To me as a somewhat neutral observer it seemed as though Bisqwit didn't use any logical fallacies, as long as he starts from the premise that the Bible holds absolute truth.
Well, any reasonable person must admit the bible contradicts itself on numerous occasions, so the assumption itself that the bible holds absolute truth is, logically speaking, irreparably fallacious.
Well, any assumption is in fact irrational on its own. You cannot be 100% sure of anything in this world. There are always alternative explanations for what we observe. Physics don't explain how stuff in this world works, but merely provide a possible system of how they could work that doesn't contradict itself, with a few exceptions (that need yet to be resolved?*).
Maths is purely fictional because it starts from the premiss that the universe is divided into countable entities. This makes sense for us as humans to do because our brain classifies certain patterns as objects, but does that make it true or is math just a tool for us? Math may be logical in itself, but it also starts from an unreasonable premiss. Any system that relies on maths may thus not be able to represent the true reality of this world in an adequate fashion in the end.
It appears as though the laws of physics we've deduced from our experiments were in fact true, but maybe they don't describe what's really happening after all. Maybe the underlying mechanisms of how this world works are totally different from what we expect and there really is no mass, there only seems to be mass to an observer of this world for reason x. So pyhsics describe just a possible coherent system of how things work, but the fact that the system is in itself logical and that experiments seem to confirm it, doesn't make it true or real. It's just a tool. And like maths, physics assume that the universe is divided into seperate entities. From a logical nil-perspective that's a totally baseless assumption, if you ask me.
Now back to the Bible, starting from the unreasonable premiss that it holds absolute truth, the contradictions don't serve as evidence for it being not true anymore. Instead they are a challenge and your duty as a believer becomes to explain these contradictions for yourself and thus come closer to God. They make you think about who he actually is, and you should go that path because it's the only path that leads to the light and to love, because God is love. If God appears to not love us, then it's just because we cannot comprehend his true motivation for the things he does. That's a very reasonable explanation that resolves something that seems like a contradiction in the bible to you, but maybe it's more like a puzzle you have to solve to get a closer understanding of who God really is.
*) Here too, any "contradictions" are just "yet to be resolved" to advocates of the system.
Everything in this world starts from unreasonable assumptions. The natural sciences try to minimize assumptions and that has led them to be quite valuable tools, but you can never totally eliminate them. Also, you can make up theories and collect all the evidence you want, evidence never proves a thing. Collecting evidence is just a way to reassure there are no contradictions inside the logical systems we've invented, but absolute proof for even that can never be attained. (Yes, in maths it does work to a certain degree, mainly talking about physics here). You'd have to perform an infinite number of experiments to deliver that proof, and even then, it wouldn't make your assumption true and real, just a plausible explanation for a certain phenomenon.
I really do think that believing in natural sciences to be true is as unreasonable as to assume any religious system to be true. I don't believe that absolute truth is graspable through our senses and I'm not sure if it even exists. Everybody needs to make some baseless assumptions in their lives though, we do that unconsciously all the time. To explain new observations, we constantly make up theories that we either keep relying on* or eventually discard. If you purely rely on logic, you are never able to leave the point of knowing absolutely nothing, neither can you logically deduce any sense for us being alive.
*) For example, your assumption that the discussion with Bisqwit would be pointless. You still participated in it, maybe just to reassure to yourself that your assumption is true and that you are on the right track with your life, while he is wrong.
In the end, being overly logical is the nice and secure, but complicated way to live our lives, while being more willing to stick to unproven theories (some of which you've made up on your own) is a more explorative and adventurous, but more risky way of living your life. It's a good thing that both types of humans exist in this world, as well as everything in between. If your path leads to a dead end, you can be happy there are lots of other human beings to try the other ones. It means you never need to live your life in regret, as walking down a wrong path still serves as a valuable warning to others, so it's never in vain.
In life, you just pick one path and see where it takes you. If you find something valuable there, go and share it with the rest of the world.
It's a lot like decorating a christmas tree.
In reality though, if you tell somebody you're an atheist, most people will immediately assume that you are a gnostic atheist (completely sure that there is no God). We may well be in the midst of a shift in the meaning of the term "atheist", so I guess it makes sense to distantiate oneself from atheism as an agnostic nowadays.
More on topic: Imho candy canes are an absolute must for decorating a christmas tree. :)
To me as a somewhat neutral observer it seemed as though Bisqwit didn't use any logical fallacies, as long as he starts from the premise that the Bible holds absolute truth. Also, Bisqwit's idea doesn't seem to be to do what's logically correct, but to empathize with God when "worshipping" Him, which I'd say makes perfect sense from a believer's point of view.
If you have the best of intentions, but still end up hurting the person you love then you are in fact doing something bad to them and it'd be good to stop. If that other person ends up loving you back, they might forgive you because by empathizing with you, they will realize it's not entirely your fault (though if you really love that person, shouldn't you always strive to know what makes them happy and what doesn't and not just stop caring as long as you know you have good intentions? seems somewhat egocentric in this context) and be able to forgive you based on that. But if you just go on like before, it'd be a very unequal relationship and any human person will probably stop giving you second chances at some point. God doesn't, but I guess any believer should still care for what makes God happy and what doesn't, just as in every other healthy relationship.
To me at least, Bisqwit's point of view makes perfect sense.
Whether the premise is wrong is an entirely different question though.
So in other words, the first thing you'd do in a real-life TAS is train to optimize the process of TASing? ;)
1) Gather knowledge by abusing save states.
2) Learn useful skills in a very short time using frame advance.
3) Fooling around, setting myself arbitrary goals.
In fact, that's the way I plan to live my actual life anyway, except that those steps are a lot more overlapping (and minus the TASing part). I'll probably never get done with 1 and 2 though.. Seems like I'll have to delay step 3 to my next incarnation again. Meh. ^^
If I was the architect, I'd make frame advance in real life work neither based on arbitrary time units (0.01 seconds has been proposed) nor in Planck time, but exactly as it is with TASing on an emulator: always advance to the next moment where new input is accepted. This just happens to coincide with the rate at which the screen updates for most emulators/games.
In real life the time between moments where new input gets accepted would probably be variable. I don't know how the human brain exactly works, but the time span before new conscious input gets accepted would probably at least depend on the nature of your last command, your physical shape and on the number and nature of subconscious tasks that are running at any given moment in time. Also, it seems like chains of commands that are often repeated get stored as subcoscious routines (auto-generated input macros? :D). When calling them, you don't have to execute each step manually or wait till the "act" has finished, but get additional input frames during the execution.
Hasn't it been agreed that save file corruption always warrants its own category?
This is just an improvement to the fastest any% run, as I see it, not some strange new arbitrarily made-up category.
Ah, and also, I put the route in the submission since some people have been confused ;)
Ah, I see. ^^
Seems I had already forgotten how that ZZAZZ glitch works.
Yes vote in any case.
I agree that this is the most boring category of Pokémon runs to watch though because of the weird pacing.
We have memory corruption on Yellow, a version specific glitch for the Japanese Green version that both end the game pretty quickly and a slower 100% run in the making.
With that in mind, I am kind of torn on whether a new glitchless any% should obsolete this once there's also a published 100% run (very likely to get finished before glitchless any%). But since the trainer fly glitch, that is for now exclusive to this run, will be used in the 100% run a lot, the phases of "standard" trainer battles would overlap with the glitchless any% and the way of finally beating the game is very similar to the Yellow version, I guess one could argue that this run wouldn't have enough exclusive content to warrant its category under those circumstances.
As long as there's no glitchless any%, I absolutely don't see any reason why this shouldn't be published though.
You wouldn't be able to rewind to build up knowledge, because once you DID rewind you'd lose that knowledge.
Imagine you're a character in an RPG. You can't just grind, then go back 40 hours, and still have all your experience.
My conscious mind has to be nested outside of reality and I must be able to keep knowledge when rewinding or else you couldn't really call it "having TAS tools in real life". If rewinding made me lose all knowledge, I wouldn't even notice I had done a rewind and thus act in exactly the same way as before. Frame advance would also be useless because the chemicals in my brain would also be slowed down and thus it wouldn't make any difference at all. With both rewinding and slow-downs being useless, how could you call that "having TAS tools in real life"?
So of course if you had TAS tools in real life, you'd have to also be able to conserve knowledge during rewinds. It's an essential part of TASing.
For learning instruments, for example, of course it'd be more difficult because you'd also need to train your physical body for that. I see that as an analogy to grinding exp. All mental experience about the enemies' weaknesses and battle strategies or of the theoretical knowledge required to play an instrument gets conserved in both cases.
I'd do everything. I'd probably spend my first few years constantly rewinding the same day, reading some whole libraries. Then I'd learn to play lots of instruments. All before the end of the year. Maybe become a progamer, maybe become a superstar, maybe win the WSOP, maybe win the lottery just for fun. Stuff like that. ;)
For real? Fuck!
I didn't kow him well, but I like people with high ambitions.
When they die young it's the worst.
He'll leave a giant hole in the community.
:(
Yea, I intended to remove it at some point anyway.
I'll see if I can still improve my code and then I hope to have every stage mapped out by this Wednesday.
Then, looking at those giant maps, I'll hopefully finally be able to come up with a route. Yay.
Starting to look pretty decent now. :D
This is surely going to help an awful lot with the route planning.
*breaks the page*
Edit:*fixes the page*
[URL=http://www.abload.de/img/atlas7ue5.png]Map of stage 1[/URL]
Edit: This was originally posted in the Majora's Mask thread in reply to abeshi hexing in part of Grunz's WIPs into a full game TAS that he published on nicovideo. Got moved to here by the mods. Am also editing in quotes.
abeshi wrote:
Hi there, I will have to tell you some.
First of all, I'm really sorry for giving annoyance.
The video I made was very trifling rubbish, I think.
It was also foolish that I had made this without much thought.
I made it to upload to nicovideo for fun at all, and I referred to the greater part of existing video, it is fact.
As a result, however, this became just unskilled thing.
I was impolite to hurt every TASer's feelings and prides.
I didn't have right to make TAS, but I have done due to my foolishness.
Of course I have no intention to submit this, and I hope for forgetting me and my video.
Sorry for my poor writing but I am a novice English learner.
I think taking somebody else's input without asking them for permission, hexing part of it into a TAS, then publicly uploading that TAS to nicovideo/youtube goes very much against the rules of good behavior. So it's a good thing he has apologized, if you ask me.
adelikat wrote:
abeshi wrote:
I didn't have right to make TAS, but I have done due to my foolishness.
I hope the bullshit attitudes in this thread didn't cause you to think this. Of course you have a right to make the TAS!
I made it to upload to nicovideo for fun at all
EXACTLY. It is funny how bent out of shape people are getting over a video made for fun, on another site.
In Japanese culture being overly apologetic is a way of displaying respect to the opposite party. So you shouldn't take his words too literally in this case. "I had no right to create such a pathetic run" really just translates to something like "I'm awfully sorry, I didn't give much thought to it."
Big update to my LUA script for this game.
Polished the code (a bit) and enhanced it with game trainer functionality.
The game trainier menu will appear if you move your mouse to the middle-upper left of the screen. I think it's pretty cute. I also added hotkeys for weird combinations of directional input (uses buttons of controller in port 2) because my laptop hates it if I try to hold down multiple buttons at once.
Edit: Removed code. (not up-to-date anymore)
Edit: Added map-making capabilities to my script. Produced this neat little map of stage one with it.
Todo: Figure out a neat way how to get the spawning points of the enemies onto that map.
Edit: [URL=http://www.abload.de/img/level_one_monsters5f58.png]ALMOST[/URL] ;)
Is there a place where TASers keep record on what the current best times for each star are? Last time I checked, there was such a page on an external forum, but it never seemed to be up to date. Isn't it possible to abuse this site's wiki pages for that porpuse? I think that would make sense as it seems that most of the new records get posted in this thread at some point in time anyway.
My hope is that being able to view all the current best times one after another in a very convinient way would make the wait for the final run a lot easier. I am always interested in new SM64 improvements and try to keep always up to date with them by monitoring this thread. It may be due to that that I'm personally not particularly looking forward to a finished run, as I'd have seen most of the strategies anyway already. I think having a neat wiki-page where one could browse through the current best times would minimize complaints and maybe eliminate that very strange idea that somebody "finally" needs to do a suboptimal 120 stars TAS "now".
I know I wouldn't be very motivated to do that, especially if I knew there's a team of Japanese TASers trying to produce such a run at the same time. It would just amount to a lot of work with very little reward.
I don't see a problem, but just omitting the "Platform TAS of the year" award for whichever platform the "TAS of the year" is on would maybe be the most convenient way to fix it.
