| the most precious thing of alldate posted: 2008-05-12 |
| The 'discover Skepticism' part of Skeptic.com is a great read and I respect Michael Shermer for his open but cautious attitude. What struck me most though was the opening quote from Albert Einstein (since I've been in a quote mood these days): All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have. It's sort of twisted up in a bunch of different directions, but I like the effort. Attempting to reconcile the rational with the absurd is a difficult trick, and just acknowledging the conflict is refreshing. |
| | edit |
| where the power comes fromdate posted: 2008-04-29 |
| Read an old article in Harper's Magazine about the rise of the megachurch (it's unfortunately behind a paywall). There was one passage of a minister talking to his flock that really struck me: "...he quoted theologian Peter Berger, that 'ages of faith are not marked by dialogue but by proclamation' and that 'there is power in the unapologetic proclamation of truth. There is power in it. This is a kingdom of power. Truth does not rest in the wisdom of men but the power of God.'" It's a classic strategy that has worked since the beginning of civilization. Those who control the ideas have the power. |
| | edit |
| Betrand Russell and the doubtful intelligencedate posted: 2008-04-08 |
| Stumbled upon a comments section in a God versus Atheism article where Betrand Russell was quoted: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." At first I read this as a typical science needs to be more macho type of comment, but after finding a page of Russell quotes I started thinking that he more likely was saying to doubt is to be intelligent and that pretending to know everything is for the stupid. This is a refreshing anecdote to the common fundamentalist atheistic approach which is, "we're the closest thing to right we have right now, so that makes us right." Whatever the case, the quote made me think of the opening sequence in Mike Judge's 'Idiocracy'. Here are some more gems from Russell: "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." "Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don’t know." "The most savage controversies are about those matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." "Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom, in the pursuit of truth as in the endeavor after a worthy manner of life." |
| | edit |
| simple answers to hard questionsdate posted: 2008-03-31 |
| I love this site, for so many different reasons on so many different levels. Its like a 'Dummies Guide to Life' sort of operation. All your philosophical issues wrapped up in 300 words or less. The one question/answer that immediately stood out was this one in the 'death' category: DOES LIFE AFTER DEATH EXIST??? WHAT REASONS COULD WE GIVE TO DENY ITS EXISTENCE??? THANX -- August 9, 2006 Response from Alastair Norcross on August 10, 2006 The main reason we could give to deny the existence of life after death is that we have no good evidence for its existence. The question of when an absence of evidence for the existence of something is a (good) reason to deny its existence is complicated. But consider the existence of the Easter Bunny, or of an undetectable pink elephant in your bedroom. First of, the 'THANX' may be the best part. What is the meaning of life? THANX. Hey God, give me a hand will you? THANX! What is so great about the answer, besides the classic 'let an expert take this one' professional philosopher smugness, is that it reveals why Western philosophy is really just an exercise in using language to tie and untie knots in logic versus resonating with a a greater truth. I prefer a more Zen like approach, "the question is not 'what is death', the question is 'what is life'?" Since we haven't figured out the latter, it makes it really, really hard to nail down the former. Instead Mr. Norcross deftly uses the Occam's Razor approach which I've covered at great length by now. Boo. It would appear like Norcross is a scientist, not a philosopher and a materialist at that. We are material beings and that consciousness arises (in some yet unknown way) from that material soup in our brain. When we die, the plug is pulled and so to is our personal existence. There is no other evidence we have to show otherwise, so until that time, this is the answer. Love it or leave it. I don't have the time to begin exploring this fully, but what I will say is that this encapsulates why there is so much suffering in the world. The modern Western human mind is bent on using rational logic to answer irrational questions. When I say 'irrational', I mean questions that are far bigger in scope then the meanings we assign them through language. And 'far bigger' is a major understatement. |
| | edit |
| as phillip dick saysdate posted: 2008-02-19 |
| "...or what Phillip K. Dick called the recognition of 'semi-reality': the attitude that the world may not be objectively real in the way some people naively think, but is incontrovertibly there nonetheless." |
| | edit |
| occam and the razordate posted: 2008-02-06 |
| Read this short response to Brian Whitworth's paper on the possibility that we're living in a virtual reality. This response, like many of the comments on the BoingBoing story, is based on the use of Occam's Razor to quickly disembowel any wayward philosophical inquiries I've tried to wrap my head around this type of reasoning but can't see how it makes any sense to use "the razor" for disproving theories. Basically it says that if there is a simpler answer for a question, then we should 'razor away' the more complicated answer and go with the simpler one. The catch being that there is no way I can tell of objectively measuring 'simpler' (provided these aren't formal mathematical equations), so who ever happens to be wielding the 'razor' gets to be the decider thereby making the process very susceptible to bias. And indeed, all the comments that seek to nullify the VR theory spring from scientist-types and other foot solidly on the ground thinkers who are unabashedly predisposed to a certain belief system (some flavor of materialism where science is a substitute for God) and use the 'razor' accordingly. For instance... Well, just skimming through the PDF I don't see how you verify this theory. Another question immediately leaps to my mind "If we are a simulated reality then is the world in which we are a simulation also simulated?" Or is it an "objective reality" If it is then why can't we be objectively real? If it isn't then doesn't that invoke an rather nasty infinite regress? Lord Occam walks in the room "Enough!" snip! "There ya go, kids. You're objectively real as far as you'll ever know. Now get back to work on something important." Some think that the more we know, the less there is to know. I disagree, I think that the more we know, the more we find there is to know. |
| | edit |
| a tired illusiondate posted: 2008-01-29 |
| More games of language. Are we the illusion, or is the illusion we're an illusion the illusion? Tough call. Just finished an article by Nicholas Humphries in Seed magazine that posits the thought that consciousness is actually a sophisticated illusion that occurs when some indetermined number of complex brain functions overlap. As Humphries puts it: Creating a thing that gives the illusion of having weird and wonderful properties need be no great shakes, and is certainly much easier than creating something that actually has them, especially when it is possible to restrict the point of view. In the areas of reading that I've been roaming around in, this appears to be a rising tide of opinion. Last night I was reading the final chapter in 'Descarte's Error' by Antonio Damasio that makes the same argument. And I believe, although I'm still wading through it, that Hofsteader is also moving down this path in 'A Strange Loop'. What brings me to write however, is the combination of British-ness and steadfast 'we're scientists, we can handle this-ness' of the Humphries article. There is every reason to think the truth about consciousness will eventually be discovered by scientific investigation. Even so, I'd flag a potential difficulty in getting there. In other words, we're practically there except for a few minor i's to dot and t's to cross along the way. Wisely for Humphries, 'will eventually' leaves him lots of wiggle room, so call it next week or call it a thousand years, but science will get to the bottom of this one. Each time I open my mind up to this theory (and it is just a theory) I slip into a nasty nihilistic groove. That 'ugly truth' feeling that all the stories we tell ourselves are not true. That we are, for all intents and purposes, evolved animals from the primordial soup with this unique ability to lament the fact that we have this unique ability. We come, quite literally, from the Earth. Our brains are lucky enough to have matured and we popped into existence as the frontal lobes reached terminal velocity and set the illusion of self in motion. And on the backside, when the heart stops, the blood ceases to flow, that brain will run out of gas and the illusion, like neon light, make a funny zapping noise and shut off. No trace of the person we once were, only the physical remnants of our bodies. Perhaps we passed some DNA on to our children, or wrote a book, or our neighbors remember who we are for awhile. Then, as time passes, we completely and utterly cease to exist. That's some heavy stuff right there. I've been meaning for awhile to really lay out what the materialist scenario is and that's as close as I'll get for awhile. When I watch Dennett and Hawking's speak, they are stand so firm and rational against all the other kookie bears out there who are peddling their half baked theories on the internets. But it's only because they are wearing button down shirts and use mathematical formulas that no one gets bent out of shape about what has got to be the trippiest idea of all, that we are illusions and only exist because a lot of chemicals and electricity have formed a pattern that enables the illusion to bend inward just enough to spy a portion of it's tail. That sounds Zen to me. So where are the New Age equivalents of fundamental materialists? This is some really, really weird shit they're talking about, but it seems that these guys, unless they've had a bottle of wine or two, haven't really dug deeply what they're talking about. Either that or they're all Buddha master/Dr. Spock level thinkers who have moved all the way through this meaning of reality and are able to say things like: But perhaps the big idea should be that consciousness, which is of such significance to us subjectively, is scientifically not such a big deal. There is someone who is truly mastered the human condition. That is basically a Koan that substitutes 'in the greater truth' for 'scientifically'. Well, I think it's a cop out. It is a cliche scientific attitude that puts the emphasis on the all powerful 'science' and disdains the messy world of 'subjectivity' where people are unfortunate, imperfect intrusions on an otherwise model universe. If you look back at where we came from, it seems a pretty consistent cycle that along the way to where we thought we were going, we get a lot of new information that radically changes where we end up. |
| | edit |
| the truth you don't want you to knowdate posted: 2007-12-20 |
| Was doing my semi-regular meltdown of all the articles and books that build up on my desk when I came across this article about the psychology of religion. While the actual thrust of the article is about whether the belief in religion developed as an evolutionary advantage or not. Either way, the idea that religion (in fact spirituality) exists to save ourselves from the incomprehensibility of existence is a fascinating idea. One that more people should think a little harder about. Folkpsychology, as Atran and his colleagues see it, is essential to getting along in the contemporary world, just as it has been since prehistoric times. It allows us to anticipate the actions of others and to lead others to believe what we want them to believe; it is at the heart of everything from marriage to office politics to poker. People without this trait, like those with severe autism, are impaired, unable to imagine themselves in other people’s heads. The process begins with positing the existence of minds, our own and others’, that we cannot see or feel. This leaves us open, almost instinctively, to belief in the separation of the body (the visible) and the mind (the invisible). If you can posit minds in other people that you cannot verify empirically, suggests Paul Bloom, a psychologist and the author of “Descartes’ Baby,” published in 2004, it is a short step to positing minds that do not have to be anchored to a body. And from there, he said, it is another short step to positing an immaterial soul and a transcendent God. Fear of death is an undercurrent of belief. The spirits of dead ancestors, ghosts, immortal deities, heaven and hell, the everlasting soul: the notion of spiritual existence after death is at the heart of almost every religion. According to some adaptationists, this is part of religion’s role, to help humans deal with the grim certainty of death. Believing in God and the afterlife, they say, is how we make sense of the brevity of our time on earth, how we give meaning to this brutish and short existence. Religion can offer solace to the bereaved and comfort to the frightened. Fear of death is an undercurrent of belief. The spirits of dead ancestors, ghosts, immortal deities, heaven and hell, the everlasting soul: the notion of spiritual existence after death is at the heart of almost every religion. According to some adaptationists, this is part of religion’s role, to help humans deal with the grim certainty of death. Believing in God and the afterlife, they say, is how we make sense of the brevity of our time on earth, how we give meaning to this brutish and short existence. Religion can offer solace to the bereaved and comfort to the frightened. But the spandrelists counter that saying these beliefs are consolation does not mean they offered an adaptive advantage to our ancestors. “The human mind does not produce adequate comforting delusions against all situations of stress or fear,” wrote Pascal Boyer, a leading byproduct theorist, in “Religion Explained,” which came out a year before Atran’s book. “Indeed, any organism that was prone to such delusions would not survive long.” Whether or not it is adaptive, belief in the afterlife gains power in two ways: from the intensity with which people wish it to be true and from the confirmation it seems to get from the real world. This brings us back to folkpsychology. We try to make sense of other people partly by imagining what it is like to be them, an adaptive trait that allowed our ancestors to outwit potential enemies. But when we think about being dead, we run into a cognitive wall. How can we possibly think about not thinking? “Try to fill your consciousness with the representation of no-consciousness, and you will see the impossibility of it,” the Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno wrote in “Tragic Sense of Life.” “The effort to comprehend it causes the most tormenting dizziness. We cannot conceive of ourselves as not existing.” |
| | edit |
| thoughts on Lucid Dreaming with Jeff Warren and Stephen LaBergedate posted: 2007-12-03 |
| I have been reading Jeff Warren's Head Trip which I have been thouroughly enjoying and highly recommend. Right now I'm on the chapter about Lucid Dreaming where he sums up Stephen LaBerge's explanation of dreaming which makes so much sense. "One of the core insights of cognitive neuroscience is that all we ever experience of reality are simulations created by our brains. Our nervous systems build a model of the world based on two streams of data. The first stream is the obvious one: sensory data. This comes in, all broken up, through the eyes and other sense organs, and then it gets routed by the thalamus up to higher levels of the cortex for model assembly. Thus the world we see out there is more accurately a model that gets built in here. But this is where it gets tricky: this sensory data isn't just assembled, it's also interpreted. And that interpretation relies on a second stream of data: not what we see, but what we expect to see, and sometimes even what we want to see. This stream of data comes from our memories of the past, as well as our current motivational state. Where the first stream is bottom-up, this second stream is top-down." According to LaBerge (and in oppostion of Allan Hobson), the big difference between regular dreaming and lucid dreaming isn't physical, it's psychological. "So, if dreaming can be viewed as the special case of perception without the constraints of sensory input", he paused, looking deliberately around the room, "and perception can be viewed as the special case of dreaming constrained by sensory input, then what does that tell you?" The room went silent. Someone raised a hand. "We, um, we're alway dreaming?" LaBerge smiled. |
| | edit |
| when mental models go mentaldate posted: 2007-11-25 |
| As a follow up to yesterday's post where I talked about the idea that there are no absolutes when it comes to the true nature of the One External World. All we have our the mental models we create to explain how the world around us works. As more information becomes available, we continue to fine tune these models. This would seem to be an easy to follow concept. Come up with some mental models (hypothesis), test them over time (could be a very long period of time) and see what works and what doesn't. Of course it's nowhere near as easy as that because a) trying to capture all of life as we know it (and don't know it) in one model is a task far beyond our current scope of knoweldge and b) we're not all in agreement that we're not going to agree on a proper model until all the tests have confirmed that it's indeed the right one. An article I read today in the NY Times magazine demonstrated this point to perfection. It's about the 'young earth' creationists who are having tremendous success within the Christian community spreading the idea that the Earth was created less then 10,000 years ago. The last paragraph in the article explains how and educated creationist like Kurt Wise continues to support this theory: If Wise still has doubts, or unhappiness, he has learned to put them aside. When consulting for the Creation Museum, he considered his most important duty to be presenting a “coherent story line about the earth’s history,” he said. “Even if it’s wrong, it’s a starting point. We use coherence as a criteria. It ought to fit together not as a set of random processes but something coherent orchestrated by God. And not just coherent but spine-tingling. God is behind this story. I can know it as a single story, and the story can be understood, and the story can be spine tingling. There’s a Whoa! factor. And it’s there from the first verse: The Lord God is One.” This is such a classic case of priming an idea for rapid and efficient transmission. As long as it's got an appealing hook to it that will attract support from people who won't question the intellectual foundations of the claim, this idea will live and continue to spread. So what these people are doing are circumventing the central premise, the core principle that 'WE DON'T KNOW IT ALL YET'. And when this happens, then they're losing site of the 'mental' part of the model.They're crystallizing the models into dogma meaning that these models can no longer be questioned, they must be accepted as truth. And that's where the trouble really starts. One of the cleverest ways an idea can protect itself from attack is to wrap itself with the 'it requires a leap of faith' defense. I'll get into this concept in a later post. |
| | edit |
| external versus internal realitiesdate posted: 2007-11-08 |
| Humans have the ability to create ideas in their minds that don't exist in external reality. Say, a pink flying elephant. These very same minds are also taking input from the external reality and creating models for us so that we can interact with external reality in a coherent way. There is a ball moving towards our face, we should move. So it would seem natural that much confusion would arise between what ideas we have in our head match the external reality (yes, there is a ball heading towards us) and which don't match (no, there aren't really pink elephants flying around the room). Simple issues like the two examples I presented are easy to resolve. But life is not simple, it is extremely chaotic and quite abstract. And so the testing of the larger, more complex, more abstract ideas we have against their reality counterparts becomes very, very difficult if not all together impossible. Which is why there is, and probably always will be, highly emotional debates over ideas like religion, life after death, parallel universes and so forth. Science is a precise language, to a point, but it can't measure everything and sort out all the differences between the inner models and the one great external model. Richard Carrier describes this far better then I can on his blog: Consequently, Newton's equations for motion and gravity only apply to ideal situations, which never in fact exist. That humans choose to focus on the ideal as a means to get a handle on the complexities of the real world is a product of human limitations. But this means Newton's laws are essentially human fabrications. We made them simple on purpose. Because we needed them simple to be useful. The universe, however, is never that simple. Maybe someday when the computers are powerful enough we will be able to true up the models, but that probably won't happen in our lifetime. |
| | edit |
| arguments for atheismdate posted: 2007-11-03 |
| While procrastinating on my own entries I found these two blog entries outlining two different arguments for atheism. While I think all the arguing over the existence of God is an unfortunate waste of time, the logic here is simple but intriguing. "So if something appears as if it cannot be explained naturalistically, instead of invoking the supernatural, we should instead confidently wait for science to do its job." I agree with the general gist of this idea but not the flippancy of the 'wait for science to do its job' part. Science is the new god then? |
| | edit |
| no instructions necessary...date posted: 2007-10-25 |
| And we think because we are alive, we should know a lot about living. But when it comes down to it, we don't know that much about ourselves or anything else for that matter. We think we know lots of things, but that's a survival mechanism our brains use to keep us from facing up to the reality of the situation. Because if we really get into how much we don't know, without a zen like buddha mind to protect us, we just might lose our collective marbles. Yet somehow we manage to get up every day, put our shoes on and head out into the world having faith that the rules of the world haven't dramatically changed since the last time we were conscious. It's very impressive feat we've mastered, to achieve a (somewhat) state of self knowledge without going insane. I have a feeling we're paying a price for our sanity though, and that would be the ignorance that protects us. But I digress. I started this note off after reading an article in National Geographic about memory. The article talks about someone with an amazingly rich memory, and someone who has no short term memory at all. My point was going to be that, as a follow up to my last note, people with incredible memories are concrete evidence of what we don't know about ourselves and the huge pool of things we haven't figured out yet but are really quite impressive and could change the way we all live our lives. But then I read this quote: Still, as a recorder, the brain does a notoriously wretched job. Tragedies and humiliations seem to be etched most sharply, often with the most unbearable exactitude, while those memories we think we really need—the name of the acquaintance, the time of the appointment, the location of the car keys—have a habit of evaporating. And I remembered a completely other train of though I had been running down earlier. It's this uncomfortable scenario where humans can only observe a small fraction of the 'ultimate reality' that they live in. We have five cranky senses, struggling to stay in sync, that feed us somewhat coherent data that we match up against information in our brain in order to present a coherent model of reality so that we can function. The examples of this are all over the place. Anyway. I'm exhausted already. Ignorance is bliss. |
| | edit |
| the material worlddate posted: 2007-10-21 |
| Two articles and a movie have been weighing heavily on me this week. The first article talks about predominance of neuro-determinism in the sciences and why that isn't necessarily a good thing. The second article is an illuminating piece in the New Yorker about consciousness and the vegetative state. The third is the movie 'Away From Her'. In the first article, the author spends a lot of time laying out the argument for neuro-determinism (which I believe is a variation on materialism)... Colin Blakemore, an eminent neuroscientist, captures all of these views in the claim: ‘The human brain is a machine which alone accounts for all our actions, our most private thoughts, our beliefs… All our actions are products of the activity of our brains. It makes no sense (in scientific terms) to try to distinguish sharply between acts that result from conscious attention and those that result from our reflexes or are caused by disease or damage to the brain.’ The counter argument is goes like this, 'well, we just don't know enough to say this is the way it is." Fair enough. Then I read a whole bunch about what happens to people when they suffer from various brain traumas (strokes, car accidents, alzheimer's) and the direct and the powerful effect it has on their consciousness and their personality. And then I watched that movie about the crushing effects of Alzhiemer's. As much as I want to believe that humans have a soul, that we have a greater purpose, that we continue onward after death, it's very difficult to reconcile this with the very clear and concrete evidence that as our brain goes, so goes our consciousness. What I've discovered though is that embracing the idea of materialism in no way sucks the magic out of life. In fact I find that it boggles the mind far more then believing in the spirit world does. We are here, alone, only dependent on each other to make the best of what we can in the incredibly limited amount of time we have. You can't take anything with you, including you. So we only live through that which we pass on to future generations. That's some heavy duty stuff right there when you really dig into it. All responsibility begins and ends with us. Period. Now as sad as 'Away From Her' made me, and it really hit me hard, it's nothing compared to the idea of being in a vegetative state while retaining consciousness. As Owen put it, “The thought of coma, vegetative state, and other disorders of consciousness troubles us all, because it awakens the old terror of being buried alive. Can any of these patients think, feel, or understand those around them? And, if so, what does this tell us about the nature of consciousness itself?” Of course we want to believe that we are not this fragile and that life is not this random or unfair, that we'll look back at all of this from somewhere else and have a good laugh. But what if that's not true? I guess we'll never know. [One last note, I'm not actually a died-in-the-wool materialist. I just happen to have been thinking about it a lot. In an upcoming entry I'll explore the other alternatives. In other words, don't slide into a nihilistic funk just quite yet.] |
| | edit |
| classes of informationdate posted: 2007-10-19 |
| Following up on yesterday's post, as I think about it, there are lots of different ways to categorize information (in relationship to human beings): - Information in our brains that we have conscious access to - Information in our brains that we don't have conscious access to (or at least easy access to) - Information in our brains that we may have access to but can't perceive - Information that can be perceived by humans (but not in our individual brains) - Information can be perceived by humans but isn't yet (or has been lost) - Information that can't be perceived by humans When I say can't perceive, I mean it's like looking at a scrambled Rubik's cube. You know there is an answer to solving it, but you just don't know what it is. So on a bigger scale, we know there is an answer to curing cancer, we just don't perceive it yet. The idea of a perfect information collection system is to close the gap between the information we have in our brains (and have access to) and the information that is currently known (and recorded somewhere by someone) by humans. The benefit of this system is that it gives our brains the ability to synthesize the known data enabling us to perceive new information. The frustrating (but what is so essential to the human condition) is that there is information currently known to some of the humans, but is not being distributed. So we really don't know how much we actually know. I love this quote from Tim O'Reilly who cribbed it from William Gibson: "The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." That about sums it up. Read the rest of the Tim's article here. The other quote I love which is from an unlikely source and I'm not sure how much actual wisdom was behind it: "Now what is the message there? The message is that there are known "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns." |
| | edit |
| Also can you think of anythingdate posted: 0000-00-00 |
| Also can you think of anything Hi there, my cousin loves these games and I wanted to get him something for his christmas. I was wondering what these prepaid game cards are for, is it for online play??Also can you think of anything he would like in the ffxi powerleveling genre? What about the strategy guides are they specific to each expansion? What would be the best guide, I have seen warcraft maps and stuff.sinaThanks for your help in advance Doesnt World Of world of warcraft gold and powerleveling just spoil your mood at times? It gets frustrating at times and especially when its night time, you can't see where you're going and stuff..I think its extremely annoying when you have to start all over from the graveyard! Or when an enemy in red (those that attack you as soon as they see you) attacks you in the middle of your quest! I don't play for too long just 1 hour MAX, I'm not addicted like many are..fc2 But it just pisses me off sometimes, with all the horrifying faces around and doing nothing but fighting. I love that game its just..I don't understand why sometimes it gets frustrating! What do you World Of Warcraft players think? hi u guys this is a really important question. i am currently doing the world of power level world of warcraft 10 day free trial which has already been downloaded and everything. i have a lvl 10 hunter which i have raised with much care, and trained respectively. i am bummed out though. 1nce my 10 day free trial is over.photobucket will i be able to continue to pay, and keep playing on my lvl 10 hunter? keep in mind that i do not have the world of warcraft cd, but when i downloaded the free trial, aid that i was downloading the full game. thank u, and god bless Is there any way to get modifications for World of power level wow weaponry and armour? I hate weapons and armour that have spikes and curves and all of this other **** that makes it look like something Blizzard pulled out of their ***.google So, is there any visual modifications (that of course would only be visible to me) for World of Warcraft?I've never heard of any mods for a multiplayer game, usually mods are for single player games like Oblivion or Neverwinter Nights, but I hope there is, because I can't stand cruddy weapons. Unlike most people out there, I actually WANT to be addicted to World of wow power levels, to occupy my time.Unfortunately, every time I try to play I can't get past level 10 before quitting due to utter boredom.amazon I get a quest, I do the quest I get the reward and I rinse and repeat until the end of time; it gets old - fast.So what's the secret? What drives 8,000,000+ players to keep playing and have fun? I wish I knew, I truly do.I'd even PAY someone, if possible, to addict me to World of Warcraft, while many people would pay to stop their addiction.Anyway, what can I do to have fun in World of Warcraft? |
| | edit |