Post by Mxsmanic
It's actually good to not like travel, as it is much cheaper and safer
to stay home.
It's cheaper and safer to be dead, but I don't see many advocates for
that option. (At least not for themselves!) Your statement comes from
the premise that cheaper and safer are better. All other things being
equal, I'd agree, but all other things are far from equal. "Not knowing
what you're missing" is not fair trade for "going through effort to do
something, and enjoying it". Put another way, lack of pain does not
constitute pleasure and should not be confused with it.
Post by Mxsmanic Post by Jose
But simming isn't a life substitute.
Neither is life a simming substitute.
Simming is a subset of life. Different subsets of life =are= simming
Post by Mxsmanic Post by Jose
The part where one accepts the simulation as if it were the same as what
it's simulating [is the part that isn't 'real life'].
That's the whole purpose of simulation.
Uh... no. At least not for me. I sim to practice specific procedures
inexpensively, so that when I need them in real life, they are not as
rusty as they otherwise might be. It is a learning tool for me, not a
substitute. I am always aware that it's a sim, but this doesn't
appreciably reduce the value for the training use to which I put it.
So, since I use simulation effectively without accepting it "as if it
were the same as real life", it cannot be "the =whole= purpose of
simulation." It can, however, be the whole purpose to which =you= put
it. That's different.
Simulation need only be "close enough" for one's purposes. For
entertainment, it doesn't even have to be that close. Versimillitude is
sufficient. For training, certain aspects need to be close to reality,
but immersion is not a requirement in most cases. Where it is required
(such as airline training programs), MSFS doesn't even hold a candle.
How about a different approach. It has been argued ("I will presently
argue") that watching a talk show is a good simulation of having some
friends over and talking into the night. In fact, I suspect that late
nite TV talk shows are a substitute for having company over. In real
life, most of the time in a conversation among several people, you are
not the one talking anyway, so TV already simulates 80% or more of the
interaction, and it's much safer (you won't embarras yourself by
blurting out something stupid) and more convenient (you can eat what you
want, when you want, without regard for what the other people are
having). The analogy isn't perfect, but it should be good enough for
discussion. What would you think of watching TV talk shows as a good
substitute for actually having friends over for dinner and conversation?
Post by Mxsmanic
Ever heard of Method acting?
Yes (and it's ironically named). It's one of two "competing" ways of
developing a performance (I don't know what the other is called; it may
not even have a name). Method acting works well up to a point... beyong
that point it can choke itself off I worked with some people for whom
that happened (though they didn't know it) and it adversely affected
The premise of method acting is that you must =feel=, in real life, the
emotions that you are portraying on stage. It must all spring from
inside, so that it can be "real" for the audience. It is as opposed to
the "outside-in" method, wherein one works on specific gestures, muscle
movements, whatever, that "look like" the depiction of the emotion. In
that paradigm, the actor needn't feel =anything=, so long as it =looks=
like he is, and by controlling his muscle movements well enough he can
make it look convincing enough.
Real emotions bring forth lots of expressions that just come out
naturally, and to fake it convincingly an "outside-in" actor needs to
micromanage his muscles. The purpose of method acting is to allow the
muscles to work by themselves, in response to a real emotion, to avoid
the need for micromanagement. It works very well.
One needs to actually =have= the emotions to feel them. Method acting
can be taken too far. If one "becomes" the character to the extent that
it protrudes too far into one's offstage existance, it blocks out the
real emotions that one has felt in real life in one's real past,
replacing it with a fake personal history, a fake set of memories upon
which to draw, a fake time period in which one lives.... and then the
(supposed to be real) emotions that one draws upon ON STAGE is coming
from this fake background, instead of one's actual life experience.
This actually defeats the purpose of method acting.
For method acting to work well, the =real= emotions that one has felt in
the actor's =real= past must be available to the actor when he's on
stage. For a good method actor this becomes automatic, sort of like
driving a car without thinking how one is doing it. But if an actor
goes beyond that, "becoming" the character even offstage, then the actor
is out of control, and the performance suffers. And if the actor tries
to =impose= such a simulated life on themselves offstage, the actor
loses touch with their real emotions, and the performance suffers.
In my (real) experience with method actors, those that take it too far
end up looking like they are acting.
Reality, ultimately, is quite useful, and should not be dispensed with. :)
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.