exogen

Well, not to my knowledge, but then again I am not a big Penrose guy either so I would debate you on his merits. I have his book but haven't looked into him any further than that. I'm just not so sure if your dismissal of him is warrented but w/e. In any event, its not about him as it is about his theory. A monkey could propose the next best physics there, and it would have no barring on the theories accuracy would it? I definitely agree with you that explanations are changing constantly in science. But, It's not really a matter of ignorance in some way of "how it works." As you said, we know in science that we know very little of how things "work." But how things work and what things are, are very different, and they are not the same at all. To say it another way, you can talk about what how something happens, without talking about what than something is, in the onoltogical sense. Science is very, very good, and probably the best method we have, of figuring out what are the regularities (if there be any ultimately) within our interactive field of experience. Notice how I don't commit myself to any subjective-object dualism there. Finding the regularities is great, and we find those regularities via the predictive value of theoretical models. The models are merely tools to get us those predictive regularities and act as a logical context to give us a coherent framework that we can work off of, that we call "explanation." But here "explanation" necessarily means, that logical tool which gives us a basis for predictive regularities within the field of our experience. There is nothing in that commits us ever to an ontology. It really doesn't even matter if you think things are fundamentally made of "ehdebdnednq" whatever that means. It’s just a place-holder for your model's predictive value. Basically, we can have our models without any ontology because science doesn't depend, commit to, or have anything to do with, ontology. Look at OOR for a sec. Now I know you don't buy that model, but it's ok cause I don't either. The theory purports to explain consciousness as being a wave function collapse, orchestrated in the cytoskeliton of cells, or something like that right? The quantum computation that this structure gives rise to, when coupled with the entire structure of the brain and nervous system as a whole, gives rise to the complex consciousness we experience. But notice, how he uses OOR gets around the hard problem. You see, what makes his theory any diferent than any other theory in terms of the hard problem? Sure he is taking the consciousness issue down to a more "fundimental level" but that the hard problem can be applied at any level really, because it's not about levels. Hameroff says in that lecture that at the subatomic level (or maybe Plank level, I forget) there is consciousness or "proto-consciousness." That's how he get's around the problem. Then he goes on to explain how the combination of all these structures, which have proto-consciousness, do what they do. Notice the workings, that is the real meat and potatoes of OOR don't solve the hard problem anymore than any other current theory does. It just takes things down a level. He get's around the problem by slipping in a form of pan psychism. So conscious or proto-conscious properties exist at some level of matter. Notice both "matter" and these "conscious properties," are, in the context of the hard problem, ontological assertions, that really function independently of the predictive regularities of the theory. What OOR is actually doing, is introducing a set of ontological assumptions to avoid the hard problem; first that there exists a stuff called matter which is some sort of objective substance, but also adding that there are these phenomenal properties as well being somehow part of matter. So he has a 3d objective ontological structure and the beginings of a phenomenal ontology all in one. That's panschychism, or maybe property dualism, either way its onotology. The complex description of cytoskelitons and quantum computation is all nice, but the real "explanation" of consciousness is really just to give a seprate phenomenological account, which is claimed to exist at the most fundimental level of matter (whatever that is). we can just strip the ontological assumptions away, and we will still have OOR as a theory in terms of a correlate to consciousness, and have our predictive regularities without any need or talk of ontology.

TM, I don't know if its about the polygon count. Like in every AC game to sate aside from ACV, I can see the AC against the baground while movement is happening, even at a distance, so up close its easy to track and distinguish which way the AC is. In ACV, it becomes alot harder, and I am not the only one to have this problem. I do not have bad eyes btw, I don't need classes.

You know, I don’t know too much about the guy in all honestly aside from what I have seen from him in videos. I don't subscribe to OOR, or any of these neuroscientific theories as far as an explanation of phenomenal experience goes. This much you already know. If think it is an interesting argument for the neuronal correlate to consciousness though, which is entirely different. OOR is based on Roger Penrose's theories, a physicist who can't be said to be a quack. He wrote the emperor’s new mind (a book I own btw) and is at Oxford. In any event what we are really talking about isn't an explanation of consciousness. What does it even mean to say that consciousness, and ultimately all phenomenal properties are the same as a wave function collapse? Sounds like a panpsychism in disguise. I think the model is interesting though insofar as it attempts to get around the, we’ll say, so far (to be generous), insurmountable hurdle materialism faces in overcoming its ontological shortcomings in the domain of theory of mind. Neuroscience should stick to what it does best, being a science, explain predictively, what we should expect, and leave the ontology out of it.

Yo, I ain't dissing DS, but that doesn't mean that the engine belongs in another franchise. The AC's in ACV don't stand out, that's lame son!!

PD: Specifically I was told that the dudes at FROMSOFT took the graphics engine and just ported it to ACV. So yeah, its not DS, but its not impossible to port engines is it? I mean they do it all the time in games. I'm saying I just never heard it from any offical sources. As for "they" the reason I refer to them as that is because I forget the exact people who told me this but it was more than one person. Noob/Nob, I know your TV can make a diference, but I know quit a few heads that can't see shit in that game.

Dunno if you have heard this theory before Roar. Stuart Hammeroff presenting the theory of consciousness as quantum processing in the cytoskeleton of the cell.

Well I'm going off what I was told by more than one souce. Its possible all of them are misinformed, but where is the confirmation either way? All I know is. in ACV i can't see a damn thing and they fucked the graphic engine up big time. The AC's are not distinct from the environment which has been a trait of any AC game since the begining. What we have here is fromsoft not following a checklist. But from the videos, VD looks like you can see again, at least better than you could in ACV.

I will be glad to actually be able to see something in VD though, If think they actually took out that retarded Demon Souls engine. Why they would want to go and put an engine like that in an AC game is baffaling to me.

That's entirely possible PD. Only time will tell.

PD: idk man but that eye looks psychadelic. Mark, VD will come and go for the same reason ACV and FA did. When FROMSOFT makes a strong game finally, people will play long term. The proof is in the pudding.

No PD, I am saying vd and vd ARE the same....get it?

They don't put wood in cars though.

lol I mean VD as in virdict day

TM, I didn't see those bamboo sticks or talking about? Or do you mean the part that they held? I don't think those where bamboo, but just for decoration. I doubt they would be using bammboo, but just as we have "wood grain" dahses on cars that aren't real wood, maybe the Will smith's cutlas had "bamboo trim" or some shit like that. Decorative purposes. That Cutlas looked like some nano blade shit.

Maybe, if they made an AC for Ps4 it had better be better than venereal disease.

Well yeah it flopped, but the reasons people sometimes dislike movies are foolish. Like some movies genuinely suck for very good reasons like Alien Vs. Preditor: reqeium. That was the dumbest most insulting movie to the series ever.

Yeah AC1 had the best story. Although AC2 was sort of cool with the whole mission to mars thing and also the ancient aliens distorder units and all that. Nineball was a beast. Yo the first time it was myself and one of my boys. Just trying to make it up those cubes for the first time was hard as hell. Then trying to face two Nineballs was nuts. "stop...come no further."

Yeah they started to go into a DBZ mode where they have like 5 episodes that in the actual timeline only last 5 minutes.

lol. Yo but I don't think I even seen him in after earth. Maybe he has changed!!!

Yo episode 10 just came out. http://www.animehere.com/shingeki-no-kyojin-episode-10.html

Nas says its "ether." He is using the word diferent from the other use which is "aether." The latter is the metaphysical sort of definition, the former is chemical. Edit: I want to submit to you that there is no-thing really that exists. The reason science or any type or observation, and the reason why no definitions are ever anaylitically accurate or without the above problem; the reason why we can only ever know what things do (how they behave) and never what they are, is because nothing really exists. Rather things are in process, that is they are becoming but never being. Literally there is nothing that exists if by existence you mean a "thing" or things or substance of some kind that endures through time. Edit: the sub-text of this video I think encapsulates my viewpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o6Qkj606xI

I didn't even know it was a Shyamalan flick untill the credits at the end. I must have missed it in the opening. But seriously though, judge the movie on its own mirrits. I liked it.

Oh, I don't know how to use that fetature, let alone that it existed. I saw Oblivion as well. It was entertaining. Nice twist at the end. The only criticism I had for Oblivion was how he had memory if he is a clone. They always do that in movies where they give the clone memories of it's first incarnation. Genetics doesn't perserve individual memory, so the story makes no sense on that ground. But who knows, maybe somehow the Tet put those memories in all it's clones of Tom Cruise in order to give him that false history and make him part of a more "effective team." The Tet could have not known enough about human culture so it just replicated one man's viewpoint. Overall not bad. Another movie I saw was Now You See Me. This one was a cool concept and very entertaining. I really can't shoot this one down in any way, except maybe at the end it's a bit of a mystery but that is also a cool thing as well.

I am a big cinima buff. I go to the movies alot. Rather than make a thread for so many new movies i'm just going to make one where I talk about whatever movies I just saw and get the take of anyone who saw them as well. I just saw After Earth last night. I heard this got bad reviews, but the criticism's I heard were stupid. People said that will smith wasn't in the movie enough. Apparently, they were "lead" to believe that Will Smith would play an action roll, as opposed to his son. I think this criticism overlooks how good of a story it was. If these were no name actors what would become of that criticism? But that isn't the only ground on which the movie was attacked. read this. http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/ One of the things said in that brief article was: "The effects are second-hand stuff from Alien and Star Trek, spliced with Shyamalan's regular homilies on Personal Growth. "Fear is a choice," asserts Big Chief Smith. Well, actually it's an instinct, but let's not get into that or we'd be here all day – approximately as long as this movie seems to last." First off, the special effects weren't that bad. This criticism of fear being an instinct is the dumbest thing ever, because that point was actually made that it primarily an instinct, but what they meant in the movie was that when you become aware of that instinct the truth becomes that you HAVE a choice to follow it or not, hence it's a choice. No need for long winded explanations to clarify that. The criticism I had was this. Warning spoiler in the next sentence. There is a part where Kitai (Jaden Smith's character) is saved from a frozen tempature by a creature (I wont say which one) which was a bit far fetched to me, but it is possible for some bizzard reason and stranger things have happened. The unlikeliness and unecessary nature of that seen make me think it is was kind of dumb to put that in the movie, but it wasn't deal breaking. Also, some of the biological anomolies in the film made me wonder. Earth seemed very alien in many regards. But the explanation for this was only hinted at so speculation can abound. There wasn't any logical inconcistency exactly so I can't fault it so much, but it might be a point where people will say it was unbelievable. IF though we suspend judgement and for lack of an explanation, it was fine. Overall I think the story was good, and I wouldn't give it a 10 out of 10 but it was damn good nonetheless.

I had both versions of ACV, but with the lag when it came to playing with JP it wasn't worth it. Ever since they region locked the games the haven't tried to make the netcode work as well it seems.