10 ms·

I understand your feelings. But keep in mind that the PEOPLE who made those games are LONG GONE. The NAME of the company is still there, and I understand why

I understand your feelings. But keep in mind that the PEOPLE who made those games are LONG GONE. The NAME of the company is still there, and I understand why you're attached to it as I am too, but the people who made those special games have been gone for years. As hard as it is, don't attach those great memories to the COMPANY, but rather the people who had the vision to make them. If you need to remove your attachment, play the Kinect version of Star Wars. And for one person there: Karma. It takes a long time but it does come back to bite you. Now you know the price of those 6am flights you booked.

laureny 14y ago
> And for one person there: Karma. It takes a long time but it does come back to bite you. Er... no. That's superstition. It's simply not real.
- redblacktree 14y ago
  I wonder how you can speak with such authority, when the very nature of life remains a mystery.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    It doesn't. We have many libraries filled with material on life. He can state with authority that karma does not exist just as he can state with authority that unicorns do not exist: Very easily. There is no evidence of such an effect, and no evidence for anything that could transmit or cause the effect. It is as imaginary as anything could be said to be.
    - crgt 14y ago
      Absence of evidence != evidence of absence. Perhaps worth rethinking your assumptions? All of the libraries in the world can't prove we're not brains in vats collectively hallucinating everything or an ancestor simulation running on supercomputers in deep space. Pehaps your breakfast today was imaginary? I could make just as strong a case for that as you can for the "imaginary" nature of karma.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        > Absence of evidence != evidence of absence. > It is as imaginary as anything could be said to be. I think you have not really grasped the meaning of that. Do you find leprechauns to be equally plausible as karma? Do you find sandwiches to be as equally plausible as leprechauns? Do you really? Really? You actually live your life with equal expectations of sandwiches and leprechauns? If that is really the case, then you are clearly insane. Actually insane. Any rational human has at least the slightest ability to reason in a Bayesian manner.
        crgt 14y ago
        I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a dogmatic thinker responds with an ad hominem attack when their assumptions are questioned. I am, I assure you, quite sane. Sane enough to allow for the possibility of the reality of karma, which you do not, simply because you do not have evidence in hand at this moment in time. Do some reading. Start with this: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html It's a probability-based argument for the notion that we are in fact inside an ancestor simulation. Would love to hear your thoughts on how you know it to be incorrect. Then go read some Descartes and tell me a cool story about how he's insane. Trust me, I understand that your sandwich feels real to you. But that doesn't make it so. Any more than your opinion that karma doesn't exist makes that the case.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Simulationism is completely irrelevant. Reality is defined as what our senses permit us to perceive, any other definition is not productive. Honestly rejecting it is insanity; if rejecting ones own senses is not insanity, then what is? If we are in a simulation then sandwiches are real in all meaningful ways if the simulation presents sandwiches to our senses. The simulation, if we live in one, does present sandwiches to us, but it presents absolutely no evidence for karma. Why do you believe in karma more than leprechauns? Or karma instead of anti-karma? Or narwhale fighter pilots? The supposed simulation presents equally little evidence for any of these. Yes, a rational mind allows for the possibility of karma, but no more so than the possibility of leprechauns, anti-karma, and unicorns. That is to say, in practice, a rational mind rejects all of the notions if "the simulation" has not presented reasons not to do so. So, in the sense that you "allow for the possibility of the reality" of karma, do you similarly "allow for the possibility of the reality" of unicorns? Yes? No?

laureny 14y ago

> And for one person there: Karma. It takes a long time but it does come back to bite you. Er... no. That's superstition. It's simply not real.

redblacktree 14y ago
I wonder how you can speak with such authority, when the very nature of life remains a mystery.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  It doesn't. We have many libraries filled with material on life. He can state with authority that karma does not exist just as he can state with authority that unicorns do not exist: Very easily. There is no evidence of such an effect, and no evidence for anything that could transmit or cause the effect. It is as imaginary as anything could be said to be.
  - crgt 14y ago
    Absence of evidence != evidence of absence. Perhaps worth rethinking your assumptions? All of the libraries in the world can't prove we're not brains in vats collectively hallucinating everything or an ancestor simulation running on supercomputers in deep space. Pehaps your breakfast today was imaginary? I could make just as strong a case for that as you can for the "imaginary" nature of karma.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > Absence of evidence != evidence of absence. > It is as imaginary as anything could be said to be. I think you have not really grasped the meaning of that. Do you find leprechauns to be equally plausible as karma? Do you find sandwiches to be as equally plausible as leprechauns? Do you really? Really? You actually live your life with equal expectations of sandwiches and leprechauns? If that is really the case, then you are clearly insane. Actually insane. Any rational human has at least the slightest ability to reason in a Bayesian manner.
      - crgt 14y ago
        I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a dogmatic thinker responds with an ad hominem attack when their assumptions are questioned. I am, I assure you, quite sane. Sane enough to allow for the possibility of the reality of karma, which you do not, simply because you do not have evidence in hand at this moment in time. Do some reading. Start with this: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html It's a probability-based argument for the notion that we are in fact inside an ancestor simulation. Would love to hear your thoughts on how you know it to be incorrect. Then go read some Descartes and tell me a cool story about how he's insane. Trust me, I understand that your sandwich feels real to you. But that doesn't make it so. Any more than your opinion that karma doesn't exist makes that the case.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Simulationism is completely irrelevant. Reality is defined as what our senses permit us to perceive, any other definition is not productive. Honestly rejecting it is insanity; if rejecting ones own senses is not insanity, then what is? If we are in a simulation then sandwiches are real in all meaningful ways if the simulation presents sandwiches to our senses. The simulation, if we live in one, does present sandwiches to us, but it presents absolutely no evidence for karma. Why do you believe in karma more than leprechauns? Or karma instead of anti-karma? Or narwhale fighter pilots? The supposed simulation presents equally little evidence for any of these. Yes, a rational mind allows for the possibility of karma, but no more so than the possibility of leprechauns, anti-karma, and unicorns. That is to say, in practice, a rational mind rejects all of the notions if "the simulation" has not presented reasons not to do so. So, in the sense that you "allow for the possibility of the reality" of karma, do you similarly "allow for the possibility of the reality" of unicorns? Yes? No?