Monday, September 22, 2014

#GamerGate What SJWs need to know but don't seem to.

Your personal morality is a product of your culture, genes, and experiences. Any value judgment you make about morality is likely to be based some derivative of that information. Given that genes, culture and experience are different for everyone we are likely to arrive at different answers to the same questions. How do you determine which answer is right? My position is that you mostly cannot. It is impossible because we are all biased by our own experience, genes, and the availability of information to us. That clouds any objective judgment of the "better" morality system. Indeed much like games give the illusion of choice, life circumstances limit our options when making choices about morality.

Take the allowing kidsYour personal morality is a product of your culture, genes, and experiences. Any value judgment you make about morality is likely to be based some derivative of that information. Given that genes, culture and experience are different for everyone we are likely to arrive at different answers to the same questions. How do you determine which answer is right? My position is that you mostly cannot. It is impossible because we are all biased by our own experience, genes, and the availability of information to us. That clouds any objective judgment of the "better" morality system. Indeed much like games give the illusion of choice, life circumstances limit our options when making choices about morality.

Take the allowing kids to play rated M games problem for instance. There is a question at the root of this issue and depending on your answer two completely opposite courses of action can both be simultaneously moral. The question being namely; Does exposure to negative media cause negative behavior? 

Lets imagine 2 families. Red and Blue. The Red family thinks that negative media does not cause negative behavior. The Blue family thinks that negative media causes negative behavior.

The Red family is a "good" family with "good" parents. They allow little Red to play all the M rated games he wants because they know that it won't affect him negatively and he seems to like them. This is a moral act because it is consistent with their morality (which is derived from their beliefs) and causes no direct measurable harm to others.

The Blue family is a "good" family with "good" parents. They do not allow little Blue to play any violent video games because they know that negative media causes negative behavior. The act is moral because it is consistent with their morality derived from their beliefs and it directly harms no one.

If you were to ask the Blue family what they think of the Red family's parenting style though all hell breaks loose. How dare those Reds subject their children to that! They are training killers over there! We better not let Little Blue hang out with that Little Red kid he'll probably hurt Blue...

The Reds don't really think too highly of the Blue's parenting style either. That poor little over sheltered Blue is going to be hit by reality like a ton of bricks once he turns 18. How dare they stifle his mind and brainwash him like that! Lets keep Little Red away from them they might try to brainwash him too...

Moral relativism is how you bridge a gap like this. You create a base morality derived from self-determination and allow enough freedom to define morality within those constraints. You should only judge people using their own self-determined yardstick of morality. There are a couple of caveats here; The person has to be able to self-determine and interference with this process is immoral. Under moral relativism as I practice it a person's morality stops at the end of their nose. Actions that directly harm others are still immoral, even if you are a psycho your morality is ok with killing, because it interferes with a person's self determination.

IE if the Blues suddenly started letting their kids play all the M rated games they wanted, while simultaneously holding the belief that those games cause harm, you could rightfully call them shitbag parents because they are demonstrating that they don't care about the wellbeing of their children. 

If the Reds suddenly started banning games for aesthetic reasons while holding the opinion that media does not affect behavior negatively, then they too are shitbags. They are demonstrating they don't care about the happiness of their kids. Only their own comfort.

If either of their morals are in line with their beliefs and actions however, you cannot really fault them for making the best decision with the limited information they had because we all have to do that. Who is to say that your answer to the underlying question is right? You are only operating with limited information as well. 

Live and let live. Don't force your morals on others under pain of social and economic ruin if they don't comply. Don't interfere with self determination it's really one of the only unassailable moral truths. to play rated M games problem for instance. There is a question at the root of this issue and depending on your answer two completely opposite courses of action can both be simultaneously moral. The question being namely; Does exposure to negative media cause negative behavior? 

Lets imagine 2 families. Red and Blue. The Red family thinks that negative media does not cause negative behavior. The Blue family thinks that negative media causes negative behavior.

The Red family is a "good" family with "good" parents. They allow little Red to play all the M rated games he wants because they know that it won't affect him negatively and he seems to like them. This is a moral act because it is consistent with their morality (which is derived from their beliefs) and causes no direct measurable harm to others.

The Blue family is a "good" family with "good" parents. They do not allow little Blue to play any violent video games because they know that negative media causes negative behavior. The act is moral because it is consistent with their morality derived from their beliefs and it directly harms no one.

If you were to ask the Blue family what they think of the Red family's parenting style though all hell breaks loose. How dare those Reds subject their children to that! They are training killers over there! We better not let Little Blue hang out with that Little Red kid he'll probably hurt Blue...

The Reds don't really think too highly of the Blue's parenting style either. That poor little over sheltered Blue is going to be hit by reality like a ton of bricks once he turns 18. How dare they stifle his mind and brainwash him like that! Lets keep Little Red away from them they might try to brainwash him too...

Moral relativism is how you bridge a gap like this. You create a base morality derived from self-determination and allow enough freedom to define morality within those constraints. You should only judge people using their own self-determined yardstick of morality. There are a couple of caveats here; The person has to be able to self-determine and interference with this process is immoral. Under moral relativism as I practice it a person's morality stops at the end of their nose. Actions that directly harm others are still immoral, even if you are a psycho your morality is ok with killing, because it interferes with a person's self determination.

IE if the Blues suddenly started letting their kids play all the M rated games they wanted, while simultaneously holding the belief that those games cause harm, you could rightfully call them shitbag parents because they are demonstrating that they don't care about the wellbeing of their children. 

If the Reds suddenly started banning games for aesthetic reasons while holding the opinion that media does not affect behavior negatively, then they too are shitbags. They are demonstrating they don't care about the happiness of their kids. Only their own comfort.

If either of their morals are in line with their beliefs and actions however, you cannot really fault them for making the best decision with the limited information they had because we all have to do that. Who is to say that your answer to the underlying question is right? You are only operating with limited information as well. 

Live and let live. Don't force your morals on others under pain of social and economic ruin if they don't comply. Don't interfere with self determination it's really one of the only unassailable moral truths.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

SuperPyramidExplosion!

A simple tank shooter game made in Game Maker my freshman year of college.  Controls with V, B, G, and the Spacebar.   Numbers 1-5 Select Weapons.  Mouse aims and mouseclicks fire.  These controls were originally mapped like this because they were actually mapped onto a Wii Remote.  The entire game was played with one hand on a Wii controller.

SuperPyramidExplosion!

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Build Day!

All of the parts for the tDCS device have arrived!    This means I can build the mark 2 today.  (I have two working prototypes that were built to prove the concept but never used on a person)  The mark 2 is the version that I am comfortable putting on my head.  I'll post pics and videos of the build as I complete it.  I'll be at Noisebridge today putting this together.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Tdcs Concept Tree

I've been compiling information about TDCS for a bit now here is the concept tree.

tDCS in Justin Hubbard (linkreincarnate)

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

tDCS update:  I have the first prototype 90 percent done.  I also have all the parts for the second gen of this device which I will be building as soon as I get the pcb from the manufacturer. Once the second gen version is done I will begin basic tests involving an IQ test before and after.