Petri Lankoski

JiiTuomas refered on argument about philosophy of science at Rule7, which started as something else. Got interested what kind of RPG forum Rule7 is and started to read. Some arguments in thread made me write this comment. Especially view expressed by ChessyPig (which few seem to agree) raises multiple problems in terms of what is science:

the English definition of science (which involves things like falsifiable hypothesis and controlled experiments […]). (ChessyPig)

Although there are multiple ways of interpreting comment, I take that he made strong claims: science requires falsifiable hypothesis AND controlled experiments. (Just linking science alone with Popper’s philosophy by making falsifiable hypothesis a criteria of science is problematic as, e.g, Kuhn [1962] has argued in detail.)

One obvious question that relates to falsifiability and controlled test as criteria of science is: is mathematics a science? How you use controlled test with mathematics? Are mathematical theories falsifiable?

Then how about physics? Would these above-mentioned criteria lead to that physics is not a science? Physics do not use controlled experiments, I think (I take that controlled experiments means tests with control groups like in medicine). Moreover, does formulating hypothesis that are currently not testable make that part of theory formulation unscientific (and it might turn to be science when someone invent a way to tests the hypothesis)? I think not.

The question is not so straight forward as some writes at Rule7 propose. John Dewey (1929) have criticized very premises of science as seeking certainty and something unchanging (e.g., Popper’s philosophy and falsifiable hypothesis).

Dewey (1929). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action.
Kuhn (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press

The central question in Gallagher’s book is how embodiment shapes human cognition. He is combining phenomenology with empirical studies in, e.g., neurology, like what different pathologies, to reveal about how the brain and body work.

Continue reading ““How the Body Shapes the Mind” by Gallagher”

You can watch presentations, including mine, at Philosophy of Computer Games at tv.unimore.it.

Note for myself for performance review

Building and Reconstructing Character (among others) has been used as course material in SMST319-07B Game Studies course (University of Waikato, New Zealand / Screen & Media Studies).

It might be that spatial conceptualization and abstract reasoning is connectected. Lakoff and Johnson argues in their book Philosophy in the flesh that basis of our thinking is in our bodies and what kind of relations our bodies have with environment we are living in. Multiple essays in Spatial schemas and abstract thought traces questions on how spatial conceptualization and abstract reasoning are connected.

If there is strong link between spatial conceptualization and abstract reasoning does that meant that games that utilize 3D space and require solving spatial problem (e.g., Prince of Persia: Sand of Time) train abstract reasining in general?

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

Gattis, M. (ed.) (2001). Spatial schemas and abstract thought. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

It seems that UIAH email system is totally dysfunctional and has being so for some time now. Currently I haven’t received any emails outside UIAH after 1800 yesturday (I know that I should have got at least some admin messages). Hopefully they will arrive sometime in the future. Admins and consultants are trying to fix the situation–so far without success.

If you need to contact me reliably, using phone is recommended.

In digra list there is discussion on serious games with claims like game is only game if it is played. This view highlights the process nature of the games. On the other hand, the claim make obvious there is confusion what term games refers (Here I do not mean that we need definition composed by nessesary and sufficient conditions): but I think that we need a language that can explicate what kind of stuff we are referring when we say “a game”. Do we mean a process of playing a certain artifact, the artifact, or something else.

Similar vague use of term of role-playing game in recent discussion at Roolipelaaja forum causes missinterpretations. Usually it is not obvious from context if writer with a term role-playing game refers to game system (rulebook), beforehand designed scenario, game event, or already played game event.

Björk & Holopainen (2005) have proposed some terminology to clarify this mess:

A game instance defines the complete collection of all components, actions, and events that take place during the playing of single game. A game session is the whole activity of one player participating in such a game. A play session is the uninterrupted stretch of time when one player is actively playing a game. (p. 9).

I am not sure if these terms solves the problem in general, but their proposal demosntrates some distinctions that might be useful when discussing on games or role-playing games.

Björk & Holopainen (2005). Patterns in Game Design. Hingham: Charles River Media.

There has been discussion on whether table-top RPGs are stories or drama and does they have plot in Roolipelaaja forum. That discussion made me think about some basic concept and views on RPGs.

Johannes Kellomäki argued that from narratologist point of view games are stories; RPGs represents human actions. I took that he meant that acted out events in a game forms a story. Which is perfectly valid view. However, it tells very little about the structures of the game before players have fixed their path with descisions.

Continue reading “Plots and Attractors”

There are notes at Wonderland on Will Wright Keynote at SXSW. Wright comments, e.g., on difference between stories and games (like, stories are about empathy, games about agency) and player telling stories on game events.

It is a gem. Book contains sections on various percepctives on emotions and music like psychology, biology, athropology, and aesthetics. There is also section Music as source of emotion in film. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, computer games are not covered:( Nonetheless, the book seems really valuable for the paper I am currently working with.

Juslin & Sloboda (2001). Music and emotion: Theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.