Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

die toten hosen wrote:
i haven't brought up magic at all. I haven't brought up telepathy and magic as related in any way, this is you relating the two.

Okay, then tell me.

How else were you expecting mind-to-mind communication to happen if this thing with the rats cannot be legitimately called telepathy despite scientists and the military calling it exactly that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
no.
Because it isn't telepathy. It is generally accepted that telepathy is direct mind to mind communication without outside assistance or interference.

NOT: we recorded a brainwave and played it in another rats brain. while pretty interesting on its own, it is not telepathy.

Who exactly said it can't involve outside assistance or interference? Where did that idea ever come from?

It comes from the overall general opinion of telepathy.

noun
1.
communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception.

the rats in the study were implanted/hooked up to electrodes, seems pretty sensory based to me.

It's not.

Things that are inarguably types of sensory perception:

-Touch
-Hearing
-Sight
-Taste
-Smell

Other things that are debatable as to being sensory perception or not include things like your sense of balance. There's somewhere between a dozen and fifty things on that list, I forget exactly.

Electrodes replicating one creature's thoughts in another creatures brain is not on the list of things that is even debatable as to whether it's a type of sensory perception or not.

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
i haven't brought up magic at all. I haven't brought up telepathy and magic as related in any way, this is you relating the two.

Okay, then tell me.

How else were you expecting mind-to-mind communication to happen if this thing with the rats cannot be legitimately called telepathy despite scientists and the military calling it exactly that?

Reading the study and interviews with the scientists involved none of them once mention it as "telepathy". Now, i may have missed a word or two, i am human after all, but as far as i can tell the word telepathy was tacked into the study to make it more eye catching and bring more attention to it.

Quote: "These experiments showed that we have established a sophisticated direct communication linkage between brains" is not as eye catching a title.


I don't expect unassisted mind to mind communication to happen, never once stated i thought it could happen nor did i say it did happen. Its pure fantasy.

The science they're working on is pretty nifty but it's not telepathy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright man, you believe what you want.

you've changed your argument so many times in this thread and said some pretty wild things not grounded in reality.

I am out of here.

die toten hosen wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
i haven't brought up magic at all. I haven't brought up telepathy and magic as related in any way, this is you relating the two.

Okay, then tell me.

How else were you expecting mind-to-mind communication to happen if this thing with the rats cannot be legitimately called telepathy despite scientists and the military calling it exactly that?

Reading the study and interviews with the scientists involved none of them once mention it as "telepathy". Now, i may have missed a word or two, i am human after all, but as far as i can tell the word telepathy was tacked into the study to make it more eye catching and bring more attention to it.

Quote: "These experiments showed that we have established a sophisticated direct communication linkage between brains" is not as eye catching a title.


I don't expect unassisted mind to mind communication to happen, never once stated i thought it could happen nor did i say it did happen. Its pure fantasy.

The science they're working on is pretty nifty but it's not telepathy.

Here's Popular Mechanics calling it telepathy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a8686/science-can-now-create-telepathic-rats-15155052/

I think the only reason scientists may not have called it telepathy is that they are much more precise with what they say and telepathy is too vague and sensational a term for scientists who "established a sophisticated direct communication linkage between brains" to use.

The rest of humanity who doesn't have a good understanding of science just call it telepathy for simplicity's sake.

Also, this is the only thread where I have ever encountered anyone who was willing to argue about whether this can be called telepathy or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

die toten hosen wrote:
Alright man, you believe what you want.

you've changed your argument so many times in this thread and said some pretty wild things not grounded in reality.

I am out of here.

I haven't so much changed my argument as the topic of discussion has flowed naturally into other topics. Which is a normal thing for conversations to do. Do you always have a two and a half day long conversation where you talk about the same thing the whole time?

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
i haven't brought up magic at all. I haven't brought up telepathy and magic as related in any way, this is you relating the two.

Okay, then tell me.

How else were you expecting mind-to-mind communication to happen if this thing with the rats cannot be legitimately called telepathy despite scientists and the military calling it exactly that?

Reading the study and interviews with the scientists involved none of them once mention it as "telepathy". Now, i may have missed a word or two, i am human after all, but as far as i can tell the word telepathy was tacked into the study to make it more eye catching and bring more attention to it.

Quote: "These experiments showed that we have established a sophisticated direct communication linkage between brains" is not as eye catching a title.


I don't expect unassisted mind to mind communication to happen, never once stated i thought it could happen nor did i say it did happen. Its pure fantasy.

The science they're working on is pretty nifty but it's not telepathy.

Here's Popular Mechanics calling it telepathy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a8686/science-can-now-create-telepathic-rats-15155052/

I think the only reason scientists may not have called it telepathy is that they are much more precise with what they say and telepathy is too vague and sensational a term for scientists who "established a sophisticated direct communication linkage between brains" to use.

The rest of humanity who doesn't have a good understanding of science just call it telepathy for simplicity's sake.

Also, this is the only thread where I have ever encountered anyone who was willing to argue about whether this can be called telepathy or not.

Oh wow Popular Mechanics, an article website full of click bait, called it telepathy? Certainly couldn't be because it would make it a catchier tittle to garner for views (and thus more ad revenue). /sarcasm

Also calling it telepathy just because people don't understand the science is the worse argument ever. That is literally what "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is. You're just calling it magic at this point.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh wow Popular Mechanics, an article website full of click bait, called it telepathy? Certainly couldn't be because it would make it a catchier tittle to garner for views (and thus more ad revenue). /sarcasm

Also calling it telepathy just because people don't understand the science is the worse argument ever. That is literally what "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is. You're just calling it magic at this point.

I think that's actually the best argument. The people who understand that advanced technology, like you claim to, don't call it telepathy. Those of us who don't understand it call it telepathy because that term seems to describe what we're seeing.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh wow Popular Mechanics, an article website full of click bait, called it telepathy? Certainly couldn't be because it would make it a catchier tittle to garner for views (and thus more ad revenue). /sarcasm

Also calling it telepathy just because people don't understand the science is the worse argument ever. That is literally what "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is. You're just calling it magic at this point.

I think that's actually the best argument. The people who understand that advanced technology, like you claim to, don't call it telepathy. Those of us who don't understand it call it telepathy because that term seems to describe what we're seeing.

That's the stupidest thing i've heard. If this is the logic you believe in there is no point in even listening to what you have to say.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh wow Popular Mechanics, an article website full of click bait, called it telepathy? Certainly couldn't be because it would make it a catchier tittle to garner for views (and thus more ad revenue). /sarcasm

Also calling it telepathy just because people don't understand the science is the worse argument ever. That is literally what "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is. You're just calling it magic at this point.

I think that's actually the best argument. The people who understand that advanced technology, like you claim to, don't call it telepathy. Those of us who don't understand it call it telepathy because that term seems to describe what we're seeing.

That's the stupidest thing i've heard. If this is the logic you believe in there is no point in even listening to what you have to say.

Why?

I basically acknowledged that this isn't really telepathy, it just looks like it to those of us who don't understand the science.

Are you not going to even listen to me when I say you're right and I'm wrong, but with different words?

 Pouncey wrote:
I basically acknowledged that this isn't really telepathy, it just looks like it to those of us who don't understand the science.

It doesn't even look like telepathy to people who don't understand the science. Even the most superficial glance at the clickbait article shows that this is nothing more than communication via electronic devices, just like sending someone a text message saying "press the button". If that "looks like telepathy" to you then so does posting messages on this forum.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Oh wow Popular Mechanics, an article website full of click bait, called it telepathy? Certainly couldn't be because it would make it a catchier tittle to garner for views (and thus more ad revenue). /sarcasm

Also calling it telepathy just because people don't understand the science is the worse argument ever. That is literally what "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is. You're just calling it magic at this point.

I think that's actually the best argument. The people who understand that advanced technology, like you claim to, don't call it telepathy. Those of us who don't understand it call it telepathy because that term seems to describe what we're seeing.

That's the stupidest thing i've heard. If this is the logic you believe in there is no point in even listening to what you have to say.

Why?

I basically acknowledged that this isn't really telepathy, it just looks like it to those of us who don't understand the science.

Are you not going to even listen to me when I say you're right and I'm wrong, but with different words?

The way you wrote it made it sound like you were saying "I'm correct in calling it telepathy because I don't actually understand what is happening" which is a stupid thing to believe

 Pouncey wrote:
Are you not going to even listen to me when I say you're right and I'm wrong, but with different words?

You aren't just using different words, you're trying to defend the idea of calling it "telepathy" at all. Drop the whole "it's reasonable to call it 'telepathy' if you don't understand the science" thing and just admit that you were completely wrong about the whole thing and should never have posted it.

The phrase "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" was meant to convey that people who don't understand technology beyond their comprehension would think it was magic. It was meant to convey that that would be true, even for people who were living in the modern era, who embrace science and reject superstition, who were suddenly faced with technology that was doing things that they would ordinarily call magic.

I'm not arguing that it's telepathy anymore. I'm now saying that I'm one of those people who is faced with technology that I would ordinarily call magic, and the fact I don't believe in magic at all apparently doesn't stop me from calling it magic. Which that phrase was created to let us know would happen. Because I realized I was wrong, and when I realize my argument is wrong, I stop making that argument.

 Pouncey wrote:
I'm now saying that I'm one of those people who is faced with technology that I would ordinarily call magic, and the fact I don't believe in magic at all apparently doesn't stop me from calling it magic.

Err, what? There is no technology here that any reasonable person would ordinarily call magic. I have no idea why you're talking about this.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I'm now saying that I'm one of those people who is faced with technology that I would ordinarily call magic, and the fact I don't believe in magic at all apparently doesn't stop me from calling it magic.

Err, what? There is no technology here that any reasonable person would ordinarily call magic. I have no idea why you're talking about this.

Replace the word magic with telepathy.

 Pouncey wrote:
Replace the word magic with telepathy.

And no reasonable person would look at that and say "this looks like telepathy", just like no reasonable person would look at posting messages on this forum and say "OMG TELEPATHY THEYRE TALKIGN WITH THEIR MINDS". Honestly, why are you continuing to defend this? There is no telepathy, there is nothing that looks even remotely like telepathy, there is only a clickbait headline. At no point is anyone justified in calling anything here "telepathy".

Replace the word telepathy with potato.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Replace the word magic with telepathy.

And no reasonable person would look at that and say "this looks like telepathy", just like no reasonable person would look at posting messages on this forum and say "OMG TELEPATHY THEYRE TALKIGN WITH THEIR MINDS". Honestly, why are you continuing to defend this? There is no telepathy, there is nothing that looks even remotely like telepathy, there is only a clickbait headline. At no point is anyone justified in calling anything here "telepathy".

EXACTLY.

Popular Mechanics called it telepathy because most people would read the article and come away from it without calling bullgak about the title calling it telepathy, even though no one involved in the research project called it telepathy at any point.

I sense the goalposts being shifted once again...

To get back to something more interesting than one person's weird pet theories about the world:

 Crimson wrote:
I am sure the casino dice are indeed better balanced. However, a massive systematic imbalance that would favour one specific number that much is highly implausible.
(The cheap dice have air bubbles and other such imbalances, however, such imbalances are random and would not favour the same number on every die.)

This is not necessarily true. It's possible that something about the manufacturing process causes distortion/air bubbles/whatever to form in a consistent manner, which would have the bias always favor the same side. For example, maybe the 1 side is at the top of the mold, and any air bubbles that form rise a bit before the plastic cools enough to make their location permanent. It wouldn't be a thing without precedent, cast resin models often have bubbles/mold slip/etc in the same place across multiple casts because that's where that particular mold doesn't work quite right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
Popular Mechanics called it telepathy because most people would read the article and come away from it without calling bullgak about the title calling it telepathy, even though no one involved in the research project called it telepathy at any point.

So what does that have to do with all that random stuff you posted about "it's reasonable to call it telepathy if you don't understand the science" or "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"? Obviously Popular Mechanics called it telepathy for clickbait reasons, but that doesn't make what you said reasonable.

 Grimskul wrote:
I sense the goalposts being shifted once again...

Can you really say the goalposts are being shifted when my new argument is essentially, "It's not telepathy, and I only called it that because to me, it looked like it was because my understanding of science is bad enough that I can't tell the difference."?

I'm basically just explaining why I said the thing that we now both agree is wrong at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what does that have to do with all that random stuff you posted about "it's reasonable to call it telepathy if you don't understand the science" or "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"? Obviously Popular Mechanics called it telepathy for clickbait reasons, but that doesn't make what you said reasonable.

I never said it would be reasonable to do so. I said it would happen anyways despite it not being reasonable. Which is what the quote said. Which is what happened here.

Ok, I'm done with this telepathy tangent, it's gone way beyond the point of absurdity. The correct answer here, Pouncey, is to say "I'm sorry, I remembered the article wrong, this has nothing to do with telepathy" and drop the whole thing, not to keep going on about how you had reasons for saying something.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, I'm done with this telepathy tangent, it's gone way beyond the point of absurdity. The correct answer here, Pouncey, is to say "I'm sorry, I remembered the article wrong, this has nothing to do with telepathy" and drop the whole thing, not to keep going on about how you had reasons for saying something.

The concept of "remembering the article wrong" would only be true if I actually read the article in full in the first place. Which I didn't.

How about I say, "I'm sorry, I was completely wrong, this has nothing to do with telepathy," and we drop the whole thing?

Replace the word telepathy with potato.

Did someone call for spuds?

 Ratius wrote:

Replace the word telepathy with potato.

Did someone call for spuds?

Hey, how about we drop that topic and start discussing reasons WH40k's rules are terrible, other than being told that playing WH40k at all means you don't care about balance enough to require fair dice?

Sound good? Get back on track to the thing I talked about in the OP?

40ks main issues with its rules as Vakathi oft points out is that they took a basic ruleset (probably somewhere around late 4th- early 5th) and have been patching said rules every since.
Placing more and more new rules (flyers/GMCs etc) onto a basic set that causes too much headache and strnage interactions to be useful.
I mean strikedown as a sub rule. Really? Remove it altogether.
Added to that is GWs insistence on randomness (random charts/movement/scatter). It takes away a generals ability to plan adn execute a strategy in favour of "the narrative" or some silly explanation of the fog of war.

Having said that 40k is still quite fun imo. Just needs a good old return t the basics.

I think it's more a codex issue rather than brb issue. Well, other than psy powers and probably vehicles vs mc (but not so much as magic) it all can be fixed with just point costs.

 koooaei wrote:
I think it's more a codex issue rather than brb issue. Well, other than psy powers and probably vehicles vs mc (but not so much as magic) it all can be fixed with just point costs.

I remember reading a post from someone who was making a long-term effort to make a better-written version of the 7e BRB by removing the fluffy stuff, not using conversational English for rules, and just rewriting things with shorter, clearer phrasing, with the aim of making the rules clear and concise, without actually changing any rules to the point where the game would play any differently than it already does.

Last I heard they'd removed over 6,000 words from the Psychic Phase section alone and weren't done with that part of the rules yet.

You can leave as few words describing how psy stuff works as possible, it wouldn't change the fact that a psycher with invisibility is game-breaking. It just proceeds breaking without causing logical collisions on the way down.

 koooaei wrote:
You can leave as few words describing how psy stuff works as possible, it wouldn't change the fact that a psycher with invisibility is game-breaking. It just proceeds breaking without causing logical collisions on the way down.

I agree. The problems with WH40k rules go beyond just how they're written and into what those rules actually are. I fully agree with you there.

But "clear and concise" should be an aim of any rules for anything, especially a good one.

 Pouncey wrote:

But "clear and concise" should be an aim of any rules for anything, especially a good one.

That's true but what we currently have is neither "clear and concise" nor "balanced". I'd prefer to get "balanced" first.

 koooaei wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

But "clear and concise" should be an aim of any rules for anything, especially a good one.

That's true but what we currently have is neither "clear and concise" nor "balanced". I'd prefer to get "balanced" first.

Probably that's a good approach.

Ideally, for a game that's been around for 7 editions and... is it up to 30 years yet? I know it's over 25, but is Rogue Trader 30 years old yet? Whatever, 25-30 years, they should really have both by now.