Book 2 – Page 73

[Kreistor]

Ossomer is magically influenced, and not an example of Free Will. The magic could come from Croakamancy, but that would not permit any Turning. Since Ossomer does Turn, then the enslavement comes from Wanda's capacity for Thinkamancy, not Croakamancy. This has many repercussions for Decryption, but that is a different conversation.

Who cares what school it comes from?

Those that analyze the Arkentools, for one. Are their powers constant (ie. they have a set of powers that never change, regardless of who attunes) or relative (ie. somehow created in response to the will of the attuned user)? If the Arkenpliers merely amplifies Wanda's powers, then they would only create Decrypted in her hands. In another attuned user's hands, like say Ace, they might create legions of Power Armor for the troops.

Magic in Erfworld still is taking effect by physical manifestations of some kind. So regardless of the school, its effecting the loyalty stat would be my claim. And since that requires a lot less invention of new ways of magic working (ie how to make someone loyal to you and not turn), I think its a good assumption. And the first part of that statement? exactly what we are arguing about. My contention is that free will and magical influence (which is basically what the hidden stats are anyway) can coexist just fine. One is in control or the other; either the loyalty stat means you can't turn no matter how much you want to, or you get to make the choice. Which is in control fluctuates, and can be altered; and when the magic dominates, free will doesn't exist. But which rules is dependent on die rolls.

And how do you propose proving it? Like I said repeatedly: you can invent mathematical representations of anything, especially with limited data. In fact, that's a great part of science... coming up with mathematical models to simulate observed data... but that you can reduce some aspects of observed behavior to a set of rules does not prove that you discovered Rules behind the universe.

And that is why those that turn can be looked down on; they did not turn because they failed a roll. They turned because when they were given a moment of true free will, when the loyalty check failed, they used it to betray their side.

Can you prove it? Can Erfworlders? You have a proposal that may fit all data points, but is that proof enough to vilify someone so much that you ostracize them? Are you that certain that you're right?

That cultist example is a really poor analogy. Ossomer was not slowly brought out of brainwashing. He, in the space of seconds, went from "I can't turn" to turned. Because a person vanished from his hex. There is no comparison between the situations. I am going to keep pounding that line "I can't" as indicative of what his will wanted; something inhibited him from acting on what his will had decided.

I actually challenge you to find a real world example that functions the way i have described the loyalty stat.

Nothing starts and stops instantly in our universe: it's part of our reality. That is only possible in fiction or bad non-fiction. The closest you can get is the comedown from something like a mind-altering drug. Some can quit fairly quickly.

physics can tell me I can't read comics at work cause it decided i was too loyal to my boss if it was Erfworld physics. I don't get a chance to make a choice unless I fail that loyalty check; then free will is all mine, and I can read all the comics I want, if that is the decision I make.

Yeah, look up some of the date rape drugs. The whole point to them is to get you to do things you normally wouldn't, and then make you forget having done it. Quite insidious. Those leave the parallel of Loyalty, though, so I still prefer the brain washing example, despite that it doesn't act like a light switch when coming out of it, leaving aftereffects of bad judgement for decades.

[Chit Rule Railroad]

** As an aside, I tend to avoid thinking about weighty issues of consciousness because I have noticed a pattern in life. Understanding things removes the magic from them. I love to hear that people are exploring this topic, but I'm secretly afraid that they will discover an answer. If this all turns out to be a giant cosmic coincidence that will ultimately erase itself either by returning to the starting point or diluting to unrecognizability, does that not trivialize all of our actions? If all of this turns out to be part of some greater design, does that not trivialize my contributions to this narrative? To the sufficiently informed mind, do the greatest narratives of human exploits merely sound like "remember that time that that radioactive nuclide took WAY longer to decay than statistics suggested it should? That was EPIC." I would love to hear a convincing reason why not. I don't consider this a form of hypocrisy since I try not to prevent people further down on either end of the spectrum from drawing their lines as they see fit... which is the only thing that the deeply religious and the deeply un-religious do that pisses me off. </aside>

I'm only addressing the underlined bits.

A couple of years ago, I had an insight that helped me accept the transient nature of life and its artifacts: "importance" is an inherently subjective experience. When we experience something as "meaningful", we are not tasked with keeping our cognition aligned with some absolute standard of meaningfulness, because there is no such standard. There is no privileged, objective frame of reference that we are mandated to care about.

If an event means something to you, it means something. Period. ....And that's not the end of the story. We humans care about what is meaningful to each other. We are connected by webs of empathy, curiosity, transference phenomena, etc. I care about certain things directly, and my loved ones care about my happiness, and they have interest in what I care about, and I care that they care about my happiness and that they are interested in my life.

Someday, the last humans may be struggling to survive as their spaceship runs out of power to scrub their air because all the stars have gone dark, and they may be sad that no one will mourn them in the future. But hopefully they will be able to take comfort in knowing that their plight has been anticipated and already mourned, as humanity will have plenty of warning to culturally prepare for such a fate.


Well, I'll also say a little bit about the "sufficiently informed mind": Any hypothetical physical brain or computer that is aware of one set of facts is unaware of many, many other facts. Not only do fundamental limits on information density limit the amount of information available to a mind, but they also limit the ability to combine those facts in different permutations. I suspect someone who is more conversant in physics than me could put together an argument that it is impossible for the universe to fully understand itself.


EDIT: in response to "If all of this turns out to be part of some greater design, does that not trivialize my contributions to this narrative?": If you zoom out, you lose detail.

[MarbitChow]

And how do you propose proving it? Like I said repeatedly: you can invent mathematical representations of anything, especially with limited data. In fact, that's a great part of science... coming up with mathematical models to simulate observed data... but that you can reduce some aspects of observed behavior to a set of rules does not prove that you discovered Rules behind the universe.

I'd like to call for a moratorium on *requiring* scientific levels of provability in all arguments / discussions on the nature of Erfworld from this point forward.

We CANNOT construct controlled experiments. We do not ever have sufficient data points.
The world is the creation of one man, and his ultimate whim holds sway over the fundamentals of that 'universe'.
Occam's Razor does not apply to stories. The simplest explanation is not the "right" one. The "right" one is the one that leads to the best story.

Occam's Razor tells us that, given the two options of "There is no loyalty stat" or "there is an extremely powerful, subtle and malicious entity controlling people's behavior in order to create conflict by forcing people to be disloyal", the first option is clearly the better scientific option. But there is no added *story* potential there, because story isn't about discovering the governing laws, it's about conflict and resolution. (I say that there is no added story potential because loyalty and betrayal are already assumed to be potentially a part of all narratives.)

SUMMARY:
MarbitChow's (Narrative) Razor: Given two equally plausible hypothesis, the one that leads to the most interesting or entertaining conflict or challenge for the protagonist is most likely the correct one.

[BLANDCorporatio]

In the case of Bland's most recent point about all those theorists and what they agree on I can't agree or disagree with, because that's a factual one which I don't know the facts for. I'll give Bland the benefit of the doubt, but I really don't know.

It's easy.

Assume that the list Kreistor presented, and I requoted, is an accurate summary of the views of those researchers. Then ask, is any of those summaries compatible with a view that the mind is NOT the result of interactions at simpler levels?

Finally, remember that this summary was brought forth by Kreistor to prove that the idea that the mind is the result of interactions at a simpler level is worthless junk; whereas, it appears to be the common thread beyond many (and I'd say most) forays in the subject of mind and consciousness.

And then there's this gem-

Even if I got one of his quotes mis-attributed, he did say what I needed him to, and that was, "It's not like he couldn't find thinkers to support his view. Rupert Sheldrake I think would fit the bill". I had said already, "You can find someone that claims anything you want, so you can cite everything about anything, which makes the subject useless at this time." So my original presentation that the only correct perspective to approach Bland's contention was derision is held true. And I can ignore him now that he has stated what I needed him to.

Oh man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Notice how one obvious link is missing from the above list. I don't want Godwin's Law invoked, but said link would be very much appropriate in this context.

What I can link to though is this post, in a thread on this very forum. It kick-started a heated debate about whether the English Archers at Agincourt wore shoes. Relevant here, because it shows how willing (or not) Kreistor is to apply his standard of worth to his own pet theories.

This is too easy.

I'd like to call for a moratorium on *requiring* scientific levels of provability in all arguments / discussions on the nature of Erfworld from this point forward.

There's really no need to get upset. Kreistor consistently fails to provide any such thing anyway.

Look at the quote from him above. Tell me I'm misrepresenting him when I say, it appears like he suggests any competing ideas are equally worthy, or equally worthless, until there's only one left standing. Where "left standing" means "there's at least one schmuck (with a diploma, optionally) willing to support it".

[MarbitChow]

I'd like to call for a moratorium on *requiring* scientific levels of provability in all arguments / discussions on the nature of Erfworld from this point forward.

There's really no need to get upset. Kreistor consistently fails to provide any such thing anyway.

That's kinda my point. No one can provide any such thing, so there's no point in demanding it (which is what Kreistor was doing in the quote the inspired my post).

If we're arguing about Earth, I'd like to see the science.
If we're discussing Erfworld, show me the narrative potential.

[Balerion]

And how do you propose proving it? Like I said repeatedly: you can invent mathematical representations of anything, especially with limited data. In fact, that's a great part of science... coming up with mathematical models to simulate observed data... but that you can reduce some aspects of observed behavior to a set of rules does not prove that you discovered Rules behind the universe.

I will happily admit my theory could be completely wrong. but at the same time:

Can you prove it? Can Erfworlders? You have a proposal that may fit all data points, but is that proof enough to vilify someone so much that you ostracize them? Are you that certain that you're right?

If my proposal fits all data points, what more is there to do? It has the bare number of elements it needs in order to fit all those data points, so yes: I would believe it to the point of ostracizing others over it. Cause you have provided 0 reasons not to (except "it might be wrong cause you haven't proven it"), and like you said, it fits the data. More evidence may come to light that proves you right as the comic progresses; but we have to make our theories based on what we know, and at a point a theory fits the data, what more can we ask of it? We have to operate on some assumption of how the world works. We just also need to be alert for signs its wrong. If you want proof, wait for word of god or something decisive to come up in the comic.

Nothing starts and stops instantly in our universe: it's part of our reality. That is only possible in fiction or bad non-fiction. The closest you can get is the comedown from something like a mind-altering drug. Some can quit fairly quickly.

Thank you for admitting that there is a mechanism in play that goes beyond our own understanding of psychology. Does this mean we agree that the hidden stat exists in Erfworld?

Yeah, look up some of the date rape drugs. The whole point to them is to get you to do things you normally wouldn't, and then make you forget having done it. Quite insidious. Those leave the parallel of Loyalty, though, so I still prefer the brain washing example, despite that it doesn't act like a light switch when coming out of it, leaving aftereffects of bad judgement for decades.

Those do leave the parallel, and I don't see their relevance to this discussion honestly. And the not acting like a light switch is pretty important to the comparison.

[drachefly]

Occam's Razor does not apply to stories. The simplest explanation is not the "right" one. The "right" one is the one that leads to the best story.

The simplest explanation that leads to the best story is still the least disfavored by virtue of excessive specificity.

For example, suppose we're about to read a short story by Larry Niven. Which of these predictions is more likely?

1) The story is about how the Kzin lose an early engagement in their war against the pacifist humans because a human figures out that human reaction drives can be used as weapons, and summons up the will to use them.
2) The story is about how the Kzin lose an early engagement in their war against the pacifist humans because Albert Hubert Xu-Mapleton III figures out that human reaction drives can be used as weapons, and summons up the will to use them.

Now, a good story nearly requires supplying a name, but just by specifying Albert Hubert Xu-Mapleton III we've gone from a statement that is reasonably likely (and true, given the further evidence if you actually read the story), to one that is fantastically unlikely.

Occam's razor is intact, thank you very much. You just need to adjust the model probabilities to discount boring models. (edited to add: this falls under the 'evidence' part of Bayes' theorem, not the 'prior' part that Occam's razor deals with)


Speaking of aliens, I find the conversation between Kriestor and Bland to be fascinating. It quite supports the notion that aliens can exist with whom communication is utterly impossible.

[Kreistor]

Thank you for admitting that there is a mechanism in play that goes beyond our own understanding of psychology. Does this mean we agree that the hidden stat exists in Erfworld?

There are lots of novels with Free WIll and Mind Altering magics that end suddenly, which do not include a numerical representation of complex human psychology, so heck no, and how could you possibly believe that?

Those do leave the parallel, and I don't see their relevance to this discussion honestly. And the not acting like a light switch is pretty important to the comparison.

No, it's a distracting detail. If the magic faded slowly instead of suddenly, Ossomer would still Turn under your mechanism. The way the effect dissipates is irrelevant to the loss of its effect, except for the period in which the victim is confused as it realizes something isn't quite right in its thinking and it goes back and forth until the effect is weakened.

For the sudden removal to be important, I expect proof that other dissipation methods change the result, not blanket statements that it's important.

[Balerion]

No, it's a distracting detail. If the magic faded slowly instead of suddenly, Ossomer would still Turn under your mechanism. The way the effect dissipates is irrelevant to the loss of its effect, except for the period in which the victim is confused as it realizes something isn't quite right in its thinking and it goes back and forth until the effect is weakened.

For the sudden removal to be important, I expect proof that other dissipation methods change the result, not blanket statements that it's important.

The sudden dissipation is not part of the mechanism; it is important because it provides evidence that the mechanism exists. Ossomer wanted to turn but couldn't; suddenly he could, indicating that something was actively blocking him from exerting free will. Remove the blockage (the magical effect on that hidden stat) and he can turn. its an event for which we have no comparable situation in the real world; this indicates, if it makes sense, that something in addition to what we have in the real world is present.

also, the fact that you think my mechanism does anything to the unit's thinking is an indication you didn't read carefully enough. At no point does my mechanism impact unit thought; it simply inhibits them from acting on it (Parson with 0 move can try to leave the hex; his move stat has no impact on his thought and attempt. However, it does prevent him from doing so. In the same vein, Ossomer wants to turn and tries; his loyalty acts as that hex boundary).

[Kreistor]

The sudden dissipation is not part of the mechanism; it is important because it provides evidence that the mechanism exists.

No, it provides evidence only that there was magical manipulation on Ossomer that either ended or was overcome by willpower. The only thing we learn from Ossomer is that the specific effect on Decrypted is non-permanent, which is different from Uncroaked which lack minds to Turn. We are already aware of magical mind manipulations that cause changes in thought processes, and not all of them manipulate Loyalty, so this is not a new effect, only a new use of the same effect.

In fact, since we know Thinkamancy's Suggestion is far more subtle than "modifying a Stat", we already have precedent for the effect not being limited to modifying a Stat. Suggestion is far more complex than that, so we are already aware of complex mind manipulation spells that affect the Will and not a Stat.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Speaking of aliens, I find the conversation between Kriestor and Bland to be fascinating. It quite supports the notion that aliens can exist with whom communication is utterly impossible.

Fear not, Earthlings. Both my species and Kreistor's have come to you in peace. As far as I can tell.

[Ptharien's Flame]

Speaking of aliens, I find the conversation between Kriestor and Bland to be fascinating. It quite supports the notion that aliens can exist with whom communication is utterly impossible.

Fear not, Earthlings. Both my species and Kreistor's have come to you in peace. As far as I can tell.

Wait. You can't tell whether or not your own species has come to us in peace???

[coyotenose]

Just in case this hasn't been brought up yet: Just because Ossomer has rejected Wanda herself and Gobwin Knob doesn't mean he isn't a Toolist. Oh the mental contortions...

[Sieggy]

Actually, was Ossomer EVER a Toolist? Remember, it's been less than a turn (a prematurely ended turn at that) since he was captured, croaked, and decrypted. He hasn't had time to deal with pretty much of anything other than the fact that somehow he's all of a sudden working for the despised Stanley, worships Wanda who snubs and disdains him, and the fact that his Chief Warlord is a cheating unscrupulous bastard who crapped all over his city and seems to be totally without honor. Throw in the imminent demise of his beloved father and brother and the fall of his former city, and I think we can safely say there are some pretty heavy negative modifiers in play.

Had there been time for Ossomer to be properly indoctrinated by Ansom, things might have been different, and had Wanda treated him with some degree of respect, you don't know. I think that whatever loyalty stat came with the act of decryption was not deeply set and rapidly eroded through mistreatment. Remember, he was a major somebody, a Royal, and under Wanda he was a side of beef. That kind of treatment would turn just about anyone . . .

Also, when you get down to it, Ansom is the one who came up with the Toolist credo, and seems also to be the only one actively promoting it. Wanda and Parson seem to be going along for the ride, not so much that they believe in it as trying to talk Ansom out of it would be as useless as trying to bring a Scientologist to their senses, not to mention no appreciable benefit for doing so. Toolism is Ansom's schtick, and it's a convenient ideology for the GK side, just don't expect the leadership to take it seriously.

[Kreistor]

Actually, was Ossomer EVER a Toolist? Remember, it's been less than a turn (a prematurely ended turn at that) since he was captured, croaked, and decrypted.

[snip]

Had there been time for Ossomer to be properly indoctrinated by Ansom, things might have been different, and had Wanda treated him with some degree of respect, you don't know.

Ah, but Ansom required no conversion, did he? He changed his mental attitude to Toolism immediately.

Has Sylvia evidenced any Toolism? No, Sylvia has, perhaps, only become more vicious after conversion, and less caring about why she fights. Maybe. We have little of her thoughts pre-Decryption.

Remember how Suggestion works... it causes you to make small changes to your thought process to subtly shift choices in favour of the caster's desires. If it is a strong form of Suggestion manipulating thoughts towards loyalty to GK, and not the absolute allegiance of the Uncroaked, then the effect is different on each Decrypted. Some may convert something of their previous thoughts to Toolism. The Archons only treat GK as a maximum paying client of Charlie's, and have no adherence to Toolism, though.

For Ossomer, there was little to hook. His hang-up is Honor, not Ansom's prejudice towards Royalty. There was little for the spell to hook in the first place. Had parson used Honorable tactics, he might not have been so vulnerable to Turning back to Jetstone.

[Sieggy]

I think in Ansom's case, he had been primed by Parson (however inadvertently) for conversion - Ansom had blown up totally at Parsons prodding and announcment that "Royalty is obsolete, y'know . . .". Ansom had to find some justification for his decryption and conversion, thus coming to fanatically take Parson's words to heart. He didn't know what had happened to him (remember, decryption was something totally new . . . and wonderful) and saw it as an act of the Titans. He was popped again . . . and had to justify this somehow, so a New Titanic Mandate was the explanation, with him as it's chief proponent. And Wanda treated him with some degree of respect, going as far as allowing him to replace Parson as CWL (and yes, we know it was Stanley who actually did it, but to Ansom, Wanda allowed it).

Ossomer knew what decryption was ahead of time, loathed and dreaded it. To him it wasn't something new and wonderful, it was something new and dreadful, a blasphemy perpetrated by a witch queen who was perverting a Holy Tool once held by Jetstone. After he was captured, he knew that he was going to be croaked, decrypted, and forced to turn against his own side. He didn't come to the process neutrally, he came in with heavy negatives right from the beginning. Add to that the elements I previously described, and my guess is that his turning was inevitable. Passing out of Wanda's zone of influence and the prospect of his father's immediate death (quite possibly at his own hands) was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

In Sylvia's case, it placed her on Fate's path . . . you see that constantly, her belief that Fate was playing a game with her. That now she was free to do what she was always meant to do without restraint, and was given a leader whose brilliance eclipsed the Titans themselves. She and Parson will burn down the world because that's what Fate awaits them . . .

[Smoker]

Hello all! Im back from an extended lurking holiday. To celebrate, I shall scatter theories like confetti!

The loyalty stat works as follows:
The loyalty stat is a hidden stat which is only effected by the emotions of the particular unit. If a unit feels betrayed, their emotions will effect their loyalty stat. Bogroll, for example, was far too simple and innocent to allow his workplace harassment to effect his loyalty. Ossomer, on the other hand, seems to have taken Parson's tactics and the pleas of his father to heart, and his emotions are beating the heck down on his stat, right to the point where he unlocked his "Turning" ability, and freely decided to use it. Both units were abused, but only one got emotional about it.

Sizemore has probably unlocked his Turning ability, but just hasn't decided to use it.... yet.

By this theory, magical turning is a purely emotional experience. The Turnamancer makes the unit feel like it wants to switch sides. Alternatively, it forces the ability to unlock, then threatens the bejesus out of the unit until they activate it.

In short: Circumstances/"Modifiers" -> Emotions -> Loyalty.

This allows for free will, in all cases.

Decryption and Toolism:
I've said this before, but I loooove this theory so much that if it were a teddy I'd turn plushie.
Ansom switched to Toolism so readily because he's a dick with a superiority complex. He couldn't cling to his royal mandate anymore, so he grabbed the next best thing he could use. Ossomer was never such a wanker, so he took his re-popping with a quiet acceptance, right up until things got personal for him.

Decryption and Loyalty:
Deryption, as far as I can see, is exactly how it has been described in-comic: Popped Again. When units pop, they are instinctively loyal to their home sides, just as you and I are instinctively proud of our countries of origin (subject to change, of course). So when Wanda decrypts a unit, they feel at peace with their new side. Justifications are up to the individual units, as we have seen variance between Ansom, Ossomer, Sylvia, Wriggley and the Archons. And it seems that Decrypted can still access their Turning ability, although perhaps not with Wanda in the hex (or perhaps thats just coincidence).

Humans on Earth and Free Will:
We are products of our experience and genetics, both of which are effected greatly by random (or perhaps, unforeseeable) occurrences, and could be equated with a mathematical value. The way the brain develops, forming neural connections of differing number and strengths to different parts of our brain looks to me like a biological version of Object Oriented Programming - the return values of our brain's functions providing us with the variables in our decision making algorithm, which calculates the end response; yes, no, will, wont, maybe, I don't know, etc...

Sides, if we were little shreds of Gaia on some kind of spirit-journey, then why even HAVE brains?

Anyway, that last one was a bit flippant, but I'm just so glad to be back *sheds tear*

[BLANDCorporatio]

Wait. You can't tell whether or not your own species has come to us in peace???

I'm part of the PR group and as such my communications are controlled from above.

But do not let that concern you.

Hello all! Im back from an extended lurking holiday. {snip}
Anyway, that last one was a bit flippant, but I'm just so glad to be back *sheds tear*

Indeed. Just logging in, I take the usual stroll through forum names I don't recognize. "Smoker? Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar ..."

Welcome back.

[Ptharien's Flame]

The way the brain develops, forming neural connections of differing number and strengths to different parts of our brain looks to me like a biological version of Object Oriented Programming - the return values of our brain's functions providing us with the variables in our decision making algorithm, which calculates the end response; yes, no, will, wont, maybe, I don't know, etc...

To me it looks a lot more like functional programming, especially the way you've described it. Tell me, where are the classes in your model? Where are the method calls? Do we use generics/templating or are we parametrically monomorphic?

All in good fun, of course. I don't think we can model the brain accurately with a single paradigm.

[BLANDCorporatio]

To me it looks a lot more like functional programming, especially the way you've described it. Tell me, where are the classes in your model? Where are the method calls? Do we use generics/templating or are we parametrically monomorphic?

All in good fun, of course. I don't think we can model the brain accurately with a single paradigm.

Functional programming, Object Oriented Programming, it's all machine code in the end

Kidding aside, nobody in their right mind would design complex software by writing it out in machine code. Still, all programming paradigms are layers built above the basics of computation, and it's this lower layer that limits what can't and can be done, and how fast. OOP or functional programming, you still can't write something to compute Chaitin's constant, not unless you have a black box aka "oracle" that provides it by magic.