next »

[MeshGearFox]

when they open a paul eres experience ride at epcot yo

[Capntastic]

You spend hours waiting in line and the ticket taker rips your ticket and says "hope you had a good time"

[s0]

but then it wouldn't be a ride.

[oahda]

The line is the ride.

[s0]

no because a ride is, by definition, something you "ride" and waiting in line isn't riding.

[oahda]

It is if people push you or the line is on a conveyor belt.

[Schoq]

there's nothing saying you can't wait in line on a bike or a horse, or even a car, as is the case when queueing for drive though fast food.

[Capntastic]

but then it wouldn't be a ride.

These are the sort of discussions you have in line, thus completing the Paul Eres Experience

[s0]

there's nothing saying you can't wait in line on a bike or a horse, or even a car, as is the case when queueing for drive though fast food.

ya but then you wouldn't be riding most of the time, because riding implies motion. waiting in line on a car or a horse, the car and/or horse would stand still more than the car and/or horse would move, making only a fraction (temporally speaking) of the experience of waiting in line an actual "ride."

[oahda]

What if were completely still but there were screens around you giving the illusion of movement tho???

[s0]

It is if people push you or the line is on a conveyor belt.

but a conveyor belt is not a line tho. a conveyor belt is a loop.

What if were completely still but there were screens around you giving the illusion of movement tho???

then you would believe you're riding without actually riding because there is no actual physical motion taking place. if the illusion was perfect the difference to so-called "reality" (which is a social construct to begin with) would be negligible tho.

[oahda]

You don't have to believe you're really moving for it to be a ride IMO.

[Schoq]

actually it doesn't matter, since movement is a completely subjective concept anyway.

[oahda]

actually it doesn't matter, since movement is a completely subjective concept anyway.

The actual physics behind it are irrelevant in an everyday human context due to how we have evolved to perceive movement. You know exactly what kind of movement we're talking about here.

[Schoq]

that would mean anything a person perceives as movement is a "ride" (such as a dream or a hallucination), which seems absurd. that would be like defining light as something that a human eye can perceive. which, other than being needlessly anthropocentric, seems disrespectful to the blind, or even colour blind.

[s0]

no, it just means that light does not play the same role in a blind person's (or blind animal's) cognitive process as it does in the cognitive process of humans (or animals) with eyesight, thus making it separate from the concept of "light" developed by seeing humans.

that would mean anything a person perceives as movement is a "ride" (such as a dream or a hallucination)

not exactly; a ride is a type of motion not actively performed by the rider's own locomotor system. for instance, a car or a horse are (potentially) a ride. you cannot, however, ride your shoes or your feet, unless you're, e.g. sliding down a slope, in which case your feet and/or whatever footwear you are wearing would temporarily become a ride.

EDIT: it would probably be more accurate to say that the slope would be the ride

[oahda]

I was thinking of someone setting up a "virtual" ride in the amusement park sense. I wasn't talking about the horseback or automobile sense.

[s0]

there's no fundamental difference between those tho. a virtual amusement park ride would be a simulation of a ride, not an actual ride.

[oahda]

Well, there you have it then.

[Claxan]

riding by definition is the art or practice of horsemanship. due the mobility of the creature, no things like conveyor belts are needed to perform the task.