Philosophically Pondering the NPC

I’m admittedly biased on account of the NPC angle, but I’m going to come out and declare this one of the most enjoyable Mr. O videos ever.

Yet I disagree with his assessment; this girl is most definitely an NPC.  I come from a very blue “one percent” area, and nearly of the NPCs I know are of average to above average intelligence.


• What strikes me about this girl is that she appears to organize concepts from the top down — which is not how the human mind actually forms them.  Rather, she appears to be extracting pre-packaged concepts and relating them back (on the basis of similarity) to ones she already has on file.

Which is why she is able to blaze through things so easily.  She isn’t fully processing information; her CPU is set to file-and-recall.

I do not envy her this — she isn’t fully human.

• I don’t think reading is a question of either “hearing” or “seeing”.

When I read, I’m not acutely aware of the words I’m reading.  With fiction, I’ll initially “hear” the words until I get into the story, at which point I’ll “see” it unfolding in my head as if on a movie screen.  With non-fiction, it’s generally a narration accompanied by microfilm and short video clips.

Yet if I want to go back and find a passage later on, I’m generally pretty good at finding where it was — how far in to the book, which side of the book, and how far down it is on the page.

• With regard to Mx. Soyface and zir strawberries: the cone cells in the retina differentiate between particular wavelengths of light.  So unless those cells or the occipital lobe have/has been in some way damaged (or unless some sort of processing error occurs), color perception should be fairly uniform.

What is not universal is the identification of color.  A lot of that comes down to personal judgement/bias, and some cultures lack the concept of certain colors — i.e., orange, which might be identified as a reddish shade of yellow.

• The thing about the vocal chords doesn’t surprise me. There’s always this “speechy” feeling that accompanies my inner voice when it’s been allowed to run a narrative too long without interruption.

In fact, I often find it difficult to speak after being left too long in sweet, sweet solitude because it’ll feel like I’ve already been talking for hours.

But I disagree with his characterization of thought as suppressed speech.  Language is a vehicle for both thought and speech, so it’s unsurprising that they would stimulate the same equipment.  Thought is definitely the primary, so it would be more accurate to call speech the verbal expression of thought.

• She keeps mentioning the physical because the world of the perceptual-concrete is all she has. She has no imagination, no inner life.

• Asian civilizations are extremely collectivized.  Have to wonder whether the moon runes might play some roll in this by suppressing the development of an inner monologue and thus the capacity for independent thought.

I’m a big fan of classical (specifically Attic) Greek, which is a concept-base language, and I’m convinced this was one of the key factors behind the intellectual blossoming of the 5th-4th centuries BC.  Because what better vehicle for exploring higher-level concepts than a language that is organized on the basis of conceptual relationships?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s