2012-06-07, 07:11 | Link #29061 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Code:
Beatrice is Telling the Truth Lying You believe You can understand You cannot understand You disbelieve You cannot understand You cannot understand If you can understand the reason someone is lying and when he's lying you can also understand the truth. And Pascal was a philosopher that completely disregarded the Socratic tenant that one who knows he doesn't know knows more than one who believes to know even if he doesn't. There is a value in knowing you don't know that this model completely overlooks. And frankly Umineko to me always seemed the kind of story where you can't really carelessly believe in everything. Code:
Beatrice is Sane Delusional! You decide she's Sane You can understand You cannot understand You decide she's Delusional No understanding No understanding You could be right only in the case where delusions and lies are completely random. But delusions and lies are almost never random, and I believe they definitely aren't in Umineko.
__________________
|
2012-06-07, 08:44 | Link #29062 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
Krauss gets into a fistfight with a goat demon in EP4, but we don't label him as delusional. We understand that because there was no external observer to that scene, it was painted over with a parallel fantasy narrative by the Reader. So, understanding that EP4 Ange is fictional, why do you conclude that she's delusional when the parts of her narrative without external observers are also painted over with fantasy?
__________________
|
|
2012-06-07, 10:30 | Link #29063 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
I guess I'm trying to get at more the philosophy of your own decision or reaction to other people. What I mean is that if you 'disbelieve,' you are choosing to refuse to understand to begin with. Because you believe that there is no truth to be found to begin with. So if you're trying to understand why someone is lying already, you are believing that some kind of truth is available to be understood. Quote:
So what I mean is that when we decide that it's totally useless, we kill that ability for any truth to reach us. We kill it inside ourselves simply with a decision. Since you believe you can still mine out the truth, you're on the other side already, on the believing side. Oh also, just in case.... this model is relevant when there is uncertainty of the other side's actions. The more certain you are of the other person's actions, the more certain you are of which decision you should make. Quote:
Of course, this is the fictional Ange in EP4, and it's not guaranteed that the real Ange-Prime would have done this. I'd think that EP4 was an exaggeration of reality in order for Tooya to make a point, of course. When you say that the the fantasy was painted over the truth, that Krauss becomes a super boxer that can defeat magic goatmen, I'm just doing something like pointing out that Krauss ended up being portrayed as a super boxer in the fantasy. In the same way, I'm just saying Ange ended up being portrayed as ... delusional -> escapist? in her fictional representation too. Although, you know, maybe it was unfair for Tooya to have done so, that part really was just halfway through Ange's character arc. In the end her hallucinations fail her and she comes to an better understanding of magic... |
|||
2012-06-07, 10:42 | Link #29064 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Pascal's Wager is only valid in the situation actually proposed by Pascal: Determining whether one should believe on faith in the existence of a God who cannot be apprehended or accessed through reason. While the example matrix could be reapplied, it can only be reapplied in circumstances where faith alone can inform probability.
In other words, if the means exists to determine the truth of Beatrice's statements as well as her nature as an individual and the scenario which presents evidence for or against her existence in the first place, Pascal's Wager is inapplicable because external information which can be accessed and processed by reason informs our possible decisions. Additionally, a presupposition of Pascal's "proof" is that God either exists or does not exist. This is overly simplistic even for Pascal's purposes, but it can at least be boiled down to "either there is some transcendent force or there is not, and this force is more inclined to benevolence toward those who acknowledge it." Which is, I should note, itself a presupposition; Pascal could be flat wrong and God exists but does not care whether or not you believe or is not capable of granting you any benefit or penalty for believing/disbelieving, in which case the matrix is pointless because all outcomes are zero. In the case of Beatrice, however, we have a non-binary continuum of outcomes we can believe she is being truthful or untruthful about. For example, we can doubt her claim of being a witch outright, but we can also choose to partially doubt and partially believe by choosing to believe that she speaks metaphorically about her status as a witch, and assume from there that what she is conveying to us has a meaning in the context of that half-truth which we need to understand is a half-truth to apprehend the truth she's communicating. Basically, if you alter the premises or available information, Pascal's Wager explodes. It's a childishly oversimplified example to begin with, because truth is independent of calculations in uncontrolled situations. You might still learn the truth even if you don't believe anything, simply by accidentally finding a videotape of the entire crime or being told the truth out of the blue by somebody credible who discovered it. Quote:
When Krauss is punching the goat, we don't get the sense that Krauss is believing the goat exists and struggling with it as an internal mental process. Ange's interactions with her magical characters do exactly that, in stark contrast to magic scenes involving any other characters... except Maria, Natsuhi, and Yasu. You can quibble over whether any of those characters are in fact delusional in a psychological sense, but there's clearly something about them which makes you suspect that each, in the words of famed child psychologist Hank Hill, ain't right. But nothing ever suggests that Krauss is having a similar mental development. Ange's fragile psychology is central to her character. Whether it's actually true is another matter, and "Yukari" or Ange-Prime may indeed not be as fragile as, perhaps, the individual who imagined ANGE thinks she is. But it's very clear that he thinks she is, because he treats her like she is.
__________________
|
|
2012-06-07, 11:08 | Link #29065 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
I'm talking about the mental state where even contrary evidence is discarded or reinterpreted to fit your own world view, because you came to a decision before even any evidence came to light. This is illustrated in Umineko by the people going, "I'll never believe in anything but the red text!" Amongst, other ways of totally denying that there was any meaning to be had. Of course, I'm not talking about anyone here doing that, but the mere concept of that action itself. And I'm not sure that in reality anyone saying that would be 100% serious... I hope. And let me just cut off any strawman counter-arguments here. I was not talking about EP4 fictional Ange before, I was talking about Yukari (i.e. 'the real Ange') and the idea that simply having hope in something totally improbable (Battler surviving despite everyone believing him dead) should not be construed as delusional. You do know you are arguing against the metaphor? A metaphor is merely a tool people use to illustrate an idea or concept. And Pascal's wager is merely the tool I used to illustrate the kind of dead end thinking we can find ourselves getting into. In of itself it is not a proof of any kind. (Despite what Pascal may have thought.) Pascal's Wager itself is not relevant to Umineko; whether God exists or not is not the decision matrix that Umineko needs. Did you have any comments about The Believing Game vs. The Doubting Game? Do you have any comments about stuff like dead-end thinking? Quote:
|
||
2012-06-07, 11:33 | Link #29066 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
The problem is, we can potentially be meant to doubt something in order to reach a truth; it's possible to "tell the truth by lying." So if you say you approach Umineko by not believing anything Beatrice says, you might be able to reach the truth if Ryukishi was banking on the truth being reachable by doubting her.
Most of what you're proposing is a meaningless exercise because there's insufficient information to know with certainty the author's purpose with respect to conveyance of the truth and whether it could be attained through different forms of reasoning. It's possible both can lead to an appropriate conclusion. It's also possible to rationally weigh the evidence and author's statements which have been presented and determine that it is more likely than not that, say, the truth does not exist. It's not because a person is doubting as an immediate response, but because attempts not to doubt have been fruitless and evidence suggests there may not have been any purpose to attempting to find anything.
__________________
|
2012-06-07, 11:35 | Link #29067 | ||
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
1) Kyrie claims Krauss had a magic fight with a goat demon 2) Krauss actually had a magic fight with a goat demon There is no credible third interpretation that "Krauss is hallucinated having a magic fight with a goatman." Similarly, with Ange we have: 1) Ange is simply being bullied and feels helpless to do anything about it, so she rejects Maria's philosophy of a positive outlook 2) Ange is being bullied and her demon friends can't help her because there's too much anti-magic toxin, so she rejects them We can argue about whether #3, "Ange is being bullied and her hallucinated imaginary friends can't help her because they don't exist" is a credible interpretation, but aren't you ignoring #1 and #2? There's no need to forcibly mash all the fantasy elements into the real world. If you try, you start needing to claim things like "Ange just happened to hallucinate the stakes attacking Kyrie's men at the exact instant that they were shot, even though she had no idea Amakusa had a sniper rifle or when he would fire." Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-06-07, 11:44 | Link #29068 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
Decision Theory cannot, 'explode' as you say. As the number of scenarios increase, the matrix increases in size; it's not limited to binary decisions. Don't take the one example with Pascal's Wager to be the entirety of the mathematical theory itself. For example, as you say that Beatrice's actions are not binary, we can have a 3x3 matrix. (Or more, you can build up the chart yourself.) Code:
Beatrice says she is a witch. But in reality: Beatrice is a witch lying for a good reason lying for no good reason (nonsensical) You believe: She is a witch Beatrice can do magic You've been deceived You've been deceived Lying for a good reason You've underestimated her You can try to find her reasons You've been deceived Lying for no good reason You've underestimated her You refuse to believe her reasons You refuse to believe anything she says Of course, I'm not talking about using it to apply to things that have a thousand different scenarios. I'm not really talking about using it in your life, in fact. What I am saying applies to Umineko, or our lives and attitudes, is that the bottom row presents you with a total losing scenario based on your on refusal of belief, regardless of the other entity in the columns. Quote:
What I mean is that why I used the title, "Losing at Umineko." I was being cheeky of course, but I'm trying to say that it is our own disbelief that anything is possible (or that we can find the truth) that defeats ourself. We defeat ourselves in Umineko. 8) |
||
2012-06-07, 12:19 | Link #29069 | |||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Additionally, we cannot know that Ange is not delusional, by your own claim. However, the evidence we are shown of her apparent mental state does not necessarily refute that possibility. The issue is whether Ange's mental state appears to be affected by what she has seen, and what this might indicate. To use a better example, Natsuhi either did or didn't think she spoke to Kinzo in his study in ep1, but regardless of whether she did or not it had some effect on her mental state. Was she delusional, or was she just giving herself a pep talk? It's true that there is a significant difference, which is why it's necessary to look at a pattern of behavior. The characters who seem to have the loosest grip on their mental states, Rosa aside, are the ones most immediately inclined to "seeing" fantasy characters and interacting with them while in places where outside observers exist. Granted, again, it could be a metaphor instead. But whether fantasy is harmful doesn't depend on whether the delusions are actualized or simply metaphorical for an unhealthy imaginative process.
__________________
|
|||
2012-06-07, 12:28 | Link #29070 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
The problem is that in this kind of game you can't win simply convincing yourself that you found the truth. Or at least I don't recognize that as a victory at all.
In Umineko you simply cannot win, it's like playing battleship with someone that after a certain point refuses to tell you if you hit his ships. It really doesn't matter what kind of logic or approach you use to guess where those ships are. Whether you disbelief the few feedback that he gave you, or you believe them, you still can't be sure you'll hit the right ships.
__________________
|
2012-06-07, 21:05 | Link #29071 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Speaking of theories, I came up with one of my own on Umineko, seeing as I'm not too fond of the 'everyone's playing a game/pretending to be dead' one. Spoiler for My Theory:
Spoiler for Far-fetched/Incomplete Theory:
|
|
2012-06-07, 22:43 | Link #29072 | ||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to think that the fantasy segments are real? What? Maria can't communicate with Ange. Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2012-06-08, 00:16 | Link #29073 | |
Eaten by goats
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
- If a person can only survive the murders and leave the island through solving the epitaph, but they are also the person who must plan and commit the murders, what on Earth is making them go through with it? - Why can't they leave the island through the usual means? The Ushiromiyas have transport to and from the island. People and supplies are transported back and forth. - If everyone will die during the family conference even if Yasu doesn't do it or appoint anyone else to do it, why doesn't Yasu warn people not to go to the conference? - If appointed the successor, why would Eva go through with it, especially with the murders of her son and her husband? And assuming she could somehow be forced into it, why wouldn't she transfer the successorship to her son in order to protect him? - Why did it take so long for the family to be killed off after Kinzo's death, if he was protecting them? |
|
2012-06-08, 08:09 | Link #29076 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
|
In a sense, KnownNoMore is a victor because he's absolutely convinced he found the answer that he can make a very detailed video (nine hours) explaining it. If you believe you have the answer, you don't let anyone take it away from you, and you weave it in the golden truth, not red or blue.
__________________
|
2012-06-08, 08:56 | Link #29078 |
Eaten by goats
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
|
Eva hiked to Kuwadorian as part of a fitness regime. Battler took a small rowing boat out because of a dare. In the meantime, the bomb malfunctioned and killed everyone else. Any inconsistencies with Battler's memories of the incident were caused by his head injury. Yasu wrote the message bottles for the lulz, and sent them out before the accident. Eva kept the "truth" secret because she mistakenly believed George was the culprit.
...No, that's not super easy enough. The bomb malfunctioned. Or there's always the classic A volcano erupted. |
2012-06-08, 09:28 | Link #29080 |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Think there seems to be something forgotten...
In that anti-mystery vs anti-fantasy TIPS, ryuukishi used the example of Maekashi and said basically "what if I had released a new arc later that basically told you what you thought was the truth with Maekashi alone ended up being wrong". I think if you properly understand the implications of that, you can understand why Umineko doesn't have a clear answer. Why you have to come up with your own answer that satisfies yourself. I'll give an Higurashi example of such a thing. Spoiler for Higurashi:
So just saying this as an example that basically we always make our own answers, even when the author mostly gave them. Im thinking lately more and more that Eva and Battler's survival from Rokkenjima is sorta like them becoming "voyagers" and traveling to a new "kakera". Well I'm not entirely certain about Eva, but Battler seems to fit very much so. As Rika became Bernkastel, Battler became Tohya, is what it really feels like to me. Remember what they say about voyager witches and crossing the sea (and the dangers of forgetting yourself on the way... just like Battler). I think arc 8's ending is a litteral description of that, rather then an actual fact about Battler's escape. Last edited by UsagiTenpura; 2012-06-08 at 09:50. |
|
|