Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?

[wherorangi]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

From what you said, I found a much quicker route. I know it's much quicker than the route Hugsy was using, because we watched him on the map. It sounds like you went on a similar route to Hugsy.

---

if you mean down the eastside coast route I did try to go that way in the beginning but was blocked in a few places by banlines and orbs, so i gave up on that way and just went down the road in the end

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

From what you said, I found a much quicker route. I know it's much quicker than the route Hugsy was using, because we watched him on the map. It sounds like you went on a similar route to Hugsy.

---

if you mean down the eastside coast route I did try to go that way in the beginning but was blocked in a few places by banlines and orbs, so i gave up on that way and just went down the road in the end

---

Yes, that way. There is a spot where it gets very tricky, but there must be a way past it. I had an idea how to get past it but I stopped trying when I kept crashing at sim borders, so I didn't often get down there often enough, and it got very boring indeed

[Paul Hexem]

 



 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in green

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in red.

I'm in blue.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Nalytha wrote:

Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life.

 

---

But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp?

What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you

play

it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (

looking at Google results

) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online

gaming

services.

Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole.

(Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.)

---

Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't

simulations

of anything. 

Wow! You got something right. Very well done!

Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth"

which is what it is.

How and why

is it just like the earth?

If you haven't noticed that they both have land and water surfaces, then I don't know what I can say, except repeat what I've said before; i.e. they are both worlds and are like each other. One is real and the other is virtual. Let's try it this way. Take a picture oif the open coutryside in the real world. Then take a picture of the open countryside in SL. See if you can spot how alike they are

Those qualities are also at least as present in World of Warcraft, which you have repeatedly said is a "game", "unlike" Second Life. 

Yes, WoW is a game and, yes, it has those similarities. But, unlike SL, it has goals to achieve, etc. and that's what makes it a game and SL not a game.

It's entirely possible to play WoW without partaking in quests or doing any of the structured leveling activities - you can't "lose" by not doing any of this. You can wander around forever if you so like. And in Second Life, you can accumulate game tokens and use them to upgrade your existence, even through activities only within the world, and even through activities provided by the publisher. So where is the element that makes WoW

as a whole

a "game" and Second Life

as a whole

a "not-game"?

Any idiot knows that

,

We'll see shortly, won't we? 

We already did.

but it's a

created

world 

just like the Earth

-

a

simulacrum.

If Second Life is just like the Earth, what does the Earth simulate? 

Nothing that I know of. Didn't you notice that my comment was

before

your word "simulacrum"? lol. 

Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a

simulator.

Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no

need

for furniture in this world. 

There's no need for anything in the SL world.

Since Second Life is "just like the Earth", doesn't this mean that "any idiot knows" there's no need for anything on Earth either? 

Well you seem to know it, so it must be right

That's assuming that there actually

isn't

any need for anything in the Second Life world -  now what would happen in Second Life if the simulators stopped running? Doesn't the "world"

need

them to be running?

Before you tie yourself in too many knots for you to handle, I think I'd better help you a bit here. SL and the world are like each other.  We both agree that that's what I said.

That

wasn't

what you said earlier - you said it was "

just

like the earth." 

And just like the Earth, SL is a world. That doesn't mean in every little respect. I actually stated one respect in which they are different - one is real and the other is virtual.

If I quoted you and took out or added a word that could even possibly change the meaning of what you said you'd throw a conniption fit and say that I was deliberately misquoting you. 

No I wouldn't. You would be misquoting me by leaving bits out, which is what you've done, but I wouldn't throw a fit. I'd merely point it out so you could see how wrong you were.

The judges can go to the record and decide that semantic distinction themselves.

But did I say they are identical to each other in every way? Did I? Of course not.

You said they were "just like" each other. Just in this usage would mean "only", or "just alike and therefore not significantly unlike." 

Your own interpretation of the word just? lol. You need to show me the post whee I said it, and I'll explain that part of english to you

Will you explain the rules of capitalization too?

So I'll let you off the hook and just ignore all the little things you point out about SL being just like the Earth in that they are both worlds, that you hope will disprove what you

thought

I'd said

Of course you'll ignore them - because if those few similarities are all that make Second Life a "world" and not a "game" then there are other applications that you yourself consider "games" that anyone could say the same thing about.

Such as? It's no good saying these things without anything to back them up. If someone says that this is just like that, it really doesn't mean that they are the same in every way. I thought you would have realised that, but apparently not.

Well, it doesn't mean it if YOU say it, apparently. Your definitions are notoriously fluid.

"

Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations.

Quite possibly. You could even say that LL plays SL when they run the simulation - like playing a film or video. What you can't accurately say is the user, such as you and me, plays it. Make make use of the simulation that LL is playing, but we ourselves don't play it.

The server simulation - the only thing that happens on LL hardware - has no graphics or sound. We see graphics and sound on our computers. If we're not "playing" anything, where is that coming from? 

Does it matter where it comes from? Does it have any relevance to this discussion?

Yes, because you just said that a simulation could be played, and that Second Life is a simulation, but

we're

not playing it; only Linden Lab is. If our computers are doing as much work as Linden Labs when we access the simulation (and they are) then your argument fails

.

Au contraire. Just because a simulation can be played doesn't mean that all simulations, therefore, can be played. Try again

But you said your ownself that Second Life COULD be played, about an inch up, depending on monitor size. Now why should we believe that the portion of the simulation that is Second Life run on the Linden Lab servers IS being "played" and the portion of the simulation run by the viewers of connected users ISN'T?

Perhaps you are trying to show why SL is not like the Earth in that respect. Is that it? If that's it, then you need to go back and read what I actually said, and not argue about something that I certainly didn't say. In case it's still unclear to you, I'll refresh your memory. I said that SL and the earch are alike, or words to that effect. What I didn't say is that they are alike in every detailed respect.

You're tying yourself up in knots

There's a lot of that going around.

Then stop doing it.

Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning.

Wargames ARE games. They are done for the reason you stated but they are games. And they are not simulations.

Why not? Don't they simulate a battle?

They are models - like lead soldiers

Why isn't a model a simulation? Doesn't it simulate something else?

Not really, no. The pieces are like chess or draughts pieces in that they are moved by the participants (players) to try and win. They are games. Bigger than chess and draughts, but games none the less. If you want call them simulations, you can, but they are no more simulations than a map is a simulation. You can dig your hole even deeper and call a map a simulation if you like lol.

Dictionary definition that would apply: "Simulation - the

representation

of

the

behavior

or

characteristics

of

one

system

through

the

use

of

another

system,

especially

a

computer

program

designed

for

the

purpose." That's exactly what maps, models and Second Life do. 

But it doesn't say that using them is playing them

But some simulations ARE games, and we play them.

We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life.

We have established that the word 'play' is used for a number of actions, and also similar things to SL, such as WoW (because it's a game).

Which also has all the qualities of a world that you cite Second Life having,

no I didn't. Saying something is like something does

not

mean that it has "

all the qualities

" of it.

Then tell us the qualities WoW has that Second Life doesn't. I already pointed out that goals are present but optional in both.

For instance, you are like me. You have some of the same qualities - 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. - but we don't have all the same qualities, but I like to see a master of squirming in action, so do continue

Your monitor must be very reflective.

despite WoW being a "game" and Second Life being "not a game".

Why would the word "play"

not

be used?

Because it's not a game. It's also not a musical instrument, a film/video, a record (music), etc. etc. Having said that, you can use whatever verb you like, but don't be surprised if/when people correct you on it

Right now, the only one still arguing that is you.

That's because I'm the only one who is enjoying arguing the toss with you, even though we all know that you are enjoying writing silly stuff that you know doesn't hold up, just for the sake of it

It seems to be a popular hobby around here.

You should know lol.

---

You really are arguing just for the sake of, aren't you?

Any idiot knows that.

True.

---

 

---

 

---

 

---

 

---

 

[Nalytha]

Theresa, you have my admiration. I quit (and will forever do so on these forums with him) once Phil enlightened me to the fact that when he argues, he's always right.

 

I know some people like that. They just aren't worth my time or energy.

 

I'm all for an open discussion. But talking to people like that is like talking to a brick wall.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Pamela, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God

---

We had a long thread some years ago, which I'm sure you participated in. In it, it was described how the very existance (universe) we know points very clearly to someone or something causing it to come into existance. So the universe itself is evidence of a creator.

---

As I said, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God. The existence of the universe may appear to you as clear evidence of a creator. That's a leap of faith I find unnecessary.

I had a discussion with my Father around the time I learned to drive the tractor (I recall sitting on his lap and yelling at him. I often did both when young, but simultaneously only when helping drive the tractor):

"Dad, where did everything come from?"

"Some people say it came from God, some people don't know."

 

"If it came from God, where did God come from?"

"Iowa."

"That's silly."

"Yes, but you like that answer, don't you?"

"I do!"

I still allow for the possibility that the universe was created by someone from Iowa (who had a very silly grandfather and a lot  of help from a Wisconsinite). I've yet to hear a better creator story.

 

 

[Nalytha]

"Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff." 

I don't know the origin of the universe (or universes?), but I settle with the sentiment of this quote. I know where I came from... a star, the universe. And that's where I shall return. 

For me, that's more than good enough. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

The

much

better way of looking at it is that Second Life is just like the planet Earth. Both are worlds in which people can do all sorts of things, one of which is play games. A world is not a game. The Earth is not a game, and Second Life is not a game.

---

Let's go to the operative quote before I have to start looking up Pantone numbers. The above is a simple and direct quote of the Deakins Corollary.

I will concede that Earth is a world, and Earth is not a game.

I will concede, for our purposes, that Second Life is a world.

Mr. Deakins has stated that "World of Warcraft" is a game. I will accept that.

After my pointing out noticeable differences between Earth and Second Life, Mr. Deakins has conceded that Second Life's worldness is different from that of Earth.

"World" is part of "World of Warcraft"'s title. It bills itself as the "world" of a series of games, just as Second Life bills itself as the "world" of our collective imagination (ref: "Your world. Your imagination.") It certainly thinks of itself as a world.

I have pointed out that "World of Warcraft" has qualities of worldness that are similar and in some ways nigh indistinguishable from those of Second Life. Indeed, I'd be willing to say that the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to World of Warcraft are much more similar than the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to Earth.

This leaves the question: Is World of Warcraft a "world", which would make it both a "world" and a "game"? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't this mean that "worldness" and "gameness" are independent qualities, which would make the Second Life's status as a world useless for determining whether or not it is a game?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

As I said, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God. The existence of the universe may appear to you as clear evidence of a creator. That's a leap of faith I find unnecessary.

---

It's only unnecessary if there's no interest. But, if there is an interest, then it's an essential.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Nalytha wrote:

"We are made of star-stuff

." 

---

I love the star-stuff explanation for where we came from almost as much as "Iowa", but for (hopefully) very different reasons. But I also want to know where the Big-Bang came from, and that's where things get really weird.

I have a telescope that weighs more than me. I drag it out to my back yard on starry nights and fall into it. It's one of those transcendent, mystical experiences that many people experience. Although I feel as one with the universe at those times (or when lying on my back in a cornfield, looking up at the clouds), I do not attribute that feeling to some spirtual connection with a creator. Instead, I wonder at the power of an imperfect DNA replication mechanism, natural selection, and a hell of a lot of time.

[Nalytha]

I do not fear death, even as an Atheist. What makes me grieve the most is knowing that there is a huge probability that I will die and never know the answers to things like, "How was the universe created?" "Was it created by someone or something?" "Where do loved ones go when they die?" "Why do so many people follow Donald Trump?"

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

The

much

better way of looking at it is that Second Life is just like the planet Earth. Both are worlds in which people can do all sorts of things, one of which is play games. A world is not a game. The Earth is not a game, and Second Life is not a game.

---

Let's go to the operative quote before I have to start looking up Pantone numbers. The above is a simple and direct quote of the Deakins Corollary.

I take it that that's the result of my request that you quote me. It's like you suggested - you left some out and tried to make it what it wasn't. If you look closely, you may notice that the 2nd sentence qualifies what is meant by the 1st sentence. It's the normal way of writing in the english language. You may disagree, but you didn't write it, and if you do disagree, you need to brush up on the english language. It's a shame that you atte,pt such twisting of posts. I thought you were better than that.

I will concede that Earth is a world, and Earth is not a game.

I will concede, for our purposes, that Second Life is a world.

Mr. Deakins has stated that "World of Warcraft" is a game. I will accept that.

After my pointing out noticeable differences between Earth and Second Life, Mr. Deakins has conceded that Second Life's worldness is different from that of Earth.

Rubbish. They were

always

different in my posts, as the one you quoted clearly shows. Nobody in their right mind would actually think that the post you quoted meant that the SL and RL worlds are indentical in every way. Even you don't think that. You chose to point out some differences purely for the sake of arguing. I don't mind - I enjoy shooting them down.

"World" is part of "World of Warcraft"'s title. It bills itself as the "world" of a series of games, just as Second Life bills itself as the "world" of our collective imagination (ref: "Your world. Your imagination.") It certainly

thinks

of itself as a world.

Well done.

I have pointed out that "World of Warcraft" has qualities of worldness that are similar and in some ways nigh indistinguishable from those of Second Life. Indeed, I'd be willing to say that the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to World of Warcraft are much more similar than the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to Earth.

And your point is?

This leaves the question: Is World of Warcraft a "world", which would make it

both

a "world" and a "game"? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't this mean that "worldness" and "gameness" are independent qualities, which would make the Second Life's status as a world

useless

for determining whether or not it is a game?

You keep switching what you're talking about. When I thought you were talking about 'game', you corrected me and told me you were talking about the verb 'live'. Now you're talking about 'game' again. Please try to decide what you're discussing.

So let's see what your last paragraph says. It asks questions so...

Yes. As far as I know WoW is a world and a game.

Yes, 'world' and 'game' they are independent qualities.

Yes, the fact that SL is a world is useless for determining whether or not it is a game. Nevertheless, it is a good way to think of SL - as just a world - just like I said in the post you quoted, which I believe you hoped would win you a small argument, but it failed.

---

So, all in all, I seems that you've finally arrived at the right understanding of SL, albeit via a long long route

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

As I said, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God. The existence of the universe may appear to you as clear evidence of a creator. That's a leap of faith I find unnecessary.

---

It's only unnecessary if there's no interest. But, if there is an interest, then it's an essential.

---

 

I suppose that's approaching tautology. If you have an interest in believing things absent evidence, then of course it will seem essential for you to believe in things absent evidence. That, in a sense, makes you the creator. This is the problem I've had since childhood with people who express unwavering certainty. That doesn't come from actually knowing anything, that comes from believing you do.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

As I said, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God. The existence of the universe may appear to you as clear evidence of a creator. That's a leap of faith I find unnecessary.

---

It's only unnecessary if there's no interest. But, if there is an interest, then it's an essential.

---

 

I suppose that's approaching tautology. If you have an interest in believing things absent evidence, then of course it will seem essential for you to believe in things absent evidence. That, in a sense, makes you the creator. This is the problem I've had since childhood with people who express unwavering certainty. That doesn't come from actually knowing anything, that comes from believing you do.

---

I think you misunderstood, Maddy. I meant that, if someone is interest in whether or not there is a god, then how the universe came into being is an essential.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

The

much

better way of looking at it is that Second Life is just like the planet Earth. Both are worlds in which people can do all sorts of things, one of which is play games. A world is not a game. The Earth is not a game, and Second Life is not a game.

---

Let's go to the operative quote before I have to start looking up Pantone numbers. The above is a simple and direct quote of the Deakins Corollary.

I take it that that's the result of my request that you quote me. It's like you suggested - you left some out and tried to make it what it wasn't. If you look closely, you may notice that the 2nd sentence qualifies what is meant by the 1st sentence. It's the normal way of writing in the english language. You may disagree, but you didn't write it, and if you do disagree, you need to brush up on the english language. It's a shame that you atte,pt such twisting of posts. I thought you were better than that.

I will concede that Earth is a world, and Earth is not a game.

I will concede, for our purposes, that Second Life is a world.

Mr. Deakins has stated that "World of Warcraft" is a game. I will accept that.

After my pointing out noticeable differences between Earth and Second Life, Mr. Deakins has conceded that Second Life's worldness is different from that of Earth.

Rubbish. They were

always

different in my posts, as the one you quoted clearly shows. Nobody in their right mind would actually think that the post you quoted meant that the SL and RL worlds are indentical in every way. Even you don't think that. You chose to point out some differences purely for the sake of arguing. I don't mind - I enjoy shooting them down.

"World" is part of "World of Warcraft"'s title. It bills itself as the "world" of a series of games, just as Second Life bills itself as the "world" of our collective imagination (ref: "Your world. Your imagination.") It certainly

thinks

of itself as a world.

Well done.

I have pointed out that "World of Warcraft" has qualities of worldness that are similar and in some ways nigh indistinguishable from those of Second Life. Indeed, I'd be willing to say that the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to World of Warcraft are much more similar than the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to Earth.

And your point is?

This leaves the question: Is World of Warcraft a "world", which would make it

both

a "world" and a "game"? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't this mean that "worldness" and "gameness" are independent qualities, which would make the Second Life's status as a world

useless

for determining whether or not it is a game?

You keep switching what you're talking about. When I thought you were talking about 'game', you corrected me and told me you were talking about the verb 'live'. Now you're talking about 'game' again. Please try to decide what you're discussing.

So let's see what your last paragraph says. It asks questions so...

Yes. As far as I know WoW is a world and a game.

Yes, 'world' and 'game' they are independent qualities.

Yes, the fact that SL is a world is useless for determining whether or not it is a game. Nevertheless, it is a good way to think of SL - as just a world - just like I said in the post you quoted, which I believe you hoped would win you a small argument, but it failed.

---

So, all in all, I seems that you've finally arrived at the right understanding of SL, albeit via a long long route

---

This entire thread (well, it's practically a rope by now) is about "Can Second Life even be considered a "Game?" I took your quoted statement as one of your many attempts to "prove" that Second Life was not a game. I assume you were trying to use this line of reasoning.

A) Earth is a world, and not a game. You're on firm ground here.

B) Second Life is a world, as is the Earth, therefore Second Life and the Earth are equivalent and what applies to Earth applies to Second Life. This can be, and has been, disproven by showing that Second Life and Earth are not necessarily similar enough to be equivalent.

C) Earth is not a game, therefore if something is a world it is not a game. This can be, and has been, disproven by showing that there are worlds that are games.

D) Second Life is not a game because B and C are true. Because B and C are not true, the chain is broken and once again this statement is only supported by "because Phil Deakins says so" which, as far as I can tell, is only accepted as authoritative by one person on Earth (but possibly more in Second Life allowing for bots.)

Of course you might have just been stringing random unrelated thoughts together as they left your fingers instead of trying to create a proof, to which I reply - "purple monkey switchboard."

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 "purple monkey switchboard."

---

Here you go...

http://www.switchboard.com/business/purple-monkey-llc-flushing-ny

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

The

much

better way of looking at it is that Second Life is just like the planet Earth. Both are worlds in which people can do all sorts of things, one of which is play games. A world is not a game. The Earth is not a game, and Second Life is not a game.

---

Let's go to the operative quote before I have to start looking up Pantone numbers. The above is a simple and direct quote of the Deakins Corollary.

I take it that that's the result of my request that you quote me. It's like you suggested - you left some out and tried to make it what it wasn't. If you look closely, you may notice that the 2nd sentence qualifies what is meant by the 1st sentence. It's the normal way of writing in the english language. You may disagree, but you didn't write it, and if you do disagree, you need to brush up on the english language. It's a shame that you atte,pt such twisting of posts. I thought you were better than that.

I will concede that Earth is a world, and Earth is not a game.

I will concede, for our purposes, that Second Life is a world.

Mr. Deakins has stated that "World of Warcraft" is a game. I will accept that.

After my pointing out noticeable differences between Earth and Second Life, Mr. Deakins has conceded that Second Life's worldness is different from that of Earth.

Rubbish. They were

always

different in my posts, as the one you quoted clearly shows. Nobody in their right mind would actually think that the post you quoted meant that the SL and RL worlds are indentical in every way. Even you don't think that. You chose to point out some differences purely for the sake of arguing. I don't mind - I enjoy shooting them down.

"World" is part of "World of Warcraft"'s title. It bills itself as the "world" of a series of games, just as Second Life bills itself as the "world" of our collective imagination (ref: "Your world. Your imagination.") It certainly

thinks

of itself as a world.

Well done.

I have pointed out that "World of Warcraft" has qualities of worldness that are similar and in some ways nigh indistinguishable from those of Second Life. Indeed, I'd be willing to say that the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to World of Warcraft are much more similar than the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to Earth.

And your point is?

This leaves the question: Is World of Warcraft a "world", which would make it

both

a "world" and a "game"? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't this mean that "worldness" and "gameness" are independent qualities, which would make the Second Life's status as a world

useless

for determining whether or not it is a game?

You keep switching what you're talking about. When I thought you were talking about 'game', you corrected me and told me you were talking about the verb 'live'. Now you're talking about 'game' again. Please try to decide what you're discussing.

So let's see what your last paragraph says. It asks questions so...

Yes. As far as I know WoW is a world and a game.

Yes, 'world' and 'game' they are independent qualities.

Yes, the fact that SL is a world is useless for determining whether or not it is a game. Nevertheless, it is a good way to think of SL - as just a world - just like I said in the post you quoted, which I believe you hoped would win you a small argument, but it failed.

---

So, all in all, I seems that you've finally arrived at the right understanding of SL, albeit via a long long route

---

This entire thread (well, it's practically a rope by now) is about "Can Second Life even be considered a "Game?" I took your quoted statement as one of your many attempts to "prove" that Second Life was not a game. 

Then you made a big mistake, and wasted both your time and mine because of it. You need to read more, and especially understand what you read in the context in which it is written.

I assume you were trying to use this line of reasoning.

A) Earth is a world, and not a game.

You're on firm ground here.

B) Second Life is a world, as is the Earth,

therefore Second Life and the Earth are equivalent and what applies to Earth applies to Second Life

.

This can be, and has been, disproven by showing that Second Life and Earth are not necessarily similar enough to be equivalent.

Then you took what I said wrongly. I merely said that seeing SL that way is a much better way of seeing it. The proof that SL is not a game was something else completely.

C) Earth is not a game,

therefore if something is a world it is not a game.

This can be, and has been, disproven by showing that there

are

worlds that

are

games.

That's correct. I never even suggested anything different, let alone said anything remotely similar.

D)

Second Life is not a game

because B and C are true.

Because B and C are

not

true, the chain is broken and once again this statement is only supported by "because Phil Deakins says so" which, as far as I can tell, is only accepted as authoritative by one person on Earth (but possibly more in Second Life allowing for bots.)

Again you are imagining that my equating SL to the Earth is my proof that SL is not a game. I never said that. It's something you've made up yourself, and that's not a good way to discuss anything, unless it's your intention to completely cloud things.

Of course you

might

have just been stringing random unrelated thoughts together as they left your fingers instead of trying to create a proof, to which I reply - "purple monkey switchboard."

There you go again - imagining that my equating SL to the Earth is an attempt at proof that SL is not a game. It's not my proof at all. The proof is something completely different. In fact, if you go back and read the post of mine that you quote, and

really

try to understand the very simple english in it, you'll realise that all I said was that seeing SL as like the Earth is a "

much better way of seeing it

". I didn't even say it was the best way, but it was a better way than what was being said at the time.

---

What you did was see me write the word 'prove' - for the first time in this thread. So you went back to an earlier post of mine and decided (wrongly) that it was my attempt at proof. You knew that the SL world is not identical in all respects to the RL world, so you thought you'd got me. Bless you lol. But you hadn't because your assumption (you freely admitted it was an assumption) was wrong. All you achieved was a series of small defeats while you batted away at something that was never there in the first place.

Now, if you wouldn't mind sticking to what is actually said, instead of making things up (such as pretending that that was my proof), and twisting things (such as by leaving out important parts, thereby changing the meanings), we could continue much more constructively. Always having to correct you does get tiresome after a while, y'know. Even I can't do it forever.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Nalytha wrote:

I do not fear death, even as an Atheist. What makes me grieve the most is knowing that there is a huge probability that I will die and never know the answers to things like, "How was the universe created?" "Was it created by someone or something?" "Where do loved ones go when they die?" "Why do so many people follow Donald Trump?"

---

I don't know if I fear death, but I certainly don't welcome it. I won't grieve knowing I'll die with lots of unanswered questions in my head. I like to think they're what's keeping me alive. If there is an all powerful all knowing creator, why would he get up in the morning? If he made us in his image, he may have outdone himself. We have curiosity, he can't possibly. If we made him in our image, we fell short.

And here's where I'm at on some of your questions:

"How was the universe created?"

First, that presupposes that the universe wasn't always here. What if we're in an instantiation of a subset of something beyond our senses (multiverse). We can hope to find evidence, but it's only a hope. I don't know or care what the answer is. I just want us to keep looking.

"Was it created by someone or something?"

Are we part of a giant computer simulation run by beings far more intelligent than we? Then we're still faced with "Who or what created them?" The answer to your first question might be the answer to this one.

"Where do loved ones go when they die?"

Although I know the etiology of funeral "wake", I choose to think of it differently. Each of us leaves a wake as we move through life, in the form of the things we do and create and the relationships we make. When we're gone only that wake remains, and it's worth celebrating. Think of your loved ones who're gone. Do you see evidence of them in yourself, perhaps in the form of a preference for something they liked, or a way of treating the people around you (I flirt with everyone, just as Dad did)? Well then, there you go, there they are! Whenever a friend loses a loved one, I ask them to tell me a story about them, to help them extend the wake.

And, knowing that this is all the chance you get, don't you feel at least a li'l compelled to make good of it and leave this place better than you found it? It's not like this is a practice run and you'll start again with a clean slate.

"Why do so many people follow Donald Trump?"

As for many good questions, the answer is complex. The US political climate has been growing more polarized for quite some time, making the ground more fertile for polarizing candidates. Trump's rhetoric plays to emotions (fear) and biases (loss aversion, zenophobia, etc). The news cycle has grown shorter, allowing less time for reflection and introspection and fact checking, so the emotions and biases go unchecked. The internet is not only the great equalizer, but the great balkanizer. Every loon (sorry Rolig) can find a tribe now. Little positive feedback loops grow into big positive feedback groups (rally fever). I'm an engineer, I dislike positive feedback. It leads to oscillations and lock-ups.

None of my answers is complete. They may also be incorrect.

[Nalytha]

"If the world (that's the planet Earth) is a game, then SL is a game. If it's not a game, then SL is not a game. Both are environments (worlds) in which people do all sorts of things - including playing games, of course. One is real and one is virtual, but that's all they are." 

"The platform is exactly identical to the planet Earth, except that it's virtual. Users of Earth have built all manner of things, including games, but the Earth isn't a game." 

"The much better way of looking at it is that Second Life is just like the planet Earth. Both are worlds in which people can do all sorts of things, one of which is play games. A world is not a game. The Earth is not a game, and Second Life is not a game." 

"Second Life is a world, just like the Earth."

"The Earth if very complaex too, much more complex that SL. And yet the Earth isn't a game. The complexity of a system has no relevance on whether not it is a game." 

"When I'm in SL, I'm living in SL. I do all sorts of stuff but a generic word would be 'live'. Or to put it another way, the word to describe "the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life" is the same one you would use to describe the act of manipulatring the platforn that is the world (Earth)."

- The Amazing, Always Right When Arguing, Phil 

[Nalytha]

I like you idea of "wake." I watched my father die, over the course of a week. I had a week to contemplate his life and death (in a way, a gift as I'm sure many wish they could have the same opportunity). You are right. I feel his "wake" in my life, in things I do and think, etc. It is comforting.

 

Much more comforting than "Don't worry. He is super happy in heaven with his loved ones (So, which of his three wives or the four other children that chose to lose contact with him?) . You will see him again.

[Phil Deakins]

Thank you for that. It's an excellent collection of truths

Except for one small detail. I'm not always right. I'm only always right when I'm arguing. But I've said that before

[Nalytha]

Anytime. Glad all the effort you put in to repeatedly say the same thing wasn't any sort of attempt to prove your point.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

The

much

better way of looking at it is that Second Life is just like the planet Earth. Both are worlds in which people can do all sorts of things, one of which is play games. A world is not a game. The Earth is not a game, and Second Life is not a game.

---

Let's go to the operative quote before I have to start looking up Pantone numbers. The above is a simple and direct quote of the Deakins Corollary.

I take it that that's the result of my request that you quote me. It's like you suggested - you left some out and tried to make it what it wasn't. If you look closely, you may notice that the 2nd sentence qualifies what is meant by the 1st sentence. It's the normal way of writing in the english language. You may disagree, but you didn't write it, and if you do disagree, you need to brush up on the english language. It's a shame that you atte,pt such twisting of posts. I thought you were better than that.

I will concede that Earth is a world, and Earth is not a game.

I will concede, for our purposes, that Second Life is a world.

Mr. Deakins has stated that "World of Warcraft" is a game. I will accept that.

After my pointing out noticeable differences between Earth and Second Life, Mr. Deakins has conceded that Second Life's worldness is different from that of Earth.

Rubbish. They were

always

different in my posts, as the one you quoted clearly shows. Nobody in their right mind would actually think that the post you quoted meant that the SL and RL worlds are indentical in every way. Even you don't think that. You chose to point out some differences purely for the sake of arguing. I don't mind - I enjoy shooting them down.

"World" is part of "World of Warcraft"'s title. It bills itself as the "world" of a series of games, just as Second Life bills itself as the "world" of our collective imagination (ref: "Your world. Your imagination.") It certainly

thinks

of itself as a world.

Well done.

I have pointed out that "World of Warcraft" has qualities of worldness that are similar and in some ways nigh indistinguishable from those of Second Life. Indeed, I'd be willing to say that the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to World of Warcraft are much more similar than the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to Earth.

And your point is?

This leaves the question: Is World of Warcraft a "world", which would make it

both

a "world" and a "game"? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't this mean that "worldness" and "gameness" are independent qualities, which would make the Second Life's status as a world

useless

for determining whether or not it is a game?

You keep switching what you're talking about. When I thought you were talking about 'game', you corrected me and told me you were talking about the verb 'live'. Now you're talking about 'game' again. Please try to decide what you're discussing.

So let's see what your last paragraph says. It asks questions so...

Yes. As far as I know WoW is a world and a game.

Yes, 'world' and 'game' they are independent qualities.

Yes, the fact that SL is a world is useless for determining whether or not it is a game. Nevertheless, it is a good way to think of SL - as just a world - just like I said in the post you quoted, which I believe you hoped would win you a small argument, but it failed.

---

So, all in all, I seems that you've finally arrived at the right understanding of SL, albeit via a long long route

---

This entire thread (well, it's practically a rope by now) is about "Can Second Life even be considered a "Game?" I took your quoted statement as one of your many attempts to "prove" that Second Life was not a game. 

Then you made a big mistake, and wasted both your time and mine because of it. You need to read more, and especially understand what you read in the context in which it is written.

I assume you were trying to use this line of reasoning.

A) Earth is a world, and not a game.

You're on firm ground here.

B) Second Life is a world, as is the Earth,

therefore Second Life and the Earth are equivalent and what applies to Earth applies to Second Life

.

This can be, and has been, disproven by showing that Second Life and Earth are not necessarily similar enough to be equivalent.

Then you took what I said wrongly. I merely said that seeing SL that way is a much better way of seeing it. The proof that SL is not a game was something else completely.

C) Earth is not a game,

therefore if something is a world it is not a game.

This can be, and has been, disproven by showing that there

are

worlds that

are

games.

That's correct. I never even suggested anything different, let alone said anything remotely similar.

D)

Second Life is not a game

because B and C are true.

Because B and C are

not

true, the chain is broken and once again this statement is only supported by "because Phil Deakins says so" which, as far as I can tell, is only accepted as authoritative by one person on Earth (but possibly more in Second Life allowing for bots.)

Again you are imagining that my equating SL to the Earth is my proof that SL is not a game. I never said that. It's something you've made up yourself, and that's not a good way to discuss anything, unless it's your intention to completely cloud things.

Of course you

might

have just been stringing random unrelated thoughts together as they left your fingers instead of trying to create a proof, to which I reply - "purple monkey switchboard."

There you go again - imagining that my equating SL to the Earth is an attempt at proof that SL is not a game. It's not my proof at all. The proof is something completely different. In fact, if you go back and read the post of mine that you quote, and

really

try to understand the very simple english in it, you'll realise that all I said was that seeing SL as like the Earth is a "

much better way of seeing it

". I didn't even say it was the best way, but it was a better way than what was being said at the time.

---

What you did was see me write the word 'prove' - for the first time in this thread. So you went back to an earlier post of mine and decided (wrongly) that it was my attempt at proof. You knew that the SL world is not identical in all respects to the RL world, so you thought you'd got me. Bless you lol. But you hadn't because your assumption (you freely admitted it was an assumption) was wrong. All you achieved was a series of small defeats while you batted away at something that was never there in the first place.

Now, if you wouldn't mind sticking to what is actually said, instead of making things up (such as pretending that that was my proof), and twisting things (such as by leaving out important parts, thereby changing the meanings), we could continue much more constructively. Always having to correct you does get tiresome after a while, y'know. Even I can't do it forever.

---

doorknob Kokomo teabag ear Tuesday conjunction

[Pamela Galli]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

---

doorknob Kokomo teabag ear Tuesday conjunction

---

This is what it's like for me reading discussions in the tech/mesh forums.

[Nalytha]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

This is what it's like for me reading discussions in the tech/mesh forums.

---

I'm glad I'm not the only one.