Rottcodd

My point though is that you talk about all of that as if it's some sort of chore.

To me, it's a lot of the fun.

I rarely even get to the point of having to stop and weigh choices in my inventory, since every time I come across something new, I have to stop and check it out and try to figure out what it is and what it does and what sort of advantages or disadvantages it might have. I enjoy that. So all along the way, I'm figuring out what I want to or think I should keep and what I want to or think I can get rid of, and not because a finite inventory demands it, but because that's part of the point of playing in the first place.

Broadly, you're asking if other people actually invest the time and energy to sort out how to play complex games. I'm saying that we not only can and do, but that that's a lot of the point. That whole process of sorting things out is a lot of the reason that we play in the first place.

Yeah - I just jump in and wing it.

At the risk of inviting the internet's wrath, when people talk about the difference between serious gamers and casuals, this is the sort of thing they're talking about.

"Serious" gaming involves a particular set of skills and interests, such that the person is willing and able to just jump into some complicated new game and figure it out. And it's not just that "serious" gamers can do that - the point is that they want to. They enjoy it. They enjoy being lost, then slowly putting the pieces together and figuring out how things work and getting better because they've figured it out. And they enjoy the details - learning which skills do what and which items do what, and how it all interrelates. All that stuff isn't some chore to be avoided - it's a lot of the point - a lot of the reason that they (we) play games.

You talk about your inventory filling up and then just selling everything, and I can't even imagine doing that. To me, that's not just obviously bad strategy, but entirely missing the point - like buying ingredients to make delicious food, then bringing them home and throwing them in the garbage.

The way it made me really think about how truly expansive space and time are really made me think that “that’s not impossible to think that there is a 11th dimension being that has some agenda that we cannot understand.”

Absolutely.

But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about making the leap from recognizing that such a being could exist to believing that such a being does exist. That, to me, is so bizarrely irrational that I can't even work out how it is that people apparently actually do it.

This seems like a weirdly unnecessary way to not quite manage to duplicate what lemmy has been designed to do.

How do I make it just work with just my original account?

You go to the community list for your instance and do a search on the URL of the community you're interested in. Then (assuming that your instance is federated with the other one) your instance will create its own mirror of the community, and you're done.

Yeah - I don't even really understand how all of that works. I see that people apparently sincerely believe, but I have no idea how - what it is that goes on inside their brains that allows them to make that leap to actually believing.

I don't know that it does, but I can see how it could.

One way that neurodivergence can manifest is as a relative inability to simply assume things - a relatively outsized need for clear evidence on which to base a conclusion. And religion is notably devoid of actual evidence.

I don't spend any time on Mastodon.

Why? Are there anarchists on Mastodon? Or is this some kind of sarcasm I'm not getting?

I do have a Mastodon account, but I never use it. I much prefer forums over microblogs.

We're dumb animals, not much different from other dumb animals.

If squirrels had news media, they could have a story that says, "Thousands of squirrels are lining up to try to cross busy streets in front of cars."

And some number of squirrels would read that and think, "What the hell is wrong with them?"

The implication here is that anarchists are relatively common on the fediverse, and if so, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen this idea expressed.

But the thing is that I am an anarchist, and I've been keeping my eyes open, and I haven't seen any other anarchists here. LOTS of authoritarian leftists, ranging from naive social democrats to full-blown "submit or die" tankies, but not one single other anarchist.

So are you actually trying to say that anarchists are common here? And if so, where are they?

Eien no Filena on the SNES/SFC (it was Japan-only but it's been fan-translated).

Not only is the protagonist a woman - that fact is repeatedly plot-relevant.

Setting aside the fact that this is a generalization and thus naturally overstating things, I don't doubt that there's some truth to this.

There's a sort of rigidly intolerant moralizing that arose on the internet over the last decade or so, most exemplified by Tumblr, and gen z was right in the middle of it.

It puts me in mind of the Victorian era, with a group of people who absolutely and unequivocally condemn anyone and everyone who violates their rigid sense of propriety, or more precisely, the stereotypes that they substitute for those people. Of course, the biggest difference is that they have a completely different set of rules to which they insist that all submit - instead of a religious morality mostly concerned with sex they have a secular morality mostly concerned with social behavior. But they share that absolutism - the smug certainty that their way is the only way and that any who believe otherwise are not only wrong, but due to the fact that they believe otherwise, so monstrous as to be unfit to even judge.

That last is the trap - the thing that sets that extreme of moralizing apart and keeps it going when it takes hold. Those who come to believe in it end up believing not simply that they're right, but that believing as they do is the defining trait of people who are fit to judge the matter, so they then can and do reject any and all differing views out of hand on the basis that the mere act of holding a different view means that one is obviously an inferior being, and since one is an inferior being, whatever one believes is and can only be wrong. It becomes a closed loop, in which people aren't even capable of considering different viewpoints.

And that's presumably the quality that's being characterized, and with some accuracy, as them not having the skills to disagree.

I'd note though that this is just one manifestation of the problem. It's a new version of it, made possible by social media, and it appears to be notably widespread, and particularly in a relatively narrow age group, but the dynamic itself is likely as old as human civilization.

I think this puts consciousness on too high of a mystic pedestal.

I think that one of the most common ways by which the devotees of reductive physicalism try to make it appear to be a valid position is by positing a false dichotomy by which they then sneeringly characterize anything that's not simply physical as "mystic."

What makes you think that it is impossible to observe someone else’s consciousness?

The fact that it's an emergent phenomenon with no physical manifestation.

I think we'll be able to (and in fact we already can to some notable degree) track neuronal activity in a brain and map it and interpret it, so we can make reasonably solid guesses regarding its nature - general type, intensity, efficiency and so on - but we can never actually observe its content, since its content is a gestalt formed within and only accessible to the mind that's experiencing it.

There's nothing at all "mystic" about that - it's simple logic and reason.

And, by the bye, it's also much of why actual philosophers rejected reductive physicalism almost a century ago.