Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

[Buddha Buck <blaisepascal@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Jody Chandler <windblownhermit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

My philosophical question remains, is the name of the color of a pyramid considered to be part of a koan?
To me, it isn't.  Only the color itself is considered to be part of the koan, whatever one calls it.

Philosophically, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that the Master marks koans consistently according to the rule as he/she understands it, and that the Students are enlightened when the Master is unable to provide a counter-example to a guess made by a Student.

It has happened to me as Master that when devising a rule I made assumptions that were violated by by a Student's koan.  At that point, I was forced to revise my internal conception of the rule to be able to judge the new koan (ex.  when thinking of "akhtbni there are more upright 'mids than flat 'mids" without considering 'mids that have a side that is parallel to the surface but not grounded.  Are the latter flat or weird?  I have to decide for the purposes of the rule if the choice would affect the marking of a koan?  When I said "more", was I considering the "equal" case?  Doesn't matter, as long as all koans with equal uprights and flats are marked the same way.).  This internal clarification of the rule is normal and somewhat expected.  I believe it's even mentioned in the official rules or supporting documentation by Kory, Andy, Jacob, and others.

To talk about "the name of the color", such as "akhtbni all stacks have colors in alphabetical order, top to bottom", it is possible that the interpretation of the *text* of the rule would be different if the Master's native language was various languages (I'm sure the alphabetical order in Gaelic is different than the alphabetical order in Chinese, however you define "alphabetical order").  But as long as the Master consistently applies the same order when judging koans, it doesn't matter if it's alphabetical in Swahili or English, or even if it's "in the same relative order as a set of colored cards the Master shuffled before this round started".

 

--- On Thu, 8/4/11, David Artman <david.artman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: David Artman <david.artman@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Icehouse] Spock Rule Violations
To: "Icehouse Discussion List" <icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, August 4, 2011, 1:39 PM

I think that y'all are well into a Geeks List discussion, at this point. Consider making new threads there, please. 99% of us have no issues with koan isolation rule; and pushing the rule to be pedantic (or to be a vicious Master) is about as un-Zen as one could be.

Thank you;
David

On Aug 4, 2011 2:25 PM, "Nick Lamicela" <nupanick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> According to wikipedia, Deduction is the process of working from known
> patterns to prove the validity of a statement, so the result is logically
> valid as long as all of the premises are valid. Induction, on the other
> hand, is the process of working from a set of statements to find a pattern,
> but the result may be false even if all the premises are true, because new
> information could potentially contradict that pattern.
>
> Not to be confused with mathematical induction, which is a bit more meta,
> and consists of proving that a pattern *must* be true in all cases by
> constructing an infinite series of data points that follow the pattern but
> can be shown to be true without knowing the pattern.
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Buddha Buck <blaisepascal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Shadowfirebird
>> <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Since the game is about logical deduction based on an iterative process
>> of
>> > the master marking koans, then it follows that (if you are playing
>> fairly)
>> > the master's rule should be discoverable using only that process.
>>
>> I suggest you read Kory Heath's writings on the design of the game,
>> since this paragraph illustrates some fundamental misunderstanding of
>> the point of the game.
>>
>> Specifically, the game is not about logical deduction, but rather
>> about logical *induction*, a completely different process.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Icehouse mailing list
>> Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>>

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Icehouse mailing list
Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse

_______________________________________________
Icehouse mailing list
Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse