Pondering Pokemon, pt 1

   I discovered the tools for hacking Pokemon games (specifically ROMs) this last summer, and ever since I've been hankering to make my own version of Pokemon. I'd like to see how much I can realize within the limits of 8-year-old technology and the standard Pokemon game parameters.
   I may be in over my head. I apparently have decided to change just about every possible aspect of the game. There are new overworld imges to make (for NPCs and building), new pokemon to design (special thanks to a friend for visuals of the new critters), new town and route maps, new building interiors new color palettes to adjust, new mythologies and storylines to create, and Holy Noodles, new scripts to write.
  I have the starting town mostly done, with regards to scripts and mapping. There are still all the new interiors and overworlds to design, but I'm putting those off until later, as they are not strictly necessary for game progress (that is, I can run a beta test without them).
   And along the way I may slaughter a few sacred cows. While I'm on the line about making this hack ride the zeitgeist of "make things grittier/American Kirby is hardcore", I do want the environment and the pokemon themselves to feel, for the most part, a little more dangerous. Not all of them, mind you (how can an Eevee be scary?), but it disappoints me in the games how a big deal is made in the very beginning about the dangerous of going out into the world without a pokemon by your side, and almost right away there are even individuals who aren't even trainers of any sort (at least, they're not telling) lounging about on a route, sometimes even strolling about in the tall grass.

     I'm also going to change up the ways Gyms work. That's right, hold on to your hats, because:
Gyms will no longer focus on elemental type. That's right, instead each gym will have a different sort of focus.
Gyms focusing in types is an okay idea, and it even makes a little more sense in various adaptions--each gym is dedicated to bringing out the strength of certain types of pokemon and exploring the powers and combat capabilities of that type of pokemon. However, those goals are hard to express in game-form, at least in the third-gen incarnation. Each type has a limited number of moves, which by now practically every player of the games will have memorized, and a gym's challenge almost seems to come from variation, rather than adherence, on/to the theme--using a move not of a type, using a hard-to-get move, or using a pokemon with a variant type or half-type.
Because all it really comes down to in the games in type superiority. In the comics or in adaptations, it may be possible to explore methods and techniques for overcoming or adapting to type disadvantage, but in game (at least in my experience) it always come down to level and a STAB (same-type attack bonus) move.
     Speaking of Gyms, I also have the crazy thought of making defeating all the gyms or getting all the badges unnecessary to "beating" the game. Since I can't unlink the usability of most of the HMs from the owning of a badge, many badges will likely still be necessary for game/story completion. Odds are that most people will challenge all the gyms anyway, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I'm exploring the option of multiple storylines, some of which do not involve the usual Pokemon League Challenge.
I'm also think making it so that the Gyms don't have to be challenged in a particular order, while still keeping each Gym a challenge. Yes, there are some canon games in which some gyms can be avoided, up until a certain point, so this isn't exactly new. I don't know how mutable I can make the order, though, while still retaining the level of the gym challenge and my sanity.

Limbo

Ugh. Never in my life have I felt so directionless. I'm taking the GRE today, with thoughts of attending graduate school for museum studies or comparative archaeology or experimental archaeology or something. But is it really for me? Am I ready, developmentally? Or are my interests too broad, too diverse, perhaps, to make focus on single field a decent experience?

There are three "drives" within me -- there's what I want to do, there's what I need to do, and there's what I'm called to do. Unfortunately the three never seem to align. I fear they never might, but who knows what'll happen in the next 60 years. I wouldn't mind if there would show at least some signs of convergence.

What I want to do is create--I have a dozen Lego project ideas, I'm attempting a massive hack of the third-gen Pokemon games, I want to finish D&D 3.Brian, I want to get these songs out of my head; I want to make new worlds and write new stories and explore potentially fruitless avenues.

What I need to do is survive in the material world. I need to pay off my student loans, I need prepare for paying bills, I need to make minimum payments for even owning a car. I need to pay attention to things like deadlines and weather forecasts. I need to eat and I need a place to live.

What I feel called to do is help change the world (cliche, I know).  To translate works of science and philosophy into a thousand languages, to recycle religious texts into science books, to explore the spread and the possibilities of appropriate technology and sustainable development.

You may notice that museum studies or archaeology did not appear in the above paragraphs. I suppose I've always thought, in some way, that archaeology or museums would just be a "day job"; they would fulfill the "need to do" category, and they'd not only very interesting and enjoyable means of fulfilling that category, but means that I would be respectable proficient in. But archaeology (with museums and anthropology) have rarely played a large part in my personally or grand dreams and goals. I think I've usually studied them not as much for their own sakes but rather how they inform and support and influence my other goals. I like history and anthropology because I think it helps my world-building. I've considered comparative archaeology and archaeotechnological studies because of my interest in appropriate technology.

So the question is, why am I pursuing a Master's if it's only to help me settle down in an office? If it's only for my day job? But what else can I do? I can keep looking, and hope that a museum will pick me up with my B.A., and that I'll be paid enough to sustain myself; at least for a few years while I gain the experience that all the other places crave/require.
Am I good enough in my other personal activities to make significant income through them? Can I sustain myself if I were to drop my studies to pursue my long-term, crazy dreams?
Should I stay in this basement for a few more years, living off my parent's generous (Thanks Mom and Dad!) hospitality, until my burdens are lessened or I go slightly more crazy?
I dunno.

Questions for Breakfast: Ground rules

"In the absence of evidence for Santa Claus, one should not remain agnostic, considering the probability of his existence to be around 50 percent, but should actually lean towards disbelief in his existence."
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm getting kind of tired of the "You can't (dis)prove God(s)" argument. Because we can actually make a lot of progress on that matter. The issue always seems to be the degree to which a given entity must proven or disproven. So, before I touch on the variety of arguments against the existence of a divine being, I have to ask:
    Those of you who believe in a God/gods, what kind of evidence (object, event, other) might make you go "huh, maybe this God thing needs some serious work"? Much like one might ask a biologist what kind of evidence would have to arise to make them seriously doubt something like the veracity and utility of the theory of evolution (one might suggest the crocoduck), what say you if we turn the question around?
Not that I'm saying I have anything you might be looking for on hand, I'm just asking you to consider it.

   Now, onto the argument. Like in my last post when I talked about the "what if you're wrong" question, something like "(Dis)prove god(s)" is incredibly vague. The whole matter is so broad I don't even know where to begin.
I mean, to really get anywhere at all, we have to agree what we are talking about/willing to accept with the idea of proving/disproving something, we have to know the parameters (more the better) of this 'god(s)', and with these things we have to agree on what kind of arguments or evidence definitely rebuke or cause potential trouble for the argument.
For some reason, it'd probably be good too to establish default positions; that is, do we assume God exists and try to disprove it, or do we assume no god and try to prove one? I think the argument for the latter is pretty strong (want me to cover this?), and spreading it helps those atheists/agnostics/secularists who are more passive. Really, however, for one who gives the issue enough thought, the ontological discussion of a deity is doable from either position. That is, once we all agree on the field and the rules. Ah, you say, but even if one can disprove all currently held interpretation of the divine, we are still assuming a divinity. To which I might respond that in such a case, superfluousness of a deity is as good as nonexistence. What is a religion without a deity who is, for all intents and purposes, not there? What is this "god" that we are discussing? What traits or actions or descriptors do we or should we be considering when going about to prove or disprove him? Are we discussing a Moslem god, a Hindu god, a gnostic god, a creationist god, a calvinist god, a lutheran god? What are his/her/its methods of interactions? How similar/dissimilar is it to humans, with regards to appearance or mental states?

 There is, I think, a difference between disproving something like a physical law or a scientific theory and disproving something singular and specific, like the iPad on my desk (go ahead, try to prove/disprove it). In the case of the former, since they are systems or encompassing interactions, disproving (or denting, at least) is a matter of finding something (object or event) which is not possible given the rules of the law or theory. For the latter, short of actually poking it with a stick, we have to rely on circumstantial evidence; those changes to the material world due to the object's operation. Divinity is the system, god is the thing. These two can be proven/disproven separately, though I would argue that, given that God is a divine being, if divinity as a system is shown to be limited or a faulty theory, then that says quite a bit about the limitations or faults with god. I don't know if this goes for all non-theists, but for me, one must first show me that prayer works, or that souls can be manipulated, or that water can be turned spontaneously to wine, or that flight is possible without wings, before one attempts to argue the source behind such actions. In essence, before one can argue for a certain incarnation of the supernatural, one must first establish the very existence of the supernatural.

 A final clarification in the "proving/disproving god(s)" matter: the difference between probability and possibility, and the probability of possibility. I'll start with the latter, which is really just my fancy term for "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.". This relates also the paragraph above. Its something like this: When going about proving a certain singular thing, there is a great difference in proving, say, the iPad on my desk (keep trying), the ion engine in my garage, and the dragon in my backyard. In the first case, the situation is certainly possible in a "contextual" sense--I am an American twenty-something with a liking for technology and some money to spend. The possibility is also quite probable--nothing in the situation defies known laws of interaction or physical powers. For the second case, the situation has quite a small possibility--I do not have that much money or scientific know-how (as any look at my college careers might suggest); but again, everything about the situation, however unlikely, conforms to known rules of physical interaction and capabilities. With the third case, however, not only is the situation unlikely, as I probably do not have the money for such a thing, among other limiting factors; but the very existence of the situation contradicts known biology. And so while arguing that I have an ion engine in my garage might garner a "pics or it didn't happen" counter, arguing that I have a dragon in my backyard wouldn't even be met with that, as I should not hold to the possibility of a dragon if I have argued for the possibility of the grounds on which my claim of ownership rests.
Confusing enough? It made more sense on the car trip. The probability of the possibility of extraterrestrials is good, the probability of the possibility of faeries is poor. And so, like the quote at the top of this post, Santa Claus does not hold a great probability of possibility, so to admit "I suppose it's possible" ignores somewhat if not completely the more fundamental possibility issue of the physical system which allows even for the possibility of Santa Claus. The same goes for god, I think. to be agnostic (either literally or in the newer sense of abstained decision) with regards to god, suggest that one is agnostic (again, in either sense) with regards to the aspects of the physical/divine system which allows for even the possibility of a god. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short rant about about probability and possibility: 
Do you know what else I'm tired off? I'm tired of needing to be a freaking expert on every field of the physical sciences just to get some religious individuals any degree of doubt. And not just an expert, but an up-to-date, nearly omniscient expert. Because, when you have divinity as the base assumption (maybe this applies to other things beyond religion and divinity), any one piece of evidence that can be be suggested as an exception to usual physical law (regardless of the authority of the exception) is enough to hold back the entire consequence of the physical system. I could go on and on about how the earth is ancient, a global flood a la Noah or Gilgamesh is essentially impossible, etc..., and yet if the religious individual can give one counterexample, whether it be something they heard or read or saw, like a tree displaced in the mountains, or a rock formation in the shape of an ark, then they will say "Ha, my version is still the right one. You have yet to disprove every single aspect of my belief system", and all the previous science that was shown is dismissed or held to be less than it was.

Questions for Breakfast: Christianity, part 1

This is the part of the blog where I spill random, kinda-organized thoughts on religion and politics and society. I do this to get these ideas into the fresh air, or otherwise they would to nothing but fester in a solitary mind. I'm looking for answers, perspectives, criticism, and enlightenment. As these thoughts as written as not very refined, they may be offensive, they may be ignorant, they may be chock full or logical fallacies, for all I know. If you can point something out, please do.
Like I say below, among my worst fears are to be someone who simply rationalizes everything away in spite of clear evidence, or that the arguments and thoughts below are simply not worth teh time, because of the basic flaws in the very premises.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To accept the Bible as divine is to give too much credence to human violence, and not enough credence to human insight"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have often of late defined an essential feature of religion being not only the existence of moral precepts, but of authority granted these precepts becuase of a divine entity. Subtract the divinity, and what remains is philosophy. Subtract the moral rules, and what remains is a fantasy akin to belief in unicorns and pixies.

In some cases perhaps there is the simultaneous existence of both the divinity and the rules, but the two are not actually related. It becomes something like the Euthyphro dilemma, in that we have to wonder how much of our moral actions come from internal or secular sources, and how much acutally comes from divine authority.

This then becomes questions to Christians: To what degree do you (or others if you prefer) grant God/god(s) authority?

That is, going by the definition of religion above (which you can contest) to what degree is your personal philosophy an independent parallel to God's perceived commands/sanctions/etc...,and to what degree is your personal philosphy primarily a product of divine communication?

I have heard some stories about how sarificing personal desires to divine commands has helped a person out and persuaded them that the divine commands are really the way to go. Usually these stories deal with addictions and depression and such. But what of some of the more commonly argued cases, like the sacrifice of a child or a body part?

When you comes across a tale or command that you don't intially agree with, how do you respond?

(BTW, this kind of question can also be leveled at non-theists and other philosophies. I ask myself often, and one of my worst fears that I discover that I am one who willing to rationalize away problems despite the evidence for them)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a slightly related vein, I remember an instance where Richard Dawkins was asked "what if you're wrong?". Now, his answer was short and sweet, essentially noting that simply if he were to be wrong, that would in no way validate the position/beliefs of the asker. Were he wrong, the other person would not necessarily be right. Perhaps nobody would be right.

I wanted to go a little bit further, as some individuals were not totally satisfied with Dawkins' answer.

Let's say I was wrong (on the nature of the existence of god(s)). Actually, that statement alone implies very little. We could say that there is some divine entity, but simply showing that it exists says nothing else about it (I am parital to the thought that the Big Bang is the result of an unintended harmonized 'fart' from two divine beings of noodly-aquatic nature, simply going about other business). From a larger standpoint, I'd like to evision a scenario wherein even scientists are wrong regarding the source of genetic diveristy and the origin of life and even things like rainbows and stars, but I'm finding it very hard to do. What we know scienctifically works so well I can only imagine that were a deity to exist it would be much less of an interferer than many gods imagine throughout history, or science would not be proven to be 'wrong', only somewhat limited in scope. Much like how Newtonian physics are not 'wrong', they are 'limited'. 

And there, you see, we can already suggest or define some aspects of this deity, by its influence on the material; much like how we might tell the wind by it effect on visible things. We cannot be entirely certian, of course, and this is to say nothing of things like intent and meaing and feelings that this entity might possess, if it possesses them at all.

But to return to the original question. If I am wrong, very little changes. Scientific thoeries are not invalidated; either they remain as they are or we have been shown a way in which they might be expanded.

For myself, I think that I would hardly change at all, unless this entity were to of its own volition or becuase of our prodding show or reveal or impose some scientific or divine or moral truths or precepts upon us.

There are then, I think, four general ways in which this might play out:

 - The entity reveals something truely revolutionary, in the matter of moral or possible life goals or scientific insights or all of the above. I am then a theist and a convert, quite possibly, but then again, few if any can be said to have been part of that religion prior to the god-prodding.

 - The entity reveals has a decent plan. I tend to think of this option as something like if Jesus as commonly though of in Western culture (as opposed to literal Bible reading) was revealed to be real and divine. Even in this case I think I would remain a secularist--especially if there are no consequences to not subscribing to the entity's plan. Even if this entities plan were not decent, but there were no consequences of not following it, I think I remain the same.

 - The entity suprising reveals a plan almost identical to my own opinions. In such a case, I do nothing, though my label might change. I as a person have changed little if at all.

 - The entity, regardless of plan, sets consequences for not following the plan or goals that it sets. Likely, regardless of the rules it proposes or reveals, I move from being an atheist to becomeing an anti-theist. All that needs change on my part is an even more powerful dedication to keeping the entities ideas away from the human populace. i.e. if I were wrong regarding the existence of Yahweh, I would hardly fall to me knees and beg forgiveness. I would more likely look for a way to commit deicide.

So, in essence, if I am wrong, a great variety of things would/could happen, but I think would be effected minimally, aside from the necessity of admitting I am wrong. My philosophies are built without consideration for a divine entity, as are the constructs of science, so unless that entity has something useful to contribute, we don't really care.

The better questions, as Dawkins came close to asking, what if those of you have built a philosophyWITH the consideration of a diving entity; what if you are wrong?

coming up on Questions for Breakfast:

 - proving/disproving god(s)

 - religious revision and scientific revision

 - the floodgates of symbolic tales

 - the highest good(s)

 - what to be done with the church

 - C.S. Lewis