good points

You’re saying that “A person that agrees with Richard Hanley is not in his right mind because someone would have to be not right-of-mind to agree with such a claim.”

I apologize for not being clear. It was Dr. Hanley's example (as an atheist) that morality must be and indeed is objective, through that illistration. Meaning, he presented that proposition to the lecture hall and asked if anyone can think of any case that would justify the physical torture of babies for the sole purpose of sexual arousal.

It is science, not faith, that proved this notion wrong. Thank you for reinforcing my argument. In fact, it was naïve anthropocentric and geocentric biased faith that produced this notion in the first place. (Much like the anthropocentric notion that we alone have free will, and that humans are the only beings deserving of moral consideration).

Everyone thought that Newton's laws of motion were infallible, and then came Einstein. Heck, if string theory is proven then that throws Einstein out the window too. When does the madness end? Do we really know anything at all?

So basically, through faith, someone believes that the righteous will live by faith. Argumentation, anyone?

I don't know if it should be that circular. It is simply that faith is faith, regardless of how many iterations are expounded. "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed" (Matthew 17:20) is powerful enough to move mountains. I mean, I don't want to make this a matter of semantics, but how I have defined faith is how I am defining faith. And regardless of how we define faith (similar to love), it is undeniably something that is experienced universally, despite religious affiliation. Now in the gospel of Matthew, the quantity of faith is specifically deemphasized. It is not how deep (in iterations or amount) your faith runs, but just a matter of having it or not.

The responder defines faith for us, but never says why faith based on a particular book should be trusted any more than say, my earlier post (or the work of someone like Richard Hanley).

I enjoy this discussion very much. I wish I could disclose my own personal account of faith, but in the end, it is indeed personal. Maybe we can talk about it sometime :)

Consciousness? Show me where it is, and what makes it different from non-consciousness such that it can participate in ontological spectrums that are distinctly separate from non-conscious ones.

Wow, due to tha fact that I have not thought that deeply about epistemology, I give you that for my argument (on the idea of percieved will) to stand, one must be a dualist. I'll leave the legitimacy of dualism for another day's discussion.

Good points!

existential skeptic

“Find me a right-of-mind person who agrees and if there exists none, then that is one aspect of objective morality.”
This is an example of the ‘democratic theory of truth.’ If we all believe it, it must be true. There is a problem in your criteria because if you did find a person who agreed, you would declare him to be outside the population of people you’d say are “right-of-mind,” thereby circularly justifying your claim. You’re saying that “A person that agrees with Richard Hanley is not in his right mind because someone would have to be not right-of-mind to agree with such a claim.”
A more fundamental problem with this assertion is that democratic theories of morality and epistemology are wholly subjective and the polar opposite of objective. Objective morality could exist (or not exist) even though no one believes in it. Objective morality might fail to exist even if we all believe in it (and most of us do, because it is evolutionarily adaptive to believe in such things).


“Remember back when the world was flat? Reality is far bigger than our meager senses can perceive accurately.”
It is science, not faith, that proved this notion wrong. Thank you for reinforcing my argument. In fact, it was naïve anthropocentric and geocentric biased faith that produced this notion in the first place. (Much like the anthropocentric notion that we alone have free will, and that humans are the only beings deserving of moral consideration).


“It is appropriate that through (religiously unspecified) faith (although clearly, the author is closely tied with the judao-christian faith) a scholar must believe what he/or she wants to do in research is not of "selfish ambition or van conceit," (Philippians 2:3) but of righteousness, based off of the premise that, "the righteous will live by faith."
Abstracts to (without parentheses):
It is appropriate that through faith, a scholar must believe what he/or she wants to do in research is (not of "selfish ambition or van conceit," but of righteousness,) based off of the premise that, "the righteous will live by faith."

So basically, through faith, someone believes that the righteous will live by faith. Argumentation, anyone?

The responder defines faith for us, but never says why faith based on a particular book should be trusted any more than say, my earlier post (or the work of someone like Richard Hanley).

“relative to our perception of self, we do have free will which can function with that of divine will. These aspects of will can coexist on different iterations of consciousness.”
“our perception of self” ?? whose perception? Who is to say that the ‘self’ exists? A critical look at the common perception of the self can be provided by Kant and Buddha.

Consciousness? Show me where it is, and what makes it different from non-consciousness such that it can participate in ontological spectrums that are distinctly separate from non-conscious ones.

It seems that the responder’s response to my argument against the coexistence of agent free will and theological free will essentially boils down to… “no, you’re wrong, because I believe it is so, and so do a lot of other people.” At this point I might do us all a favor by giving a reality check: just because you quote someone famous or lovable, the quote does not necessarily reflect a true statement.

The reference to the earlier post invites me to criticize said post for confusing epistemic justification with moral justification. Even if there could be a logical fallacy in the ‘no absolute truth’ perspective, that fallacy cannot be extended to the argument against absolute morality because each is a qualitatively different matter. Scientists can (and do) explain the illusion of objective morality by materialist, non-theological means. It brings me to my concluding point.

Belief in objective morality requires that one be a dualist. This means that in order to believe in objective morality, you must first believe that there is something that exists outside the physical entities of which we are composed and with which we interact. This outside constituent of existence is where we would find ideals such as morality, truth, etc. These cannot be found in the realm of physically measurable entities because those entities are the ones which are governed by deterministic physical laws (if one believes that these physical components are all that there is in the universe, then he would be a materialist). Determinism precludes free will, which precludes moral responsibility (determinism is not necessary, but sufficient for precluding moral responsibility). Something non-physical must enter the system in order for there to be any hope for objective morality. Science does not deal with the non-physical because it can be neither measured (proven) nor disproved. Science deals with things that can be reduced to physical constituents (such as the biological basis for apparently non-physical things such as emotions and thoughts). Objective morality thus cannot enter the arena of scientific investigation. Subjective morality (or what might more appropriately be called ‘adaptive behavior motivation’) is instead the motivation for “moral” decisions in science and in social interaction.

video games are the devil, w00t!

"Games 'prime brain for violence'
Playing a video game triggers the same violent responses in the brain as actual aggression, researchers claim."

first off, playing a video game does not trigger the same violent responses in the brain as actual aggression-- playing a VIOLENT video game triggers violent responses. i dont need a phd to figure that one out.

furthermore, i dont understand how this is even worth writing about. this headline should be right next to the one that says, "Sad movies make people cry."

wow, im disapointed in BBC.

video games will cure cancer someday

areas of study such as music, art, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, history, and many many more do not deserve monetary support b/c too many people in the world are dying of aids. we should all live as emotionless and cultureless robots, b/c dying is bad.

in any case, i am happy that i have found something to investigate and fight for, something that i enjoy and am very passionate about, something that will indeed contribute towards the larger society. i would hate to be the type of person, who does the same boring thing everyday, which is what other people tell them to do. then again some people are born to be cogs and others pioneers. it just sucks for those who wake up one middle-aged day and realize they haven't been really living for anything that mattered to them.

just wait and see. give me 5-10 years and video games, or interactive storytelling as it will be called, will be a large force in society. i have faith that i am working towards a cure for a disease much more infectious than aids and entirely more terminal than cancer, my research is towards curing apathy.

I'm assuming...the christian bible.

>>"This assumes that the sun rising tomorrow is sufficient basis for carrying on with the status quo. The sun would still rise tomorrow if I decided to commit mass crimes against humanity (and club baby harp seals!), but I would not use the sun as justification for those actions."

I disagree with this interpretation of the authors title. I believe it is an old saying that is used to bring people into perspective about their own lives, that the probability of the things we do affecting the world going on the next day is fairy small. This is, of course, the summation of all the things that have ever been done since the existance of humans of every human. How many people out of those who have ever lived, actually needed to be alive in order for the sun to rise the next day?

From the original post, "The following essay will argue that the sun will still rise tomorrow, despite whether or not you contribute anything towards anything,"

This implication is saying that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if you do nothing to affect anything. Although, there may be scenerious to be contructed to disprove this (and it is not to say that no one has ever saved the world before, b/c how are to know?), but straight-forwardly, the author was merely saying that if we all died today, the sun (most likely) will still rise tomorrow. (As far as statistical truth, there is no reason for it to not rise, if we were all dead.)

>>“righteous will live by faith,” without telling us what righteous means in this context.

Perhaps a poor construction of the essay itself, however, the author defines both faith and righteous people in the essay.

"As righteous people, they are, however, living for justice and morality,"

This coincidentally also coincides with the merriam-webster definition 2a: "morally right or justifiable" and 2b: "arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality."

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Hebrews 11:1

It is appropriate that through (religiously unspecified) faith (although clearly, the author is closely tied with the judao-christian faith) a scholar must believe what he/or she wants to do in research is not of "selfish ambition or van conceit," (Philippians 2:3) but of righteousness, based off of the premise that, "the righteous will live by faith." (Galatians 3:11)

>>"Science is a discipline which concerns itself with reason and empirical evidence to ensure validity."

And what is the ontology of science? Science is something we created to be able to systematically predict the world and its functionalities as precisely as possible. It is, at most, a pseudo-truth, a statistical truth. Every scientific theory is valid until proven wrong. Remember back when the world was flat? Reality is far bigger than our meager senses can percieve accurately.

>>"It depends on free will and theological will, which are mutually exclusive."

This is an entirely different discussion. In the authors defense, I'd like to say that relative to our perception of self, we do have free will which can function with that of divine will. These aspects of will can coexist on different iterations of conciousness. I believe it was C S. Lewis that used as example of a story writer, who writes half of a protagonist's adventure, puts down the book to rest, and then completes the story the next day. As far as the conciousness of the character (or the reader's perception of the character, if the reader should read straight through), it is one continuous line of events and experiences to break in the story, as the author did on his/her higher iteration of conciousness.

>>"According to what moral law?"

I'm assuming...the christian bible.

This matters to the world. Hence, our author’s conclusion is baseless.

I think the author was trying to say that if you are living for yourself, you might as well be dead. Similar to the late Martin Luther King Jr. who said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live." If you live for yourself, then you have 2 objectives: #1 is to live, #2 is to live in self gratification. In that case, you really aren't living at all, b/c #1 "you aren't as important as you think you are" and #2 the world is just that much bigger than you.

>>unprovavble notions of objective morality

In an example that campus renouned athiest, Professor Richard Hanley of the philosophy department gave: It is not morally wrong to physically harm and torture babies for the sole intentions of sexual arousal. Find me a right-of-mind person who agrees and if there exists none, then that is one aspect of objective morality.

I shall now refer the responder to an older post...

http://forum.asiaco.com/cgi-bin/forum/forum.cgi?c=msg&fid=udmcnair&mid=71

existential skeptic

This is one of the more naïve and pejorative essays I’ve read. First I would like to comment on the overarching theme of the paper (“the sun will still rise tomorrow”). This assumes that the sun rising tomorrow is sufficient basis for carrying on with the status quo. The sun would still rise tomorrow if I decided to commit mass crimes against humanity (and club baby harp seals!), but I would not use the sun as justification for those actions.
Our author asserts that the “righteous will live by faith,” without telling us what righteous means in this context. “To live by faith” is a vague and loaded concept. I could have faith in something that is wrong. That there are several large pluralities of people who live their lives by mutually exclusive faiths (example: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, I Ching), signals that at least one, if not all of them, are wrong. Thus, our author’s definition of righteousness is logically inconsistent.

“Faith is all that should concern us” is a sentence that does not speak to science. Science is a discipline which concerns itself with reason and empirical evidence to ensure validity. Faith has nothing to offer in the way of validity. To the contrary, our author defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is the opposite of science, and the opposite of reason by and large. If I am conducting a study that tests the efficacy of a medicine on a disease, should I have faith that it will work, without testing whether or not is actually does? After all, I hope that it will work. When we see no evidence that our test hypothesis is correct, should be believe it anyway? After all, we should be certain of what we do not see. These avenues lead to disaster.

"If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."

Here, we dive straight into the logical fallacy of the theological justification for free will. If indeed there was some powerful being with a will, he must know the actions of all of his creations, lest his omnipotence is compromised. Thus, he must know the one possible future. This flies against the concept of individual free will, which calls for more than one possible future. Our author says “Unfortunately, with our own free will, we are not obliged to walk a righteous route and have the freedom to be as selfish as we’d please.” Therein lies the fallacy of the argument. It depends on free will and theological will, which are mutually exclusive.
So we have two choices. We 1) do not have free will, or 2) do have free will. In 1), there could be no more moral responsibility ascribed to humans as there is to rocks and sand, for each is just as much a cause of their actions as humans. In 2), there exists no possibility of an omniscient theological entity which could foresee the actions of all living beings. (regarding the argument from quantum mechanics, which attempts to call upon the existence of unforeseeable random events at the particle level, randomness does not equal free will).

“All such boasting is evil.”

According to what moral law?

“if it is ourselves that we are trying to gratify, then it’s not like we’d have mattered to the world anyhow.”

If the president of the united states decided ( in order to gratify his ego) to engage in heavy warfare that escalates to nuclear destruction of a portion of the world, it will have “mattered” to the world. Suppose it was not warfare. Suppose it was merely Bob’s decision to make money to gratify himself. He invents a super efficient fuel cell that becomes the trade standard for all engine-operated vehicles. This matters to the world. Hence, our author’s conclusion is baseless.

The perspective on morality and “good & evil” that actually includes evidence and a theory is the argument for the selection of these traits by socio-evolutionary selection. I suggest readings by Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Each of these authors are true scientists who do not appeal to fantasy or unprovavble notions of objective morality. Additionally, there is an entire branch of psychology (behavioral psychology) whose foundational ground is that all human behavior (and all animal behavior) can be reduced to a series of stimuli and responses. This extends into the physiological and biological sciences, which in turn depend on the chemical sciences, which reduces ultimately to physics. Physical laws determine the action of all particles in our universe, and we are comprised of those particles. Free will? Where does that get added into the mix. Objective morality? point to it. Righteousness? Stop trying to fool yourself, because you aren’t fooling me.

the sun will still rise tomorrow

Research is the exploration of knowledge. This could be in the midst of old knowledge or at the frontier towards new. The question is whether or not research need contribute towards knowledge such that society benefits. The following essay will argue that the sun will still rise tomorrow, despite whether or not you contribute anything towards anything,

The point of this paragraph is to argue that you are not as important as you think you are. The following three points will explain why scholars and researchers need not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society, nor should they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem. Firstly, "the righteous will live by faith." Unfortunately, with our own free will, we are not obliged to walk a righteous route and have the freedom to be as selfish as we’d please. This could lead scholars and researchers toward monetary objectives and/or objectives of prestige and recognition; video games, for instance, is widely driven by profit and largely recognized through pop-culture and the media. As righteous people, they are, however, living for justice and morality, regardless of how much they’ll fall short. Leading me to my next point, “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.“ In other words, to be righteous is to live by faith, which means nothing if it is not accompanied by action. Finally, whether you choose to be a selfish or righteous scholar, the world will continue to spin and the sun will still rise tomorrow. The above paragraph argued that it is not the contribution that deserves the attention, rather it is the faith of a person in doing what they believe is righteous, actions that are believed to be an individual’s calling (and individual’s passion) allied with righteousness; the connection of this point to my thesis is that it is neither our contribution that matters nor our own passions (whether selfish or not), because in the end it is a matter of faith which may or may not amount to anything apparent, tangible, or gratifying. “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

In conclusion, we are not driven by our contributions, nor our passions; instead, faith is all that should concern us, as artists, scientists, athletes, scholars, researchers, and video game developers. For if it is righteousness that we live for, then we must have living faith which is accompanied by actions (actions of research, engineering, painting, charity, teaching, etc.), but if it is ourselves that we are trying to gratify, then it’s not like we’d have mattered to the world anyhow.

“Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."

they dont need your dirty money

The uneven distribution of wealth has left many nations in desolate poverty while others in wasteful abundance. Wealthy nations have been giving aide to the developing nations to reconcile this imbalance, yet poverty is still prevalent on the national level today. Is there more that rich countries can do to upgrade the living conditions in the rest of the world? The following essay will argue that this macro, international issue can only be absolved through micro, individual means. This is fundamentally recollected as the teaching: "the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

The point of this paragraph is to argue that the effects of poverty draw concern on the individual and personal level: the individually orphaned children, the individually widowed, the individually sick, although collectively, they may embody a poor nation; therefore, the solution is individual, personal, and not worth the effort in leaping through the needless hoops of institutionalization. The following 3 reasons will explain why it is not a mere matter of surrendering resources to where it is lacked. Firstly, as long as the hearts of people remain corrupt, the institutions which these people comprised will be corrupt, and the monetary efforts will be debilitated. Secondly, charity is just a utility to be utilized toward expressing love (which is the manifestation of a well conditioned heart), and by itself, money is meaningless-- it holds no compassion, no emotion, and no sympathy. Lastly, it is not the system that should be using us to aid the suffering; rather it should be us utilizing the system to make that difference. The above paragraph argued that it is misleading to consider this a matter of money, for money, in itself, is part of the institutionalized hoop of economy; rather, it is about love. The connection of this point to my thesis is that it does not matter if collectively we are contributing good, if individually we aren’t any less selfish.

In conclusion, it is not to say that the institutionalized structure of government is needless to the world, because it can most effectively organize, encourage, and motivate the hearts of those being governed. However, as Paul said in 2 Corinthians, “each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion,” and as long as we keep distant and impersonal the sufferings of the collective individuals born into nations of poverty, nothing will change, b/c in the end, it is a matter of the heart. It is equally beneficial for the able to give and for the needy to recieve.

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

Jars of Clay

2 Corinthians 4
Treasures in Jars of Clay
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"[a]made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

7But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. 12So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.

13It is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken."[b]With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, 14because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence. 15All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.

16Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

Games 'prime brain for violence'

Games 'prime brain for violence'
The men studied all played violent games regularly
Playing a video game triggers the same violent responses in the brain as actual aggression, researchers claim.

A team from the University of Aachen, Germany, asked men to play a game which required them to kill terrorists in order to rescue hostages.

They found brain mapping scans showed the same kind of activity as when people imagine being violent themselves, New Scientist reports.

Game players' may be more "primed" for aggression, experts warn.


The instinct to punch someone on the nose is pretty basic
Professor Guy Cumberbatch, Communications Research Group

The study, presented to the Organisation for Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting in Toronto, Canada, follows on from other research which showed people who played violent computer games reported high levels of aggression and to have committed assaults and robberies.

The German team studied 13 men aged between 18 and 26, who played games for an average of two hours a day.

They asked the men to play a violent game while their brain activity was monitored using magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning.

The researchers monitored the game scene by scene, and watched how brain activity changed during violent interactions and calmer interludes.

It was found that, when violence was imminent, the cognitive - information processing - parts of the brain became more active.

Response patterns

During a fight in the game, parts of the brain which deal with emotion, including the amygdala and the anterior cingulate cortex, were shut down.

The same pattern has been seen in brain scans of people during acts of real aggression.

Dr Klaus Mathiak, who led the research, said since it was impossible to scan the brains of people involved in actual fights, this was the closest researchers could get to seeing what was happening in people's brains.

Dr Niels Birbaumer, from the University of Tubingen in Germany, suggested playing games regularly would strengthen certain circuits in the brain, and a regular player faced with a real life violent situation may be more likely to react aggressively.


The instinct to punch someone on the nose is pretty basic. I don't think it is influenced in any way by playing these games
Dr Guy Cumberbatch
Communications Research Group

But Jeffrey Fagan, a violence expert from Columbia University in New York, said the link between the brain and violence was complex.

He said: "The frontal lobe functions associated with violence have more to do with restraint than the arousal to action".

And Dr Guy Cumberbatch, head of the independent Communications Research Group in the UK, said: "If the findings in this study were the same as when people responded to imaginary situations, why is it any different to seeing violence in films or at the theatre?

"The problem is, it's very much a witch-hunt in relation to video games."

He added: "The instinct to punch someone on the nose is pretty basic. I don't think it is influenced in any way by playing these games."

video games and education notes

Hi Sherol,

I read your notes on video games and education. I'm sure I don't have
the whole picture since I wasn't present for the presentation, but I
think I have the general idea you were trying to convey.

While I agree with some of what you said, such as education being in
"competition with entertainment for the attention of youth", and how
education sticks "to traditional approaches on teaching, while
technology is pushing for entertainment to be evermore stimulating."

But regarding your conclusion, "As our culture is ever-changing, so
should our attempts in educating the next generation to come. The
involvement of technology in the classroom should increase in
correlation with the rapid advancements in technological research.
Since education is resistant toward changing its approach, each
generation of students is growing more and more detached toward those
old-fashioned methods of teachings. Therefore, it is detrimental to
our society to overlook digital-entertainment as a means of
stimulating learning. Conclusively, we MUST integrate video-games into
the classroom and this will not occur unless more legitimate research
is conducted at Universities.",
I think that I either (1) don't understand how we would do this,
and/or (2) disagree that we -should- do this.

I recognize that entertainment changes and gets bigger, while
education continues to do the same thing, but I don't think that means
we have to change the education system.

I'm also not sure that making education entertaining would work or
improve it. For example, I don't think Medieval Philosophy -can- be
more entertaining than Kate Rogers teaches it, or that the differences
between private, protected, and public class methods -can- be taught
in a highly entertaining or highly stimulating fashion.

School is fun, but it isn't as exciting as watching Neo fight hundreds
of Agent Smith clones or as awesome as watching space marines blow
away dozens of aliens with automatic weapons (in the movie, Aliens).

Reading David Lewis's view of Modal Realism is exciting but it is very
different from watching the Terminator fire a shotgun at the T-1000,
or winning a clan match of Team Fortress or CTF.

Does what I've said make sense?
What are your thoughts on how we could incorporate excitement into
education in competitive ways to straight-up entertainment?

In Christ,
Mark Strobert

/*****************************/

the emphasis isn't on improving education; moreso on why is there such deprecation toward interactive media. I'm not out to cheapen education, rather embellish it. for the presentation, in particular, it was mainly emphasizing early high school and middle school education, so college would be a whole different ball game.

here is just one example (from university of alberta)

http://www.gamesconference.org/digra2005/viewabstract.php?id=226

my research is just on interactive storytelling as a media of its own (apart from video games, movies, and novels).

http://copland.udel.edu/~paladin/agents/

:: Research Goal :: (old)

:: Research Goal ::

The uncharted possibilities of interactive media would be a
fruitful area of research, because of the intellectual stigma that
overlooks video games. This under-explored idiom can potentially express
literary genius and cinematic masterpiece through the creative development
of AI and VR. The field of entertainment technology has created a means
to see the world in ways that real life restricted, not that actions did
not yield consequences, but that one could always go back and discover the
correct or alternative way of doing things. Quite skeptical of the
cooperation between academia and entertainment, I hope to tie these areas
together through scholarship.
Dr. Selmer Bringsjord, a specialist in the logico-mathematical and
philosophical foundations of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive
Science, asks, “is it possible to build dramatically compelling
interactive digital entertainment.” He describes it as a challenge to be
conquered by “seminal advances in the intersection of artificial
intelligence and narratives,” and more specifically the role of character
autonomy. Four primary aspects in character agents of interest are:
dialogue, mobility, personalization, and robust automata. Markku
Eskelinen, an independent scholar and experimental writer of ergodic
prose, interactive drama, critical essays and cybertext fiction, contrasts
with that of Dr. Bringsjord in his conclusion that “gaming mechanisms are
suffering from slow or even lethargic states of development, as they are
constantly and intentionally confused with narrative or dramatic cinematic
mechanisms.” The goal for this research is to observe the evolution of
these aspects within video games and uncover the correlation between
transient and intransient events from the player’s point of view.
The significance of this study is to answer the question, “how can
an interactive narrative intellectually and emotionally engage its user
while effectively communicating a series of volatile yet meaningful
events?” At one end of the spectrum, we’d find movies and theater; while
at the other, we’d find virtual playgrounds of finite causes with
corresponding effects. How do we optimize these two components such that
we have significant plot development in addition to personal sentiment of
the user? The scope of this research is within the artificial
intelligence of character development in virtual worlds; that is, the
dynamic personalities and emotioneering of these quasi-autonomous agents
and their importance towards non-ergodic story telling. It is the
purpose of this study to comparatively analyze the evolution of
intelligent agents and human-agent interactions within the field of
entertainment technology and its potential for constructing elaborate
worlds and inducing revolutionary experiences.

Thesis Outline

I. Introduction - Attention/Need
+ Negative Video Game Stereotypes
+ Academic Disinterest in Game Development
+ Problems with this Situation
+ Potential of Video Games
+ Interactive Storytelling

II. Current AI in Video Games
+ Academic AI v. Game AI
+ Methods of AI - Branching, Scripting, etc.
+ Spectrum of Interactive Storytelling (FF X -> Sims)
+ Superficial Fusion of Game and Story (GTA San Andreas)
+ A Decade of Technological Evolution (Final Fantasy)

III. Future
+ If Books Had Come After Video Games
+ The Next Industry - Future of Computer Science
+ Why Virtual Reality Can Be Better Than Real Life
+ When is it Too Much? (Point of Diminishing Returns)
+ What Next? (Multidimensional Storytelling)

IV. Conclusion

phd

Sherol,

It was great to meet you at AIIDE earlier this month. I hope your end
of the academic year is going (or went) well. I'm sorry that the
financial aid issue didn't work out with NCSU for admissions this
coming Fall -- I think you'd make a strong addition to the department
here. If you'd like to talk more in preparation for PhD applications
and research, please email me! If you end up making it to AAAI,
perhaps I'll see you there.

Stay in touch,

-M

abstract (revised)

abstract (new)
The Fusion of AI and Interactive Storytelling

As technology progresses to be evermore stimulating, the entertainment industry has maximized on profitting from these advances. Educators, however, expect to stick to traditional approaches on teaching and fighting for the attention of students through oppressing the draw of entertainment. I propose that, not only do entertainment and education need not be in conflict, but that education is doing an injustice towards the generations to come by clinging to obsolete methods of teaching. Education is losing the battle: it stands no chance against the power in technology that drives entertainment. In particular, this research examines the status quo of the technology, namely AI, and its literary potential in storytelling. I hypothesize that the role that artificial intelligence has within interactive storytelling is entirely superficial and that more resources and research need to be invested in taking advantage of this conflict. Allowing technology to be profit driven will continue to direct research toward what consumers will pay for, taking forgranted the potentials of using technology to direct our society towards innovation, values, and creativity; instead, allowing the audience to dictate what technology can do to be most pleasing and instantly gratifying. Interactive storytelling will pioneer a new means of motivating and uncovering great passions, but not without effectively developing artificial intelligence for such objectives.

the last will be first

Some people are handed opportunity after opportunity such that they can complacently coast through life. True passion was what evened those odds; unfortunately, the increased contrast between the advantageous and the not is merely the undeniable evidence of the decadence in motivation and the plague of apathy.

the man in the mirror

Western education has continually been trying to reach equilibrium in the availability of opportunities towards students of all background circumstances. The following essay will argue that institutions of higher education need NOT use a class-based, “need conscious” approach to their admissions process in order to satisfy this upset, rather it is up to individuals to motivate those people of all cultures and classes.

The point of this paragraph is to argue that education can only be obtained by the few who know how to achieve it, or are motivated enough to figure things out the hard way. Education is the systematic process of training and informing each generation to come, as to prepare them with the knowledge of their society. The level of education (which, formally, is the degree) is up to the individual to ultimately decide in assessing what path in life to take and to a more implicit sense, the amount that society finds to be acceptably minimal (or average). Not everyone can benefit from education: some people don’t need that much knowledge, and others are better off learning what they need to know by their own means. The disadvantages arise for those who do not have that choice, and are disabled whether by not knowing of their opportunities or just insurmountable expectations because of their identity. For the disadvantaged, what they need are not a set of training wheels, because they are going to be falling off their bikes again and again regardless, and not some elbow and knee pads, because those scars and scrapes aren’t what prevent success; rather, they need the motivation to get back on and ride, in spite of the discouraging circumstance that they maybe the only one who can’t seem to steadily tread among their peers. Pursuing education will always be easier for some, but people need to stop complaining about the injustice and start valuing their scrapes and scars. When I recollect those times I’ve fallen again and again, I’m so grateful that I finally am able to keep my balance enough to build significant momentum. I am headed towards the direction of my peers but with the scars of 10,000 failures and the motivation to get up 10,000 times. The above paragraph argued that the uncharted path of education among the disadvantaged is not to be rectified collectively by guilty conscious of the advantaged, but individually by those who feel compelled, whether it is upon consideration of their own scars or not, to ride along side the inexperienced and to get them back up when they fall; the connection of this point to my thesis is self explanatory.

“A landowner went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. "About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went. "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?' " 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.' "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.' "The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.' "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."”

In conclusion, until we make robots to collect all the garbage, wash all our toilets, and grow all our corn, institutions need not balance this upset—let society figure itself out, and that begins with the man in the mirror.

makeup

Sherol Chen – 2005 Senior Thesis Make-Up Assignment

Speaker: Patrick Kenny (kenny@ict.usc.edu)
Institute for creative technologies, University of Southern California
Game Developers Conference 2005, San Francisco, CA

1) What was the speaker's research question and how did he/she go about answering this question

The speaker presented his research on the question of how artificial intelligence can realistically model emotions within virtual humans and its applications in current military simulations. Following his introduction, he began to define the basics of a virtual human as it is defined by computer scientists, and directed the points of emphasis to coincide with his research. After establishing vocabulary, he then broke down the different characteristics of a virtual human by showing contrast between opposite ends of the spectrum, from dynamic to static (interactive to scripted). He called this the dimensions of a virtual human: (humans – characters), (realtime – non realtime), (autonomous – controllable), (advanced ai – scripted), (believable – realistic), (foreground – background). As an example, he showed the AI engine for Unreal Tournament, a first person shooter, and then shifts his talk toward the natural language processing field of study. He wraps up his presentation by showing the applications with a military training simulation called “Stability and Support Operations “ (SASO).

2) What question did you ask the speaker

After his presentation, I approached the speaker and asked him about a multidimensional approach to story-telling and narratives. I wanted to know how feasible he believed the concept of perspective switching could be in applications to the realistic emotional responses of virtual humans.

3) How did the speaker respond to your question.

He explained that this idea of multidimensional story-telling had the capabilities of expanding on the dimensions of time from the perspectives of characters and objects. The user would traverse a storyline from the perspective of an arbitrary protagonist, and afterwards, is able to switch perspectives to re-experience the exact same storyline (in regards to the procession of time), but having a significantly different experience. It is not the element of time that changes; instead, it is the protagonist that changes. So you, as the user, are always on the relatively “good” side; however, the current “good” guys could become the subsequent “bad” guys in the next run through the story. There has not been much research on this approach to story-telling, because the artificial intelligence of single-dimensional narratives is still incorporating up-to-date advancements in AI. Furthermore, as it is now, the only funding for this is from the government and is completely dedicated to the development of military simulations. Hopefully, this will carry over to non-linear story-telling in the near future.

DVD FFVII: Advent Children priced, detailed
Square Enix's anticipated CG movie to hit Japan at a standard DVD price; limited edition will include an original anime featurette, PS game.

TOKYO--Square Enix has released additional product details on the DVD version of Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children in Japan. To begin with, the game-inspired, computer-animated film's running time will be 97 minutes, and it will sport Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Aside from the movie, the Advent Children DVD also features a 30-minute documentary that outlines the original FFVII PlayStation game. In addition, it includes various trailers related to Final Fantasy, such as a 10-minute promotional video of the "Compilation of Final Fantasy VII." No new information on the Universal Media Disc version of the game was released.

The regular DVD edition of Advent Children will be priced at 4,800 yen ($45), standard for a DVD in Japan, and the first shipment of the DVD will come in a specially designed package. A limited-edition DVD will also be available for a hefty 29,500 yen ($275). The limited edition includes a toy figure of Cloud and his motorbike Fenrir, as well as an additional DVD that features an original FFVII anime short, titled "Last Order: Final Fantasy VII," and a special edition of the Final Fantasy VII PlayStation game. Both the normal and limited edition will be released on September 14. The full list of bonus items featured in the limited edition is listed below.

1. Cloud model figure with Fenrir motorcycle
2. Special DVD that includes the following four content
--Original Video Anime (OVA) "Last Order Final Fantasy VII"
--Making of documentary
--Feature: Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (Venice International Film Festival version)
--Advent Children trailers
3. Reproduction of Advent Children script
4. cap
5. T-shirt
6. Keychain with serial number
7. PlayStation "Final Fantasy VII: International" with special-edition label

By Hirohiko Niizumi -- GameSpot
POSTED: 06/13/05 03:06 PM PST

abstract (old)

The significance of this study is to answer the question, “How can an interactive narrative intellectually and emotionally engage its user while effectively communicating a series of volatile yet meaningful events?” At one end of the spectrum, we find movies and theater, while at the other end, we find virtual playgrounds of finite causes with corresponding effects. How do we optimize these two components such that we have significant plot development in addition to personal sentiment of the user? The scope of this research is within the artificial intelligence of character development in virtual worlds, that is, defining the dynamic personalities of these quasi-autonomous agents and their importance towards non-ergodic story telling.

abstract (new)

The Fusion of AI and Interactive Storytelling

As technology progresses to be evermore stimulating, the entertainment industry has maximized on profitting from these advances. Educators, however, expect to stick to traditional approaches on teaching and fighting for the attention of students through oppressing the draw of entertainment. I propose, not only do entertainment and education need not be in conflict, but that education is doing an injustice towards the generations to come by clinging to obsolete methods of teaching-- education is losing the battle, b/c it stands no chance against the power in technology that drives entertainment. In particular, this research examines the status quo of the technology, namely AI, and its literary potential in storytelling. I hypothesize that the role that artificial intelligence has within interactive storytelling is entirely superficial and that more resources and research need to be invested in taking advantage of this situation. Allowing technology to be profit driven will continue to direct research toward what consumers will pay for, taking forgranted the potentials of using technology to direct our society towards innovation, values, and creativity; instead, allowing the audience to dictate what technology can do to be most pleasing and instantly gratifying. I believe in aspiring toward greater ideals, and in a world where apathy grows to be dangeriously infectious, that interactive storytelling will pioneer a new means of motivating and uncovering great passions, but not without effectively developing artificial intelligence for such objectives.

there is no objective truth

Research can and MUST be objective.

Now this comment, "there is no objective truth," is the same paradox as the more commonly known "there is no absolute truth."

The question is not a matter of whether the truth can be unbiasly investigated, rather whether or not there exists an unbiased truth (objective truth, absolute truth, etc.)

If we are all subject to subjectivity, then nothing or everything we uncover is truth.

To say that "there exists an unbiased truth" and that "we are inescapably biased" is to say that we will never be able to contemplate truth.

To say "there does not exist an unbiased truth" is to say that everything in the universe is subjective, which is firstly, a paradox, and secondly, the dangerous implication that morals are possibly relative.

Therefore, for there to even exist research, there must exist an independent truth that we must have a means of revealing DESPITE our background circumstances (prejudices, biases, etc.), b/c the truth is what sets us free.

the truth will set you free

Roland Fryer is an advocate for truth, its investigation, its validation, and its application, because of the need for identity that is dependent of human nature. Fryer’s investigation begins with the analysis of the social world through a scholarly method; this could involve a scientific, social scientific, or humanistic approach toward learning from the world. His past circumstances built character, but also a picture of the world, significantly less than ideal, leading him towards his passion of uncovering and shedding light on a world that is all too dim.

As a scholar, seeking the unbiased truth, Fryer takes into consideration all the possible (past and present) influences on “where the blacks went wrong.” He takes into account of education, culture, world history, genetics, and even his own past experiences. Through these lenses, he could see the world from various points of view and collect a larger, less partial, spread of data, demonstrating that there may not be one distinct source or one solely responsible agent to blame.

The divergent paths in academia highlight exclusive qualia of the world experienced. For instance, natural science (defined by Meriam Webster) is any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena, while science is more generally considered knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

However, he cannot deny that which drives him is his identity, which pushes him to put these pieces together for the accurate picture of who he is and why he is that way (and also what the world is and why it is that way). As he states in the article, “My father screwed me over so bad that he made my emotions like a lever. I learned how to turn them off and on. And that’s what’s needed when you study race,” showing the relationship of how his identity affects his research of his identity.

Conclusively, we are not research robots, stoic and devoid of personal involvement in the questions of the universe that have yet to be answered, yet we cannot be driven by our own selfish motivations, answering questions out of our own lazy ignorance. We must establish a balanced relationship between our human nature and the unbiased truth, for they work together hand in hand, each one useless without the other. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (as Jesus put it).