taken aback by the creative levels of villainy and how unusual it was, than by visceral compassionate concern for the people harmed in it. I wouldn't, emotionally, care much at all, unless I made a specific effort to imagine it from the perspective of the victims.

But ask me intellectually whether that's right or wrong and I will tell you it's downright monstrous.

That's the distinction I am talking about. It is possible to have an intellectual judgement about something without giving a shit emotionally. To say, whether or not I want or care either way, that something is right or wrong or better or worse on abstract principles. It is rare for people to operate on that level, I'll grant you, because most people are much more strongly moved by their emotions about everything all the time and when you're overwhelmed with feelings it's hard to think, for me just as much as anyone else; I am not such a great, moral person when something is getting to me personally, but I am conscious of that and regret it even while it's happening.

That kind of reflexivity is what constitutes moral agency in the first place. It's one thing to look at what someone else does and say "I don't like what he does". It's one thing to look at what other people think of you and say "they don't like what I do". Neither of those is a moral judgement; "moral" isn't either just what you want, or what everyone (or anyone) else wants. It's a moral judgement when you imagine yourself doing the thing in question, and then imagine what you would think of yourself for doing such a thing, and decide if that is the kind of person you want to be. Moral judgement is grounded in higher-order volitions; it's not about what you want, but about what you want to want (and beyond that, what wants you want to be effective on your action).

Moral reasoning and argument then comes in when you try to answer the question "What do I want to want?" What are good qualities in a desire? Not "what are good, desirable qualities in a thing?"; tastiness and nutrition are good qualities in food, fuel economy and reliability are good qualities in a vehicle; there are qualities of all kinds of things which make them desirable. But what makes a desire desireable to have? Now you're thinking not just about what you want, but about what you should want; what it is good to want, the way tasty food is good to eat.

There's a whole field dedicated to answering that line of questioning (ethics), so I'm not going into it here, except to note that it is a different line of questioning from "What do I want?" I want to eat lots of fatty salty foods and sleep all day and hide from my problems and tell people who want things from me to go fuck themselves, but none of those are moral judgements (and not because they are "immoral"; they are just amoral, unreflective of their virtue). On the other hand, I want those wants not to be effective on my actions; I want the temperance to eat healthy foods, the courage to face my problems, the justice to be fair and equitable, and those, especially the last, are getting closer to moral judgements.

I strongly doubt that. People who reasoned it out on principle would agree with me, and they mostly don't. Instead people start with their gut feel and then they reason out justifications to fit in with what they already believe.

I'm laughing at the arrogance of "People who reasoned it out on principle would agree with me", but in a highly qualified sense I actually agree with you. I think nihilism (which is what relativism amounts to) is a stepping stone on the way to postconventional reasoning. I'm not a big Nietzsche fan (and can never spell his name, thanks spellcheck) but a deeper reading of him, past the wannabe nihilist level most kids read him if at all, has a good point about this: conventional morality is made-up bullshit, sure, the law of man is arbitrary and non-binding, and there is no God and he's not going to spank you for saying naughty words or even eating babies... but that doesn't mean anything goes.

Nihilism is the first response of people who think enough to realize that conventional morality is bullshit, and it's in that sense that I agree with you; people reasoning things on principle often do pass by your position (I did too), and a lot of them get stuck there. But it is a phase to be overcome, to move through before realizing that just because there's nobody there to give you the answers, doesn't mean there are no answers; just because nobody can say with absolute authority what is right or wrong, doesn't mean that nothing is right or wrong; and that it's as absurd to conclude the latter as it is to deny the former.

I regard some of what your link calls "stage 5" as an expanding sense of self. If you identify with all of humanity, or with the ecosystems that support humanity etc, then acting in what you think is their interest is acting in your own self-interest. Because to some extent that's who you are.

That sounds a lot more like an extended sense of stage 2 reasoning, which is why I said it sounds like you can't imagine anything beyond preconventional morality. You're obviously familiar with conventional morality, and have recognized its shortcomings, but rather than move beyond it you've stepped back and tried to justify everything from a self-interested perspective.

What the link calls "stage 6" looks to me like some sort of delusion. When you are so sure that your abstractions are the best abstractions that you're ready to stake everything that you're right....

Nothing ever said that. Just because you're working from abstractions doesn't mean you have absolute certainty in them. It's possible to discuss universality without assuming infallibility; to think about what is unqualifiedly good as a matter of principle, without assuming that whatever you think about that must be right. But then this is the key fallacy of relativism right here... "you might be incorrect, therefore nothing is really right or wrong, people just have different, equally baseless opinions". Turn that around, and say "Something is really right and something is really wrong; in my opinion they are this and this, on this that that the other basis, but I might be incorrect".

economic schemes that appear to generate profits from nothing -- careful spreads, hedges etc --

This is tangential, but careful spreads and hedges don't have to even appear to generate profits from nothing. Profit in legitimate investment comes from helping whatever you invested in generate profit with the capital you provided them; you then share in their profits. But like every action in life, the outcome is a gamble, so like all gambles you should spread the risk around and hedge your bets wherever possible to mitigate the risk. But that doesn't mean you're getting something from nothing, any more than if I buy a saw to start my own carpentry business I get something for nothing if the carpentry business turns profitable; I invested in a venture, it succeeded, and I share in that success. It's no more money from nothing to invest in someone else, succeed, and share in the rewards, than it is to invest in yourself, and both carry the risk of failure.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

tups
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:37 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby tups » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:07 am UTC

Now, back to the cartoon. In a strange and twisted way, this conversation reminds me of my colleagues who are engineers ... it becomes hilariously funny once you realize this (and point it out to them).

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Invertin » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:50 am UTC

Moose Anus wrote:
Shadowman615 wrote:
ocean_soul wrote:
Invertin wrote:
Azathfeld wrote:It significantly (if not as heavily as something like Dominion) favors the first player.


um
what?
how

no it doesn't

The first player gets to... move a pawn, or jump a knight out.

The second player gets to counter.

EDIT: also i hope the sassy chess player becomes a new recurring character


Yes, it does. Look at the statistics of white victories vs. black ones among the top players of the world. Most of the time a chess game is about black trying to neutralize a very small white advantage in order to achieve a draw. Only if white makes a mistake or chooses a poor opening has black a chance of winning.



That is overstating it quite a bit. Black wins quite often at the highest level, and there are just as many experts who disagree with that theory as there are proponents.
Right, but the experts are simply trying to neutralize the very small proponent advantage. Only if a proponent makes a mistake or chooses a poor argument has experts a chance of winning.


But that's what chess is. Trying to play your strategies and looking for the other player to slip up, or miss something, or leave an opening, it's that way on both sides of the equation. If you're trying to beat the other player without exploiting their weaknesses or their mistakes, you're going to lose.

Unless it's two newbies playing that's always fun to watch.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Max™ » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:03 am UTC

neoliminal wrote:Here are mine:

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/main ... ling+Lewis

of which this variant takes all the complicated rules out of chess.

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdi ... lifiedches


I like that second one a lot, good job.


Also, I got your "detached response to 9/11" beat hands down.

I walked in thinking "well that's not supposed to happen on my birthday, how unusual".
mu

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby ddxxdd » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:47 pm UTC

The best XKCD comics are the ones that make a salient, commonly missed point. In other words, I envision myself using this comic in a whole bunch of future internet arguments.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:17 pm UTC

unhh wrote:This strip reminds me of a bit from Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, in which an alternate universe Harry pontificates on how horribly designed Quidditch is.


He has a point about the seeker/snitch aspect breaking the game - unless one team can get a 16-goal lead over the other, the other 12 players are just there to entertain the crowd and provide obstacles/cover while the seekers play hunt-the-thimble in mid-air

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:59 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:You have two major options for adjudicating challenged words in Scrabble - by consensus, and by reference to authority. Consensus has issues when one player knows a lot of words that the others don't - they end up having to guess which words they know will also be acceptable to the rest of the group. Reference to authority (usually a dictionary) has its own problems - there's a very real possibility of turning the game into one of memorising word lists rather than showing off your actual vocabulary (and there's also the vexed question of which dictionary to use...).

I consider consensus to be the better method whe it works, and people are more interested in playing well than in winning. If people are too set on winning at any cost, then the subjective judgement of the consensus method breaks down, and you need the objective judgement of an independent authority.


Scrabble is ideally a game played between two people, so consensus in Scrabble makes no sense. You can play with more people, but it's just sort of silly fun at that point and nobody should take it seriously (and I still say the dictionary approach is better-- the problem with consensus is that it penalizes people for knowing unusual words, even if they know them simply from their own life).

The thing is, there is only one Scrabble dictionary. You can use others, but there is one definitive source that the rules say should be used when possible (which has definitions by the way; anybody who memorizes the words but not their meaning is missing out on a lot of the educational fun of the game). The idea that people who appeal to it are "cheating" or robbing the game of its fun or whatever is just such nonsense. I try to avoid ridiculous words when playing with casual players, but even then, knowing scrabble strategy is more important than word memorization and so generally somebody who does not play much is very likely to lose to me (I try to teach as I go, but it takes people time to get it), just as I am likely to lose a game of Chess against somebody who plays it regularly.

It sounds like the real problem is that some of you play the game with smug assholes. The problem is that they are smug assholes, not that Scrabble is broken.

jpers36
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby jpers36 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
jpers36 wrote:Pfhorrest, what is the value of moral agency?

I'm not certain this question even makes sense, so rather than guess at what you might mean and answer that, can you elaborate?


Say you had the capacity to choose between two different universes as the real, existent universe. In one, sentient beings exist which have the ability to make moral choices. In the other one, such beings do not exist -- either no sentient beings exist, or for whatever reason the sentient beings which do exist have no ability to choose between right and wrong. Which would you choose, and why?

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but more that people who do this should play against others that do the same, within a more "tournament" setting than "a game played among friends."
Don't you prefer to play people who are on a similar level to you in the game?


Yes. But I'd prefer they step up than ask me to step down. There are plenty of great games that don't rely on skill and deep-study. Tennis players don't want to play left-handed for funsies.

Puppyclaws wrote:It sounds like the real problem is that some of you play the game with smug assholes. The problem is that they are smug assholes, not that Scrabble is broken.

I was a smug asshole this weekend. We had company and the husband likes games. We played an evening of cribbage. I don’t even offer Chess or Scrabble to casual wood-pushers because I’ll just win without a hint of effort or strategy and I may as well read a magazine during the game.
What a terrible host.

Casual dippers mistakenly believe Scrabble is a spelling and vocabulary game.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1263
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

bantler wrote:Casual dippers mistakenly believe Scrabble is a spelling and vocabulary game.

Pretty much this. I'm always amused when I play Words with Friends with someone who's obviously using a word builder.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:Scrabble is ideally a game played between two people


Ideal for what purpose? If you're aiming to spend an hour or two of social gaming with a few friends, then two-player Scrabble is less than ideal...

Two-player Scrabble does negate the effects of the seating order - you no longer have a third player feeding your rival perfect opportunities while your rival starves you of openings, but a more competitive game is not necessarily better - it depends on your metric...

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby neoliminal » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:38 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:
neoliminal wrote:Here are mine:

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/main ... ling+Lewis

of which this variant takes all the complicated rules out of chess.

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdi ... lifiedches


I like that second one a lot, good job.



Thank you. It was actually really hard until I realized there was an extra row of squares causing all the problems. ;-)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:46 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:Scrabble is ideally a game played between two people


Ideal for what purpose? If you're aiming to spend an hour or two of social gaming with a few friends, then two-player Scrabble is less than ideal...

Two-player Scrabble does negate the effects of the seating order - you no longer have a third player feeding your rival perfect opportunities while your rival starves you of openings, but a more competitive game is not necessarily better - it depends on your metric...


Four-player Scrabble is as social as the chip-bowl. Very. But hardly a game by any metric.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby da Doctah » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:06 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:The best XKCD comics are the ones that make a salient, commonly missed point. In other words, I envision myself using this comic in a whole bunch of future internet arguments.

Does this spell the end of the bunny with a pancake on his head?

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1386
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby freezeblade » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:39 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:Scrabble is ideally a game played between two people


Ideal for what purpose? If you're aiming to spend an hour or two of social gaming with a few friends, then two-player Scrabble is less than ideal...

Two-player Scrabble does negate the effects of the seating order - you no longer have a third player feeding your rival perfect opportunities while your rival starves you of openings, but a more competitive game is not necessarily better - it depends on your metric...


Four-player Scrabble is as social as the chip-bowl. Very. But hardly a game by any metric.


Ah, and here we get down to it. I reject your overly narrow and non-standard definition of game.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1112: "Think Logically"

Postby bantler » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:
bantler wrote:Four-player Scrabble is as social as the chip-bowl. Very. But hardly a game by any metric.


Ah, and here we get down to it. I reject your overly narrow and non-standard definition of game.


First, we must come to a consensus on what dictionary to use…


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests