Jump to content

What is Up with Protodermis?


Recommended Posts

But I thought the entire point was that everything besides air was protodermis, even the muscle and organic tissues.

 

Also, they don't eat; they just absorb the "nutrients" through touch, iirc. also if they required water, they would have dehydrated on Metru Nui since there was no water there, just protodermis.

 

Protodermis doesn't take its different shapes through compounds, I don't think. I'm pretty sure it's all canonically pure protodermis, down to a molecular level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, clay is a pretty good analogy for protodermis in general.

Yes, I've used that analogy for one of my past theories about it; "cyber-clay". It's like the 'stuff' in a video game (which is ALL "video-game stuff" -- there's NO normal matter in a virtual world! Augmented reality not counting here; my point is that entirely virtual worlds do exist, and that isn't really confusing. :)), except it's a physical substance that is reprogrammed (in the theory) to behave according to whatever physics you define.

 

In that context (if that theory is true; my latest theory is a little more nuanced though), it actually wouldn't make sense if it COULDN'T be just about anything and everything in a world.

 

That's even more confusing, because the rock is proto, and all of the characters are some other thing.

Yeah -- I'm made of normal matter, and the stuff I eat is made of it. Even if I ate like Matoran do, I'd still be MADE out of the same stuff we find all around, right? I don't find it weird in real life that both organic and inorganic material is "matter." So why should it be weird that there's both organic and inorganic protodermis?

 

Likewise, in a videogame world, there's both non-living virtual stuff, and living.

 

If you want to avoid confusion, stick to one magic plastic.

This.

 

 

Question: if everything is protodermis, what exactly are the "nutrients" the Matoran get out of things designated as "food"?

Question (I don't mean to mock; my point is serious :)): what exactly, in the knowledge of somebody in ancient times, are the nutrients the humans get out of normal-matter things designated as "food"?

 

They didn't know. A story about them shouldn't have them know. So readers of stories about them needn't explain it to the readers (although to me that would be cool, but point is you don't HAVE to know!).

 

Likewise, you don't really need an answer to your question. It's "something". :P

 

Now it's good to want the answer, for enjoyment purposes, and that can give you good mental exercise. My point is, don't argue (or imply) that your not already knowing the answer means a story can't have everything be protodermis. That logic doesn't work as the real world shows.

 

[Edit: Oh, forgot to get around to the answers. :P Short answer: Either specific types of protodermis, or 'impurities' that aren't protodermis but attach to it and aren't used to make "things", or "something else." ")]

 

some of these questions could be nitpicky but to me they poke some holes into the idea of using protodermis to create everything

No they don't, any more than everything being normal matter in the real world pokes holes, or everything in trees being various forms of organic matter. :)

 

Although, nitpick to this one:

 

and how did they get nutrition on Mata Nui, which iirc, had non-protodermic life?

This would only be relevant to Rahi, since Matoran just absorb life energy. As for the Rahi, they could eat the protodermic plants and other substances. The main confusion with them is Rahi that ate other Rahi (at least it's confusing for a thousand years there), but we do know the in-giant-robot solution which is Makuta are in charge of making new Rahi individuals. So that problem (which has nothing to do with protodermis anyways; that's about the Rahi not reproducing) would only be one on Mata Nui, and maybe Makuta made more. Anywho I digress...

 

organics are much more complicated than a single homogeneous material.

If you think about it, this point actually argues against the idea that everything being protodermis is bad, since as you admit, organics are even more complicated than protodermis. As I said, the amount of types of organic molecules makes the number of types of protodermis look tiny in comparison!

 

But I thought the entire point was that everything besides air was protodermis, even the muscle and organic tissues.

Well, it still hasn't been pinned down what the impurities are, as I mentioned earlier here. Some say these are simpler chemicals that are never used in and of themselves to make anything but are attached to protodermis. I have a simpler explanation in my upcoming proto theory. In my cyberclay theory the impurities could be seen as software instructions (for normal-matter behavior) that is cleared away to make room for a more basic, "purer" software (powered protodermis behavior mainly).

 

Plus we know that on Mata Nui they could drink normal water as a substitute for protowater, showing that it's possible normal water or some part of protodermis that can act like it is involved in protowater somehow.

 

Protodermis doesn't take its different shapes through compounds, I don't think.

We don't know how it works, really. If the impurities are simple matter that attach to the protodermis molecule, linguistically it would be valid to call it all "protodermis." I tend to think otherwise and that's what my new theory answers, but yeah.

 

I'm pretty sure it's all canonically pure protodermis, down to a molecular level.

It's definitely not all "pure"; hence "purified" versus "raw." We just don't know what "pure" means. And as fun as it is to theorize, we don't need to. Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

some of these questions could be nitpicky but to me they poke some holes into the idea of using protodermis to create everything

No they don't, any more than everything being normal matter in the real world pokes holes, or everything in trees being various forms of organic matter. :)

 

But protodermis isn't an entire form of matter. Simplifying what the real world is made up of down to "matter" to explain this away is ridiculous, because the real world is made out of a wide variety of elements and chemical compounds, all of which make up what we know of as "matter". And when it comes down to organics, all those different chemical compounds combine in even more ways to make cells, and even fold into particular shapes that make certain functions, et cetera. All of that is what makes up "matter". It's an incredibly wide category, not a single substance.

 

Protodermis, however, IS a single substance, and yes, it DOES stretch believability that it can cover all those bases and still be one material, considering the real world needs elements, compounds, cells, proteins, etc. to pull it off.

 

With the idea of "entirety of matter vs. single substance" in mind...

 

organics are much more complicated than a single homogeneous material.

If you think about it, this point actually argues against the idea that everything being protodermis is bad, since as you admit, organics are even more complicated than protodermis. As I said, the amount of types of organic molecules makes the number of types of protodermis look tiny in comparison!

 

...this claim is patently ridiculous.

 

Most of your other points seem to come down to "there doesn't need to be a logical explanation for this" which is weird because that seems to contradict everything you've ever held dear in this forum.

Edited by Lucina
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of your other points seem to come down to "there doesn't need to be a logical explanation for this" which is weird because that seems to contradict everything you've ever held dear in this forum.

Does Hogwarts magic and Warp drive need explained? What makes this different?

 

I know what your answer is though - warp drive and Hogwarts magic don't imitate organics with a single substance. But why is that not possible? Do I really have to know how it does that to enjoy Bionicle? I just have to know that it does. 

 

And people wonder why they are changing it to just raw magic and solid gold. :P

Raw magic and solid gold protodermis. :P

Edited by fishers64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bones... that's not really how matter works. :0

Could you be more specific? O_o

 

But protodermis isn't an entire form of matter.

That's just semantics; it has enough varieties to be valid to compare with normal matter. That's what's being discussed here; some have been assuming there's something wrong with one category having that many varieties, but normal matter does this.

 

The problem is that we know the physics of normal matter and it can't easily explain the physics needed for fiction like Bionicle. Hence, as fishers explained, calling it all protodermis helps solve this problem simply. :)

 

Simplifying what the real world is made up of down to "matter" to explain this away is ridiculous

No it isn't; we do it all the time by talking about "matter." ;) Just like you're talking about protodermis.

 

What nutrients do we eat? Matter. But this is NOT "simplifying" it; it is simply describing the name for its category. It doesn't change that there's many varieties of nutrients. Likewise, when you talk about it all being "protodermis", you're doing the same thing; you're just talking about the category, and not mentioning the many different types within that category. :)

 

And BTW, if you come at it with an antagonistic attitude as your latest post seemed to, I'm frankly not that interested in discussing it; that's seriously missing the point as it's meant to be entertainment. That you don't apparently have tastes to like it is okay, but why then get all worked up about it? Why not just say "not my cup of tea" and move on? It's cool to want to understand it, but pointless if all you're getting out of it is negativity. So there's more to it just than tastes; you also make a choice of whether to talk about your dislike in a positive way. :)

 

 

And when it comes down to organics, all those different chemical compounds combine in even more ways to make cells, and even fold into particular shapes that make certain functions, et cetera. All of that is what makes up "matter". It's an incredibly wide category, not a single substance.

Again you're missing the point. Of course something in an analogy has differences to the thing being analogized, but your argument here does not logically defend the earlier argument you were making which was that there's a problem with everything being a type of protodermis. (This is a common debating mistake.) All of that organic matter still has the title "organic matter", and it shows that there can be a vast variety of types of something.

 

Yes, the method it happens to use to have variety is different than protodermis (most likely; we don't really know how that works though), but this alone doesn't demonstrate that that's bad, just different; if anything it argues that it's good for there to be the option out there in fiction. :) The problem with this approach to an analogy is that it simply uses circular reasoning to argue that the different parts in the fiction thing are bad. Where you say this:

 

Protodermis, however, IS a single substance, and yes, it DOES stretch believability that it can cover all those bases and still be one material, considering the real world needs elements, compounds, cells, proteins, etc. to pull it off.

This is only a problem if you presuppose your own conclusion -- that having an unknown method of explaining that, which is different from the methods in the various analogies, is bad. The real world also doesn't have protodermis, so you've answered nothing.

 

The real reason for bringing up analogies is they show that you actually can accept categories with lots of variety within them. That's in part why I'm not only bringing up ONE analogy, but several, like the video games. It's not reasonable to respond to the analogies simply by describing the differences that we all know between each example; that misses the point of why they were brought up. It is also not valid anyways since we're talking about people in history who didn't know any of how it worked, yet could still believe it simply because it was. They're brought up to show that it's very possible for there to be large varieties within one type of substance, enough to build a world of sorts, and that people need not understand how to accept that it's possible.

 

...this claim is patently ridiculous.

Please remain civil. Frankly, if you have to resort to insults to defend your view, is it really worth having that view? This isn't really helping me see why it would be beneficial to see things your way; it looks like it just makes you upset... Please understand the taste-based roots of your reaction to it; it's not reasonable to rely on those tastes to say that it can't make sense and others are wrong to like it. And understanding it should never be about defending its believability to somebody who comes at it with an antagonistic intent; it's fiction -- it doesn't need defended. You're taking it way too seriously, yanno? (But I believe I now can understand how it all makes sense, other than the powers themselves; there's always a gap of "somehow" in fantasy after all.)

 

And I'm not sure, since you didn't explain, what you find "ridiculous" about that. Anyways, as I often point out, that word simply means "able to be ridiculed" which could apply to just about anything, so isn't really a logical argument. :)

 

And don't forget, for everybody complaining that LEGO didn't explain how something works, you can find somebody else complaining when they did because it ruins the mystery/fantasy feel. :P

 

 

 

 

Chuck the Toa of crazyness, on 08 Oct 2014 - 5:42 PM, said:snapback.png

And people wonder why they are changing it to just raw magic and solid gold. :P

Raw magic and solid gold protodermis. :P

Now let's not make assumptions. There's more to the story I haven't had time to mention yet. :P

 

First, remember there were powers on SM, prior to the artificial protodermis. True, I think it can almost all be explained as going back to the core EP somehow or another, but we don't know that.

 

Second, from an out-story perspective, everything I've said about why protodermis was good for Bionicle 01-10 can be true, yet at the same time, be best kept to that, and a new continuity could explore a different way. :)

 

Basically, the "something" (which I think is entirely energy based; rooted in EP but not being matter) that explains powers on SM could easily be used to reimagine Bionicle without protodermis at all. My variety options point works both ways; while it debunks the arguments of those saying no story could do what Bionicle did with protodermis, it would also debunk any argument saying that all Bionicle stories must have it. :P

 

Those who have the other preference can have a turn too, if you will. They just shouldn't insult us for liking the other way. :(

 

 

Edit: BTW, about believability, I would need to hear you answer all of the objections fishers (at least) has brought up. That works both ways too -- I don't understand how you would solve all these problems and satisfy the "don't confuse" and other requirements in a believable way better than protodermis does. It's not enough to just poke apparent holes in the solution LEGO used; you have to actually have a more viable alternative (what I said just above could do that in a new Bionicle, but I'm asking if you keep protodermis in some forms; how is that really better? Seems like it only would seem to be if you didn't think about it very hard... :shrugs: :shrugs:).

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But protodermis isn't an entire form of matter.

That's just semantics; it has enough varieties to be valid to compare with normal matter. That's what's being discussed here; some have been assuming there's something wrong with one category having that many varieties, but normal matter does this.

 

The problem is that we know the physics of normal matter and it can't easily explain the physics needed for fiction like Bionicle. Hence, as fishers explained, calling it all protodermis helps solve this problem simply. :)

 

Simplifying what the real world is made up of down to "matter" to explain this away is ridiculous

No it isn't; we do it all the time by talking about "matter." ;) Just like you're talking about protodermis.

 

What nutrients do we eat? Matter. But this is NOT "simplifying" it; it is simply describing the name for its category. It doesn't change that there's many varieties of nutrients. Likewise, when you talk about it all being "protodermis", you're doing the same thing; you're just talking about the category, and not mentioning the many different types within that category. :)

 

The problem is, you're treating protodermis as if a single substance (like, say, literal clay) can be compared to the entirety of matter. If I made a fictional element (say, madeupium) and said it can imitate any form of matter, it would be weird to explain it as "well, since, collectively, what we call matter has all these properties, obviously a single form of it can also have all these properties".

 

Talking about "protodermis" is not equivalent to talking about "matter" in the same way that talking about "elephants" is not equivalent to talking about "animals". One is a specific, an exact thing, while the other is a broad category containing many, many things.

 

You seem to think it is a category entirely separate from normal matter, one comparable to matter itself, but at best it's a subset.

 

Apologies if I came across as a little antagonistic. When I debate, I don't always mince words, and it can come across badly, but it's usually me trying to get my ideas across as directly as possible. This is also why I don't pepper my serious posts with emotes; it wastes time as I transfer my thoughts to words.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that the fact that so many people are on here are confused about what exactly protodermis is, means it should've definitely gotten a better explanation when it appeared in the story.

 

Also, Bonesiii, your agument is basically "It makes perfect sense, here is why!" one post, and then switches to "Oh, it doesn't need to be explained." In the next post. Basically, stuff is only complicated and unexplainable when you somehow don't have the answers to it. Just a thought.

shadow_destroyer_banner.jpg
Thank you to the Dark Beings Banner and Avatar Shop for the banner! Brickshelf Gallery  BZPRPG Profiles 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand this logic. 
 

The problem is, you're treating protodermis as if a single substance (like, say, literal clay) can be compared to the entirety of matter. If I made a fictional element (say, madeupium) and said it can imitate any form of matter, it would be weird to explain it as "well, since, collectively, what we call matter has all these properties, obviously a single form of it can also have all these properties".

I'm not sure where you get this. Protodermis has multiple forms (molten, liquid, solid, organic). Obviously organic protodermis is different from molten, solid, etecera.

Everything in the real world is made of atoms. I could say water atoms are different from lava atoms that are different from organic atoms, etc. I just don't say that because it's clunky and it's not how our language is structured.  

Talking about "protodermis" is not equivalent to talking about "matter" in the same way that talking about "elephants" is not equivalent to talking about "animals". One is a specific, an exact thing, while the other is a broad category containing many, many things.
 
You seem to think it is a category entirely separate from normal matter, one comparable to matter itself, but at best it's a subset.

Why do you think this? It doesn't make any sense to me.
 
 

I personally think that the fact that so many people are on here are confused about what exactly protodermis is, means it should've definitely gotten a better explanation when it appeared in the story.

Possible, but I'm not sure how they could have explained it better. Also saying that "protodermis is a substance comparable to the category of real world matter" would have been too much for most kids to get... 
 

Basically, stuff is only complicated and unexplainable when you somehow don't have the answers to it. Just a thought.

Or someone is willfully cutting themselves off from the logical solution/correct explanation that is right in front of their face because they don't like it.

That is most of humanity's problems, summed in a small amount of words.
 
EDIT: 

 

Chuck the Toa of crazyness, on 08 Oct 2014 - 5:42 PM, said:snapback.png

And people wonder why they are changing it to just raw magic and solid gold. :P

Raw magic and solid gold protodermis. :P

 

Now let's not make assumptions. There's more to the story I haven't had time to mention yet. :P
 
First, remember there were powers on SM, prior to the artificial protodermis. True, I think it can almost all be explained as going back to the core EP somehow or another, but we don't know that.
 
Second, from an out-story perspective, everything I've said about why protodermis was good for Bionicle 01-10 can be true, yet at the same time, be best kept to that, and a new continuity could explore a different way. :)
 
Basically, the "something" (which I think is entirely energy based; rooted in EP but not being matter) that explains powers on SM could easily be used to reimagine Bionicle without protodermis at all. My variety options point works both ways; while it debunks the arguments of those saying no story could do what Bionicle did with protodermis, it would also debunk any argument saying that all Bionicle stories must have it. :P
 
Those who have the other preference can have a turn too, if you will. They just shouldn't insult us for liking the other way. :(

I'm joking, bones. Hence the :P emote - exaggerating dogmatism for comic effect. :P

 

I also agree with yonder reasoning, if it helps - otherwise I would have been ticked about Spherus Magna being normal matter, and the SM characters having powers, etc. That was from Mata Nui, though, thus explanation. 

 

Proto doesn't have to explain everything...that's just insane.

Edited by fishers64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand this logic. 

 

The problem is, you're treating protodermis as if a single substance (like, say, literal clay) can be compared to the entirety of matter. If I made a fictional element (say, madeupium) and said it can imitate any form of matter, it would be weird to explain it as "well, since, collectively, what we call matter has all these properties, obviously a single form of it can also have all these properties".

I'm not sure where you get this. Protodermis has multiple forms (molten, liquid, solid, organic). Obviously organic protodermis is different from molten, solid, etecera.

 

Everything in the real world is made of atoms. I could say water atoms are different from lava atoms that are different from organic atoms, etc. I just don't say that because it's clunky and it's not how our language is structured.

 

"Molten" and "solid" are states of matter. Organic is not. They're not even comparable. Organic matter is made of cells, which are made of proteins, which are made of atoms and molecules. There is no such thing as "organic atom".

 

Or "water atoms" or "lava atoms", for that matter. Water is a compound, and thus made of molecules, and depending on the rock, lava could be atoms, molecules, or several kinds of molecules. None of them are made of atoms because atoms are solely the domain of elements. It's much more complicated than "everything in the real world is made of atoms".

 

 

Talking about "protodermis" is not equivalent to talking about "matter" in the same way that talking about "elephants" is not equivalent to talking about "animals". One is a specific, an exact thing, while the other is a broad category containing many, many things.

 

You seem to think it is a category entirely separate from normal matter, one comparable to matter itself, but at best it's a subset.

Why do you think this? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

I don't see why it doesn't; protodermis is presented in-story as a substance within the realm of matter. Hence why most terms referring to it in-story refer to it with states of matter, like solid or liquid. Solid protodermis is presented as separate from rock because it's not made of the same substance, it's made of protodermis. However, both are undoubtedly made of matter.

 

For protodermis to be able to replicate every type of matter while not being that matter, it would need its very essence of existence coded even lower than the atomic scale. The entire makeup of protodermis would need to be completely different than any other form of matter. It would need its own special subatomic particles, because if the particles and atoms of protodermis take a golden form, they would need something specific to tell them they are not gold, but rather still protodermis. If organic protodermis is folded into all the proteins necessary to make life, there must still be something signifying it as protodermis, because otherwise it would be chemically identical to those in life.

 

Basically what I'm saying is, scientifically, for protodermis to make everything it does, it would need to be an entirely distinct form of matter all the way down to the subatomic level. But in-story, it is presented as merely a substance, perhaps a bit more versatile than, say, gold, but not so special as to be completely distinct down to the quark.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why does everything in the MU have to be made of it?

It doesn't really HAVE to be, it GETS to be. Remember that if you don't like this about it, that probably coumes out of personal preferences, or maybe just not getting it enough to like it (only you can decide that). But personally the idea of something that is so flexible it can imitate any substance (more or less) is brilliant, and also gets major points for being bold.

 

The idea of protodermis and how it works is interested, but story wise completely unneccessary. What if they took some other random sci-fi universe and decided everything was made of protodermis? Sure, it has an excuse, but why do we need one? Why can't we just say everything is made of dirt, stone and such? Does it really matter or make the story and better by turning those things into protodermis substances?

 

 

 

Why does everything in the MU have to be made of it?

 

*snip*

 

I get tired of fiction that stops just short of a really audacious idea just because it might push boundaries. Since such an idea is possible, good fiction IMO shouldn't be afraid of the "real life is stranger than fiction" principle, which means that anything plausible should be fair game in fiction (though there are other rules too, this is just a short answer :P).

 

*snip*

 

I love it when stories are ambitious and chase big ideas, as crazy as they might be. What I don't like is when this big idea is of no significance. What does it matter about the difference between a bucket of water and a bucket of liquid protodermis? They are so identical that there's no point in having it! The problem is, that there is a small distinction between them, but it is so small that all it does is over-complicate the plot with needless details. Protodermis is not the central point of Bionicle, so it does not need to be so specific. Bionicle is not a science journal, it is a story. When you see things like protodermis making huge leaps like this, you know the story is getting flawed because the author is going in-depth on things that don't matter to the overall world.

 

 

 

Why does everything in the MU have to be made of it?

 

*snip*

 

Anyways, part of it also seems to be that the protodermis helps keep everything from wearing out so fast. It wouldn't really make sense to make any part out of something else since it does this... Except that actually that's already true; the air isn't protodermis. :P But otherwise yeah... (Other than the exsidian... the scroll of preparations, etc.)

 

*snip

 

Great, but who cares. Technicalities like that are made for people who bother Greg about the smallest details of the story rather than actually caring about the overall story itself. It's great to have an in-depth plot, but if you're going around trying to think scientifically about everything all you're doing is confusing the story and limiting yourself.

 

 

 

Why does everything in the MU have to be made of it?

 

*snip*

 

Plus, what may be more what they had in mind, it makes it more believable that something that massive could be constructed in a relatively short time; if an advanced molecule partly (somehow or another) helped in putting itself together like how living cells can do that.

 

To put it another way, why does a tree have to be entirely organic? :P

 

(Well in fiction it need not lol. Biomechanical trees... but in real life, trees are entirely made out of cells which are very similar to protodermis in their ability to come in such a wide variety of different forms.)

 

Protodermis as an ore/surface of the Mata-nui robot? Cool!

Now this I can't relate to. Every story and its twin brother has some unidentified "plot magic" substance that gets mined. It's way cooler IMO to have an entire universe made out of a vast array of varieties of the stuff. Now that's much more original (closer to original... I'm sure it's been done somewhere, but yeah).

 

 

Okay, I get that you like protodermis scientifically, but as I've stated it brings nothing to the story. It doesn't directly change anything, have an impact, or have even a possible one. Protodermis making up everything is just an excuse to explain needless details.

 

And I'd much rather get a cool and interesting substance that gets mined. It's actually an idea/concept that has an impact on the world rather than purely being the world. Originality isn't the issue here. It may be original but it's not useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant, Matter is every single tangible atom-based material in the universe.

 

Protodermis, as shown in canon, is one rocky/metally thing, and isn't the only structuring component even on spherus magna.

 

Category mismatch (equivocation fallacy) -- you said "in the universe" in the first, and we're discussing how (other than air), protodermis can work for story purposes as everything in the Matoran universe. Protodermis is every non-air material in that universe.

 

 

The problem is, you're treating protodermis as if a single substance (like, say, literal clay)

 

Clay is a metaphor, Lucina. :)

 

For "able to be reshaped at will." The thing doing the reshaping is the programming of the physics; the only limit would be the imagination essentially. I mean, this stuff can transcend the boundaries of time; surely imitating many types of matter is easy by comparison.

 

 

it would be weird to explain it as "well, since, collectively, what we call matter has all these properties, obviously a single form of it can also have all these properties"

 

Again, category mismatch. You're jumping back and forth between talking about "single form" (meaning the category of all types of protodermis) and the various forms of matter. That's not a reasonable argument; the point is that matter shows that a single category of substance can have many different forms that behave differently. Protodermis isn't just one form; it has many forms, but they're all protodermis. :)

 

Think about it -- since matter has all those properties, it shouldn't be hard to understand in basic principle how something else could do what matter does in some other way. The real trick is figuring out the powers, because those don't exist in the real world. But again, the underlying point is, we don't need to understand, anymore than the ancients needed to understand physics to know that matter existed and had those types.

 

 

Emphasis is to make sure you get that that's important. :)

 

You seem to think it is a category entirely separate from normal matter, one comparable to matter itself, but at best it's a subset.

 

Apologies if I came across as a little antagonistic.

Forgiven. ^_^

 

I agree it's probably a subset of normal matter, but we don't know that. That's a long tangent, but let's not go there because that's not the point. The point is that ANY category existing that has "all those traits" within it validates the possibility that some other category could do the same (or all the important basics of it), some other way. It doesn't matter whether it's a subset of the larger category (since we're also talking about a subset of that anyways; non-protodermic matter) or something totally different. Either way the principle stands. :)

 

 

 

 

I personally think that the fact that so many people are on here are confused about what exactly protodermis is, means it should've definitely gotten a better explanation when it appeared in the story.

Well, that's a whole 'nother issue, since this topic is debating whether everything in the MU being protodermis is okay or not. I personally go back and forth on that, but probably only because I happen to have thought of two plausible explanations, at least; the Harry Potter magic point still argues against there being a need to explain what it is.

 

There's also serious problems with having people who don't actually understand physics much try to explain it like that. :P They'd probably just make mistakes that would cause more problems.

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of protodermis and how it works is interested, but story wise completely unneccessary.

So is the alternative. As I said:

 

It doesn't really HAVE to be, it GETS to be. Remember that if you don't like this about it, that probably coumes out of personal preferences, or maybe just not getting it enough to like it (only you can decide that).

Basically this is what I often call "Need fallacy" -- that in order for something to be there in fiction, it has to be "necessary". Not so.

 

However, it did serve the purposes LEGO needed it to serve in that particular story. :)

 

What if they took some other random sci-fi universe and decided everything was made of protodermis? Sure, it has an excuse, but why do we need one?

We don't. But we want one. :)

 

Or some of us do. :P And LEGO obviously wanted one too, or else they wouldn't have used it.

 

What I don't like is when this big idea is of no significance.

Well, that's not true for this.

 

 

 

What does it matter about the difference between a bucket of water and a bucket of liquid protodermis? They are so identical that there's no point in having it!

What's the point of having a virtual world in which there's water they try to program to act as closely like real water as possible, when there's a real world we could build that in if we wanted?

 

Simple -- they want it to also do other things the real world doesn't do. :)

 

Now "in before" "so just have the different stuff act different", that creates problems of its own (everything has pros and cons), like the ones fishers and I have been bringing up. It also seems way more efficient just to make everything be the same thing so building it and maintaining it is simpler, just like a tree is all organic matter. And there can then be different nuances to even the parts that are imitating normal matter too, like how protowater tends to look more silver than other stuff, and that protowater then has the ability to be purified to get powers, etc. Come on, admit it -- it's rockin' cool. :P

 

I'd much rather... Originality isn't the issue here.

Personal taste base again. Originality isn't the issue in your tastes. But that is not, to be honest, a classic trait of Bionicle fans, from my observations over the years. We were drawn into it because of "robots" on a tropical island. An open that is so original like that tends to draw in a majority fanbase that has a taste to dislike un-originality.

 

And you're clearly stretching things to make "it has no significance" the issue, sorry -- it can only seem that way if you ignore all the significances. :lol:

Edited by bonesiii

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Molten" and "solid" are states of matter. Organic is not. They're not even comparable. Organic matter is made of cells, which are made of proteins, which are made of atoms and molecules. There is no such thing as "organic atom".

 

Or "water atoms" or "lava atoms", for that matter. Water is a compound, and thus made of molecules, and depending on the rock, lava could be atoms, molecules, or several kinds of molecules. None of them are made of atoms because atoms are solely the domain of elements. It's much more complicated than "everything in the real world is made of atoms".

Molecules, proteins and cells are made of elements. Molecules, cells, etc is all atomic structures, and which stucture they are in distinguishes one type of atom from another. It's really quite simple.

 

Lava atoms also vibrate faster than water ones, if you want to get really technical.

 

I don't see why it doesn't; protodermis is presented in-story as a substance within the realm of matter.

I don't think that it is: I think it is a matter type, not a substance. Makes everything easier.

 

This is not to be confused with EP, which seems like a substance composed of atoms like every thing else - but it could be completely different thing. There's nothing to suggest that it couldn't.

 

Hence why most terms referring to it in-story refer to it with states of matter, like solid or liquid. Solid protodermis is presented as separate from rock because it's not made of the same substance, it's made of protodermis. However, both are undoubtedly made of matter.

I'm going to take this as "normal atoms" for now, for the next bit.

 

However, if protodermis is normal matter...we already know that normal matter can comprise organics. So if protodermis is normal matter, why would it not be able to comprise organics?  

 

For protodermis to be able to replicate every type of matter while not being that matter, it would need its very essence of existence coded even lower than the atomic scale. The entire makeup of protodermis would need to be completely different than any other form of matter. It would need its own special subatomic particles, because if the particles and atoms of protodermis take a golden form, they would need something specific to tell them they are not gold, but rather still protodermis. If organic protodermis is folded into all the proteins necessary to make life, there must still be something signifying it as protodermis, because otherwise it would be chemically identical to those in life.

 

Basically what I'm saying is, scientifically, for protodermis to make everything it does, it would need to be an entirely distinct form of matter all the way down to the subatomic level. But in-story, it is presented as merely a substance, perhaps a bit more versatile than, say, gold, but not so special as to be completely distinct down to the quark.

I think it is. My memory reads proto as something entirely different from normal matter, and if it must be all the way down to the quark, than so be it.

 

If organic protodermis is folded into all the proteins necessary to make life, there must still be something signifying it as protodermis, because otherwise it would be chemically identical to those in life.

For the record, however, in terms of fiction this is a fallacy. Even given the same atoms in a system, there's no need for life to develop precisely the same as our carbon-based one has.

 

There's an old Star Trek that posits life based on silicon, for example. That's a real-world atom. Why would life based in protodermis be any different, seeing that it's a fictional atom (or group of real-world atoms, under your reasoning...)?

 

EDIT: Kapura is winning!

The idea of protodermis and how it works is interested, but story wise completely unneccessary. What if they took some other random sci-fi universe and decided everything was made of protodermis? Sure, it has an excuse, but why do we need one? Why can't we just say everything is made of dirt, stone and such? Does it really matter or make the story and better by turning those things into protodermis substances?

Because Bionicle has significant physics differences from the real world. The characters have powers, for starters. Remember the famous Greg quote about physics? Exactly.

Edited by fishers64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The idea of protodermis and how it works is interested, but story wise completely unneccessary.

So is the alternative. As I said:

 

It doesn't really HAVE to be, it GETS to be. Remember that if you don't like this about it, that probably coumes out of personal preferences, or maybe just not getting it enough to like it (only you can decide that).

Basically this is what I often call "Need fallacy" -- that in order for something to be there in fiction, it has to be "necessary". Not so.

 

However, it did serve the purposes LEGO needed it to serve in that particular story. :)

 

Nothing has to be necessary, but putting in unnecessary things that do nothing for the story is bad story-telling. If you're writing an essay on human rights, you don't need to start from the big bang.

 

 

 

What does it matter about the difference between a bucket of water and a bucket of liquid protodermis? They are so identical that there's no point in having it!

What's the point of having a virtual world in which there's water they try to program to act as closely like real water as possible, when there's a real world we could build that in if we wanted?

 

Simple -- they want it to also do other things the real world doesn't do. :)

 

Now "in before" "so just have the different stuff act different", that creates problems of its own (everything has pros and cons), like the ones fishers and I have been bringing up. It also seems way more efficient just to make everything be the same thing so building it and maintaining it is simpler, just like a tree is all organic matter. And there can then be different nuances to even the parts that are imitating normal matter too, like how protowater tends to look more silver than other stuff, and that protowater then has the ability to be purified to get powers, etc. Come on, admit it -- it's rockin' cool. :P

 

 

Again, does this matter? You have to look at Bionicle as a storyteller, not a logician or whatever. A story teller does things and adds to the story because they want to bring it forward. Does it matter whether your water is proto-water or regular water? Does it add absolutely anything really significant at all? NO. It really doesn't. As cool as it may sound to you, it has brought nothing of importance. A logician or scientist will work to explain everything in a universe to try to make sense, but a story teller will only tell what they need to. My side is an opinion, but an opinion based on fact. I don't want protodermis's current canon form out of the story because I don't like it (I actually think it's an interesting concept). I want it out because it purely has no purpose. I'd much rather have more time devoted to developing characters and plot than what the world is made of. Why? Because it doesn't concern the readers until you force them to. And splitting the attention of your audience and forcing them to do things is something one should never do if they're trying to tell a story.

Edited by Banana Gunz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry folks; in my last post I thought there was only one reply, then posted, then... scrolled up. :P I've put some more replies in there, but then in my rush, clicked a link, and my latest draft of trying to populate the middle got deleted. Grr.

 

Bottom line is it seems like those of you trying to argue against "proto is everything" are talking around and ignoring the actual points we're raising, and doing everything but showing us good reasons why LEGO's way actually doesn't work... Maybe yall are taking it way too seriously?

 

Now... lemme try to remember some of what was in the part I lost.

 

 

Not knowing something doesn't make things unexplainable (fallacy of the absolute negative), only unexplained. The rest of your post, Shadow Destroyer, clearly looks like you're ignoring what I'm saying and making a strawman out of it, instead of actually addressing it. Please keep in mind we're talking about fiction meant to be fun for little kids. Why, then (this is to both you and Lucina now), is it so bad if you don't ever get told how protodermis works, and it has enough types for everything in a "universe" to be made of it?

 

I think you guys need to deal with this, if nothing else: The ancients didn't understand how matter works in all its complexity, but were still able to know that it had a variety of types, and that's all this universe is made of. So why do you have to understand (those of you saying that) how protodermis can do all those things? You don't.

 

I'd personally like it if somebody tried, but LEGO isn't likely to be qualified to make a good attempt. They make plastic toys. They're not Isaac Asimov. :P

 

 

Okay, one other thing and then I'm out of time:

 

It's much more complicated than "everything in the real world is made of atoms".

Of course it is -- and protodermis is (somehow that isn't established) much more complicated than "everything MU is made of it"! It just uses some different method to do that, and that method also enables many differences from normal matter, which the story as a whole details.

 

 

Edit again... okay okay, ONE more. But seriously, some of you CLEARLY need to slow down, take a DEEEEEP breath, and actually take the time to think about what we're saying.

 

Does it add absolutely anything really significant at all? NO. It really doesn't. As cool as it may sound to you

Sorry but it's obvious to me you aren't listening at all if this is your answer. This translates to "it adds nothing for me because of my tastes" -- because it does add things (that people in this topic have mentioned) to those of us who were open to it. :) And to us they were significant.

 

Seriously folks, slow down and actually take the time to read what we're saying and understand it...

 

This just is not a reasonable reaction -- you really think LEGO felt it had no significance worth including? Then why exactly do you think they included it? :P Clearly it's much more reasonable to think that as somebody not part of the development and with different tastes, you simply haven't "got" why they did it.

 

And BTW, "being cool" is not wrong for fiction (in some goals it might be, but the variety options principle means that kids who want cool should have fiction out there that does it too). :P I mean, it seems like you're looking for some meaning of "significance" that must be seriously out of step with what this toyline story was aiming for, if you think proto doesn't add it for anybody. Are you looking for protodermis to be deep psychological significance for a protagonist or something? (But that's even possible in Bionicle. They didn't choose to go there; I do in my retelling in some ways, but something can be in a "for fun" fantasy story without needing that level of significance, or else you'd better take away the masks, robots on tropical island, etc.)

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say it, but I've been answering just about everything yall have raised, perhaps to a fault. :P Why should your taste override ours and ban a story from even existing that satisfies ours?

  • Upvote 1

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's pull in some advice I learned from the writings of Primo Levi (I think it was):

 

Do you understand my answer? If so, can you summarize it in your own words?

 

Do you agree with the answer? If not, why not?

 

Keep in mind I'm not saying you can't continue to dislike it, based on taste. I'm saying it's not logical or fair to argue from that subjective taste to ban the option existing for people who do like it. That part I'll remind you of, because it seems to me that while "the pro-proto side" ( :P) is being fair to the other taste, the anti-side seems to be trying to say that LEGO should not have done it just because you don't want it (apparently). I'm not seeing any other reasoning that's passing the logic test to support that. Or are you just trying to describe your own taste, but you do agree with me it's okay for a story to satisfy a different one, and protodermis works as they used it (basically?)? if the latter, I have no further objections as far as you go. :P

 

I ask because SD just showed that he doesn't understand my answer, and I'm not seeing much evidence the others so far have (BG's answers do seem to get it better, but the problem in that case seems to be a fallacy related to the significance thing). And that's puzzling, as it's really very simple, and most Bionicle fans seem to get it intuitively.

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does it add absolutely anything really significant at all? NO. It really doesn't. As cool as it may sound to you

Sorry but it's obvious to me you aren't listening at all if this is your answer. This translates to "it adds nothing for me because of my tastes" -- because it does add things (that people in this topic have mentioned) to those of us who were open to it. :) And to us they were significant.

 

Seriously folks, slow down and actually take the time to read what we're saying and understand it...

 

This just is not a reasonable reaction -- you really think LEGO felt it had no significance worth including? Then why exactly do you think they included it? :P Clearly it's much more reasonable to think that as somebody not part of the development and with different tastes, you simply haven't "got" why they did it.

 

And BTW, "being cool" is not wrong for fiction (in some goals it might be, but the variety options principle means that kids who want cool should have fiction out there that does it too). :P I mean, it seems like you're looking for some meaning of "significance" that must be seriously out of step with what this toyline story was aiming for, if you think proto doesn't add it for anybody. Are you looking for protodermis to be deep psychological significance for a protagonist or something? (But that's even possible in Bionicle. They didn't choose to go there; I do in my retelling in some ways, but something can be in a "for fun" fantasy story without needing that level of significance, or else you'd better take away the masks, robots on tropical island, etc.)

 

I don't think you understand at all what I'm trying to say, and I don't think it's nice to say I don't know what I'm talking about because of that.

 

Name ONE, just ONE thing that protodermis working the way it does has contributed to the story. It has done ZERO things for ANYONE. Sure, it sounds cool, but it is just excess and makes the story more specific than it needs to be. It adds stuff, but nothing important that actually changed the story or characters. It is an excess detail that we can all live without for sure.

 

Bionicle is not perfect. To assume everything done by them is correct is like treating the company as an almighty deity that cannot possibly make a mistake.

 

My reaction is completely reasonable, and I don't think it's very nice to say that it isn't just because it's different from yours. That's just plain awful rude. You've been saying that you like the way protodermis works because it's "cool" to you. Something needs to be more than just "cool" to be added to a story.

 

Cool stuff is great in stories, but what if I decided that I wanted every Bionicle character to have the same voice? What use does that have? Sure, to me it may be cool, but it is very unnecessary and brings nothing good to the story. If you're going to make an entire universe made of the same substance and go out of your way to specify that, shouldn't that be a pretty big deal and be pretty central to the story? Well in Bionicle protodermis did not get any real need to work the way it does, and all it did was make things randomly more specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how is that the answer I said for "everything"? :P (And I don't recall mentioning sci-fi except in a recent post mentioning that Greg has called Bionicle's genre science fantasy, but I don't see how that's relevant.)

 

Bold helps explain why my tastes like it; that has little to nothing to do with why I think LEGO was wise to use it (though it does evidence that not everybody shares your taste on it :P). Distinct is part of the answer, but you didn't mention why. Do you agree with why? And if not, why not?

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with anything you've said so far

Okay.... So you don't agree that fans need not be told how protodermis can do all those things? You think it either has to be explained, or not done?

 

(And I have the same basic question for BG and Lucina. And anybody else. :P)

Edited by bonesiii

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind I'm not saying you can't continue to dislike it, based on taste. I'm saying it's not logical or fair to argue from that subjective taste to ban the option existing for people who do like it. That part I'll remind you of, because it seems to me that while "the pro-proto side" ( :P) is being fair to the other taste, the anti-side seems to be trying to say that LEGO should not have done it just because you don't want it (apparently). I'm not seeing any other reasoning that's passing the logic test to support that. 

 

You could say it, but I've been answering just about everything yall have raised, perhaps to a fault. :P Why should your taste override ours and ban a story from even existing that satisfies ours?

Okay, quick clarification: I'm not on your side, and I'm thinking that based on previous posts that you are implying that here. There are no "sides" here, anyway, just what makes sense and what doesn't. 

 

I'm just trying to respond to all the illogic floating around and make stuff clear. I also don't like that you're claiming that I share your personal taste on this subject. That's silly, because I don't even know what it is.

 

Right now I just have this really vague idea of what you're saying, and I think you're accusing people of having a different taste and trying to impose it on both of us. I'm not sure why you bring up personal taste every time people start saying stuff that's doesn't make sense, but don't rope me into this. I won't stand by what I don't understand. 

 

Name ONE, just ONE thing that protodermis working the way it does has contributed to the story. It has done ZERO things for ANYONE. Sure, it sounds cool, but it is just excess and makes the story more specific than it needs to be. It adds stuff, but nothing important that actually changed the story or characters. It is an excess detail that we can all live without for sure.

I think you missed my edit here: 

 

EDIT: Kapura is winning!

The idea of protodermis and how it works is interested, but story wise completely unneccessary. What if they took some other random sci-fi universe and decided everything was made of protodermis? Sure, it has an excuse, but why do we need one? Why can't we just say everything is made of dirt, stone and such? Does it really matter or make the story and better by turning those things into protodermis substances?

Because Bionicle has significant physics differences from the real world. The characters have powers, for starters. Remember the famous Greg quote about physics? Exactly.

Basically it needs to be there in order to explain the fact that the characters have powers, which isn't possible with real world matter as we know it.  It's also needed as part of the reason the robot was built so quickly, and how molten protodermis could be a thing in a city without a dangerous active volcano. 

 

Heck, even the objects like Kanoka and Masks have powers. Proto is need to explain those differences. 

 

Now those differences could be explained in another way, but using a real-world explanation with lots of physics would be really complicated for the target audience. The concept simplifies the explanation so kids can understand it. Does that make sense?

Edited by fishers64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Name ONE, just ONE thing that protodermis working the way it does has contributed to the story. It has done ZERO things for ANYONE. Sure, it sounds cool, but it is just excess and makes the story more specific than it needs to be. It adds stuff, but nothing important that actually changed the story or characters. It is an excess detail that we can all live without for sure.

I think you missed my edit here: 

 

EDIT: Kapura is winning!

The idea of protodermis and how it works is interested, but story wise completely unneccessary. What if they took some other random sci-fi universe and decided everything was made of protodermis? Sure, it has an excuse, but why do we need one? Why can't we just say everything is made of dirt, stone and such? Does it really matter or make the story and better by turning those things into protodermis substances?

Because Bionicle has significant physics differences from the real world. The characters have powers, for starters. Remember the famous Greg quote about physics? Exactly.

Basically it needs to be there in order to explain the fact that the characters have powers, which isn't possible with real world matter as we know it.  It's also needed as part of the reason the robot was built so quickly, and how molten protodermis could be a thing in a city without a dangerous active volcano. 

 

Heck, even the objects like Kanoka and Masks have powers. Proto is need to explain those differences. 

 

Now those differences could be explained in another way, but using a real-world explanation with lots of physics would be really complicated for the target audience. The concept simplifies the explanation so kids can understand it. Does that make sense?

 

 

Sure, that makes sense and is probably one of the only actual fair arguments against what I've said so far. The problem with this though is that I feel that those powers don't need explaining. I feel that the story isn't about the toa having powers, but rather what the toa are doing/what is going on. I don't see a need to know how the toa have those powers/how they control them. To me it's plenty enough that they can and I'd rather see what they do with them.

Edited by Banana Gunz
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you gonna keep putting words in my mouth? 'cause that's pretty irritating. :0

You said you didn't agree with anything I said. That's my main point; I said it right from the start, and I've repeated it several times. I'm asking if you agree or no. Simple question. :P

 

I also don't like that you're claiming that I share your personal taste on this subject.

I don't recall implying that. Not my intent, anyways. :) (Not my specific taste anyways.)

 

I'm bringing up taste, because I'm not seeing anybody making a logical argument for why Bionicle can't have protodermis be "everything" (except air) in the MU, and the only explanation I'm aware of for why people would try to come up with illogical arguments for that is personal taste. Long experience has taught me that is almost always, if not always, what's going on when that happens. :) (Basically people seem to think they need to defend their taste, and argue for it, but taste doesn't really need defended, in part because it's considered to be outside of logic. The stuff all my ancient blog entries explain in more detail etc. :P They don't need to make it sound like LEGO has to go with their preferences in order for it to be okay for them to have the preferences. And I have pointed out where people have mentioned their preferences and why that makes it not work as a "LEGO should" opinion.)

 

The problem with this though is that I feel that those powers don't need explaining

But again, nothing is needed in fiction anyways. We didn't need characters with elemental powers -- they're in there because LEGO felt enough kids would want them. :)

 

And it isn't really accurate to call that "explaining" the powers anyways. It doesn't tell us everything about how it works, it just tells us a fictional substance is involved which helps with believability, as we can then imagine that that substance makes it work somehow. But we still don't know the somehow, and we don't need to.

 

Lemme ask you this, BG -- you say it has no significance. But how can you know that? That looks like a fallacy of the universal negative. It doesn't make sense to base an argument on this, especially because doing so will not tend to motivate you to try to think of significances. I bet if we sat down and tried to think of some we could come up with a lot. I've got some in mind already, but I wanna see if yall can do this for yourselves. :P

 

And this too.. why do you think something can only be in fiction if it is needed? How do you square this with nothing being needed, or if you think some things are needed, based on what reasoning? And then, why wouldn't the same reasoning mean protodermis is "needed" by that definition?

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wanted to add to this topic because i always thought protodermis was interesting when i was younger....

 

but i had a lot of trouble following this discussion, mainly because @bonseiii doesnt include usernames when they quote posts....

 

 

anyway i always thought it was silly how protodermis wasnt explained in the best way possible considering there was so much hype about it at the beginning?

 

also i dont know very much of the messy plot of the series but im under the impression protodermis was meant to be explained well and then it just didnt really happen in my opinion

 

is there a way to discuss this without everyone arguing? because i wasnt aware this was where the debate club holds all of their meetings.....

  • Upvote 1

bionicle_logo_compressed.png?l.r=-186523

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also don't like that you're claiming that I share your personal taste on this subject.

I don't recall implying that. Not my intent, anyways. :) (Not my specific taste anyways.)

 

I'm bringing up taste, because I'm not seeing anybody making a logical argument for why Bionicle can't have protodermis be "everything" (except air) in the MU, and the only explanation I'm aware of for why people would try to come up with illogical arguments for that is personal taste. Long experience has taught me that is almost always, if not always, what's going on when that happens. :) (Basically people seem to think they need to defend their taste, and argue for it, but taste doesn't really need defended, in part because it's considered to be outside of logic. The stuff all my ancient blog entries explain in more detail etc. :P They don't need to make it sound like LEGO has to go with their preferences in order for it to be okay for them to have the preferences. And I have pointed out where people have mentioned their preferences and why that makes it not work as a "LEGO should" opinion.)

 

Really? The only points I've made are one's that aren't based solely on preference. They're based on good story-telling. Half the time you were saying how having protodermis the way it is is fine because it's cool for you. THAT is personal preference. I still have yet to see any completely solid argument against my thought that protodermis was made excessively complicated and should not have been so. It's an opinion, true, but an opinion made based on a truth. A truth you seem to deny.

 

 

 

The problem with this though is that I feel that those powers don't need explaining

But again, nothing is needed in fiction anyways. We didn't need characters with elemental powers -- they're in there because LEGO felt enough kids would want them. :)

 

And it isn't really accurate to call that "explaining" the powers anyways. It doesn't tell us everything about how it works, it just tells us a fictional substance is involved which helps with believability, as we can then imagine that that substance makes it work somehow. But we still don't know the somehow, and we don't need to.

 

Lemme ask you this, BG -- you say it has no significance. But how can you know that? That looks like a fallacy of the universal negative. It doesn't make sense to base an argument on this, especially because doing so will not tend to motivate you to try to think of significances. I bet if we sat down and tried to think of some we could come up with a lot. I've got some in mind already, but I wanna see if yall can do this for yourselves. :P

 

 

What do you mean nothing is needed in fiction? True, Lego put in characters with elemental powers because they thought that would be cool, but the story is about those characters using their powers to drive the plot forward. We just assume that those powers are a part of their nature when they were created. Who needs to know how it's done?

 

The way protodermis works doesn't fully explain the powers, but it's a base line for how they're allowed to work. And that's already silly because how can it be possible for one to conjure fire? That's part of the fiction, and it doesn't need to have something to try and justify their existence.

 

What significances? Really, what has making everything in the MU made of protodermis been in any way significant to the story? Bionicle is a story, and we need to treat it like a story. In a fiction story, logic is flexible and is bent to allow things normally unable to happen, happen. Explaining how everything is made of energized protodermis has not helped the toa in any way, driven the plot, solved real mysteries. Sure, it drives the point home that Mata-Nui was a giant robot. But we already know that. Why do we need further explanations for that? You're treating Bionicle like a science, but it's not. We need to look at like a story (like I've said a MILLION times), because that is what it is. Looking at it differently will turn it into something completely different. Bionicle has canon and story rules, but it's still a story and does not need an explanation for how everything works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? The only points I've made are one's that aren't based solely on preference. They're based on good story-telling.

And what feels like good storytelling to one person (to an extent) depends on their preferences (in part :P). Some of you are saying you dislike story aspects of protodermis that others like. Right?

 

On person may value simplicity in the sense of a single thing explaining all the "magic". Another may value having lots of different explanations. Another may prefer no explanations at all and just appeal to "comic book physics" (Greg is kinda on that boat, but yeah :P). Seems to me that's what the first page of this discussion was talking about, right? The second page seems to have gotten way more focused on minutia, but yeah.

 

Half the time you were saying how having protodermis the way it is is fine because it's cool for you. THAT is personal preference.

No, I never said that. You seem to be mixing up things I'm saying just because I'm the one saying them all. :P

 

I still have yet to see any completely solid argument against my thought that protodermis was made excessively complicated

But what makes it excessive? If not your personal preferences?

 

It's an opinion, true, but an opinion made based on a truth. A truth you seem to deny.

What truth, and how do you know it's true? And is that an objective truth? Or "it is true that I like this" subjective one? :)

 

What do you mean nothing is needed in fiction?

What do you think is needed? And how do you tell whether something is needed? :)

 

Of course, it depends also on how you define "need." (In a sense, to please somebody, you need to do what they want. :P) But food doesn't need to taste good; disgusting slop that nevertheless has the necessary nutrients for the body would work, but we want it to taste good.

 

Of course, even with preferences, arguments can be made about majorities. I was waiting for this to be people's automatic response, but since we've gone so long without it let's bring it up. (But I think the truth is more nuanced than that. But maybe it would be better to wait for that discussion until we can agree on some basics like that entertainment is about desire, not mere need.)

 

Keep in mind I know a lot about what the apparent right answers to all that are (other than what your reasoning is; only you can explain that to us :)), from studying fiction writing in college, practice, following S&T for so long etc. I'm asking for your benefit; the best way for you to see any flaws in our own reasoning is to find them yourselves (IMO) through asking questions about what's behind your ideas. Because it is so common for people to be relying on assumptions and not be aware of it -- and run into problems because they assume everybody else shares those assumptions (or that if they don't, the others must be in the wrong), but that's not statistically likely, right? It's best to know whether or not your reasoning is sound all the way through, right?

 

 

Edit: Missed this part:

 

What significances? Really, what has making everything in the MU made of protodermis been in any way significant to the story?

See, I asked that question as a test. The reasonable answer to that, to me, is "Yes, you're right that I can't know that there aren't significances, and yeah, maybe I'm being a little biased against it so maybe that's making me not think of them clearly, but it still seems like I'm right for such and such a reason..." If you had said that, I'd be convinced you might have a good sense of whether or not there were. But the knee-jerk answer "what significances" is exactly the kind of response I've seen so often over the years from somebody who doesn't want there to be any (or enough). My question was how do you know there aren't any, not "are you aware of any?" I'm taking it as a given based on what you've said already that you haven't thought of any (or enough, or strong enough).

 

I'm asking, how can you prove a universal negative like that? You rested your reasoning repeatedly on that premise, so it seems to me you have to explain this. But that is a fallacy for a reason; you can't know that. :) There could be reasons that are important enough for LEGO to do it and since they did do it, obviously that is the most likely possibility.

 

Now, I have ideas about those reasons, but it's important whether you're really curious and open, and who knows if I'm guessing the right ones that LEGO had in mind, yeah? I shouldn't need to show you the ones they had for you to realize that you shouldn't base an argument on your lack of knowledge of what uses they had in mind.

 

You also kind of need to give us your principles for how to tell whether something is significant or not; what makes that true of something and false of another? How else can we answer the question without knowing that?

 

 

Sure, it drives the point home that Mata-Nui was a giant robot. But we already know that. Why do we need further explanations for that?

Again with need. But let's translate that as "why do we need that to happen to please those who happen to want it?" Well... because that's spices, that's taste. :) Those who said they liked the poetic association (and by the way, that we know it now misses that it could also work like a clue before we knew it) "need" it in order to get that enjoyment out of it. I didn't think of it myself, but when I saw somebody say that, yeah, I recognized instantly that it makes sense. Now you don't, but it seems like that has to be either because of a taste difference, or one of the two of us may know something the other doesn't. You started the topic, so I'm assuming this means you want to try to explore which of those options (or some other option) it is. Right? :)

 

To your example about it not being relevant to the Toa, well, a less important answer is, given that they're made out of it, that seems highly unlikely. :P But more to the point, the Toa aren't the only characters, and other characters affect them too.

 

Hint: If you want to get at the character-based significances of something, look at who has the most important connection to it. Who is that, in Bionicle?

 

Another factor is that this is a worldbuilding story, in which many details are expected to be thrown in whether or not they yet have significance to any particular character, and they can be used later to that end if somebody thinks of a way (and this helps readers feel like they get the world better). Have you factored that? I suspect not, but this is getting long, so let's go with that for now.

 

 

You're treating Bionicle like a science, but it's not. We need to look at like a story (like I've said a MILLION times)

I don't think I'm doing that at all, how do you figure? You're the one saying only things that are needed should be included -- so no spice. Just practical bare necessities. A good story is more than just need, especially when it's for entertainment which means it has to be fun for people! Fun requires wants! (So "needs wants" in that sense. :P But what I'm saying is it's important to understand that the wants vary, so it might not feel fun to you, thus might not seem "good", but might be to others.) A story is art, not a science. That is exactly why it's about more than just needs.

 

Yes?

 

 

Okay, okay, one last edit (I need to stop the edits huh lol... but seriously, this stuff is fun to think about :P):

 

Remember I also said that to be consistent, you need to apply your rules to the alternatives too. If bad memory serves, your suggestion is for protodermis merely to be the cliche "magic substance that's mined" like it was in the MNOG, right? So how would the significance of that be better than what we have? Wouldn't it just be unavoidably cliche?

Edited by bonesiii

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, that makes sense and is probably one of the only actual fair arguments against what I've said so far. The problem with this though is that I feel that those powers don't need explaining. I feel that the story isn't about the toa having powers, but rather what the toa are doing/what is going on. I don't see a need to know how the toa have those powers/how they control them. To me it's plenty enough that they can and I'd rather see what they do with them.

Okay, that's definitely cool, and I'll agree - I thought of Bionicle that way for a long time TBH. The "this is another universe and that's just the way it is" explanation does work half the time.

 

The problem I see with this is that we do have characters made of normal matter that aren't powered in the Bionicle universe. I think there needs to be an explanation why the Toa/Matoran are powered and the other normal characters aren't. (It's like in a superhero movie - they explain why the superheroes have powers, in correlation to us, who don't.) 

 

Some other explanation could have been used, but I think an explanation is needed. 

 

If you don't like the explanation or think that it isn't needed, you're free to ignore it as well. It may seem complicated, but that's the one they chose. (It also explains the other weird physics stuff I mentioned, like the molten protodermis etc, in relation to places like Vulcanus.)

 

Really? The only points I've made are one's that aren't based solely on preference. They're based on good story-telling. Half the time you were saying how having protodermis the way it is is fine because it's cool for you. THAT is personal preference. I still have yet to see any completely solid argument against my thought that protodermis was made excessively complicated and should not have been so. It's an opinion, true, but an opinion made based on a truth. A truth you seem to deny.

Yes, but good storytelling is subjective. What is good storytelling is a matter of preference.

 

Now it can be a part of a widely held preference. Most of us agree on certain things as bad writing, but that's still a highly preferential thing. We just so happen to have decided to have the same preference (or were indoctrinated to prefer that, etc).  

 

What do you mean nothing is needed in fiction?

Fiction is inherently not needed. We want to make up stuff, therefore we do...and anything in that category is a matter of want.

 

 

I also don't like that you're claiming that I share your personal taste on this subject.

I don't recall implying that. Not my intent, anyways. :) (Not my specific taste anyways.)

 

You used the word "ours" in the post that I quoted. That implies that more than one person has your taste. You and what army? :P

I'm bringing up taste, because I'm not seeing anybody making a logical argument for why Bionicle can't have protodermis be "everything" (except air) in the MU, and the only explanation I'm aware of for why people would try to come up with illogical arguments for that is personal taste.

Possible, but people come up with illogical arguments for all sorts of reasons in general, not all of which have to do with personal taste. I'm not sure why you blame PT so often, when any number of other things could be at work - even just simple misconception or mistakes in reading. Best not to assume. :P

 

I don't see any evidence for PT being a factor here. The first argument against proto was that it was too complicated when a simpler explanation could have been done. It's a simple consideration mistake - not considering all of the things that the explanation affects in story. The second argument is that an explanation isn't necessary, which is missing the reasons why it is.

 

That's not personal taste. That's a simple, common logical/reasoning error that I frequently make, and if what I have read and observed is correct, I'm far from alone. (I may be making it right now lol. Who knows?)

 

Long experience has taught me that is almost always, if not always, what's going on when that happens. :) (Basically people seem to think they need to defend their taste, and argue for it, but taste doesn't really need defended, in part because it's considered to be outside of logic. The stuff all my ancient blog entries explain in more detail etc. :P They don't need to make it sound like LEGO has to go with their preferences in order for it to be okay for them to have the preferences. And I have pointed out where people have mentioned their preferences and why that makes it not work as a "LEGO should" opinion.)

I read all of those blog entries. :P I wasn't sure fully what you were saying in there, and I figured after awhile, I would get what you meant.

 

But after watching this entire debate, I'm not so sure. I consider it fully possible that you have never made any of the reasoning errors that plague me nearly every second of every day, but I'm not sure you can rush to the conclusion that someone is blindly defending their personal taste against sound logic, because other poor people do make those errors. And it seems that every time you bring it up, you confuse people and drive them away from your positions.

 

It saddens me to see it happen again. :( (And don't assume that I agree with you on that, because I don't! :) )

 

Anyway, this is getting off topicish, so if it needs to continue I'd take it to a PM. :shrugs:

 

Now, for the ninjas...

Edited by fishers64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, that's definitely cool, and I'll agree - I thought of Bionicle that way for a long time TBH. The "this is another universe and that's just the way it is" explanation does work half the time.

Just wanted to post to make it clear I agree with this. (I suppose I already said it, but yeah. To be crystal clear.)

But then again, a story doesn't need ( :P) to use "just the way it is" either, lol.

 

You used the word "ours" in the post that I quoted. That implies that more than one person has your taste. You and what army?

People were posting so fast for a while there, I've completely lost track now, so no idea which part you mean. :P I was probably referring to one of the things you said earlier that I agreed with. :shrugs:

 

Possible, but people come up with illogical arguments for all sorts of reasons in general, not all of which have to do with personal taste. I'm not sure why you blame PT so often, when any number of other things could be at work - even just simple misconception or mistakes in reading. Best not to assume.

That's actually my point. Since this happens so often, and it's fallacious to base a "should" argument on subjective taste (other than maybe majorities), critics (or others :P) shouldn't assume that taste is not behind their motivation. :) So it's an important thing to bring up and ask them to consider. Not that it matters really; it's all just for fun... but when I see people taking something like this so seriously, that's one of the classic red flags that it's probably the case, so bringing it up might help them. ^_^

 

Remember that taste itself is not what I'm blaming in the case of illogic, but the decision to (unconsciously or not) base arguments about objective truth on them. I could also quibble that since taste is such an inherent part of what it is to be human it's unlikely that most illogic in general has nothing to do with it ( :P), but I bring it up for entertainment more because people presumably come into entertainment hoping to be pleased.

 

I don't see any evidence for PT being a factor here. The first argument against proto was that it was too complicated when a simpler explanation could have been done. It's a simple consideration mistake - not considering all of the things that the explanation affects in story. The second argument is that an explanation isn't necessary, which is missing the reasons why it is.

 

That's not personal taste. That's a simple, common logical/reasoning error that I frequently make, and if what I have read and observed is correct, I'm far from alone. (I may be making it right now lol. Who knows?)

You kinda lost me here. :P Maybe just 'cuz I'm tired. Except, see all the above about "necessary". (In a sense, yes, but taste matters there too because what is "necessary" to please one will not please another, who needed something else to be pleased.) Basically I'm talking about what is likely to explain why people fail to consider things. Usually people who like something are motivated to understand why it's there and what it adds to a story, and get it intuitively, while people who don't like it tend to not be motivated to do that, and if they do try to understand it, it's usually more in a "why did that have to be there?!" way. BG's reasoning has gone along those lines, even though many significances have already been brought up in the topic. So yes, IMO that's strong evidence that taste is probably behind why he's missing those things. :shrugs:

 

Only he can decide that for himself, though. He doesn't need to solve that puzzle here; he just needs to show us what the rules are in his mind for why something is and isn't needed and the like without relying on assumptions. :)

 

And it seems that every time you bring it up, you confuse people and drive them away from your positions.

That's okay -- that tends to come because people aren't already aware of those important life lessons that I'm talking about. When people lack knowledge, encountering somebody who knows a lot of things relevant to a subject almost inevitably has that effect. But the alternative in my experience is that nobody ever learns from each other anyways, because they just argue their biases back and forth and get nowhere. Sound logic is a tool all reasonable people, even though they disagree on their opinions, can agree is helpful for figuring out what's true and what isn't together, and actually come to change minds. :) As I often say, sometimes these things have to get worse before they get better. ^_^ It's a process.

 

And that works both ways, of course; I may be the one lacking knowledge that they have (perhaps about why something in their reasoning, whether a mistake or not, isn't about taste), but we can only find that error by discussing it together. Right? (Assuming I don't happen to think of it on my own.)

 

It's also a useful testing tool. Since I make sure I only say things as true when I have sound support behind it, when I see somebody continuing to go farther away in disagreement the more I discuss something with them, that tells me there is probably a root cause that we need to dig and get down to. In almost every case throughout the last ten years when I've tried that, it always boils down to a difference in taste that they weren't even aware of, and becoming aware of it usually helps them feel better about it. :) Even if they walk away before we can get to that step, they will still have gained the benefit of learning some new things that can help them in the rest of life, hopefully.

 

 

(And FTR, since there's been so much apparent talking past each other, from multiple people, I'm fine with taking a little bit of topic space to step back and continue this somewhat-tangent here, within reason, rather than by PM... for now... since understanding this properly can help people avoid antagonism and the like better and that helps for following rules and stuff. :P The topic is also about trying to understand what's up here, so this isn't entirely off-topic anyways; we're talking about what makes a story good, and this is right at the heart of that question.)

Edited by bonesiii

The Destiny of Bionicle (chronological retelling of Bionicle original series, 9 PDFs of 10 chapters each on Google Drive)Part 1 - Warring with Fate | Part 2 - Year of Change | Part 3 - The Exploration Trap | Part 4 - Rise of the Warlords | Part 5 - A Busy Matoran | Part 6 - The Dark Time | Part 7 - Proving Grounds | Part 8 - A Rude Awakening | Part 9 - The Battle of Giants

My Bionicle Fanfiction  (Google Drive folder, eventually planned to have PDFs of all of it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me while I nudge my own little opinion in here.  :P 

 

I kind of wish that they could have kept Protodermis as its own special mineral apart from other natural substances instead of just saying that everything made out of protodermis. For me, the concept itself is confusing -- trees are trees, but they're not. What it really is, is the dirt you're standing on, and the organic tissue you're made from, and that lightstone over there. And yet, they are essentially no different from the real things outside the giant robot -- aside from atomic/molecular/whatever level of structure.

 

For some, that could be a good thing, which I guess was one of Bonesii's points in that it takes a more untraveled road and gives Protodermis a more mysterious aura. However, it just seems too... illogical for my taste. Maybe unnecessary is a better word.  :shrugs:

 

It also just seems to make me lose interest in the concept of Protodermis. Instead of being this special mineral, it's just... everything. To me, it's the same thing as saying that everything we know is made out of atoms -- making Protodermis just a different kind of "atom" that isn't really different at all (unless it's energized).

 

Then again, if one could word that differently enough, you could say that makes it even cooler.

 

It's just a matter of personal taste: mine is that I wish they didn't make Protodermis simply an artificial subcategory under "everything".

Edited by TBK

sig8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

correct me if i'm wrong, but im getting the message that bonesiii cant write comments that arent condescending and hard to understand....... (and of course every post needs emoticons up the wazoo)

 

like i have no idea whats going on in this topic, but i think we can all agree that the story doesnt provide a good explanation of protodermis.... (and that we dont necessarily need a good explanation)

bionicle_logo_compressed.png?l.r=-186523

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*inhales* *exhales* Okay one-two. 

 

Half the time you were saying how having protodermis the way it is is fine because it's cool for you. THAT is personal preference.

No, I never said that. You seem to be mixing up things I'm saying just because I'm the one saying them all. :P

 

I raise you this post:

You could say it, but I've been answering just about everything yall have raised, perhaps to a fault. :P Why should your taste override ours and ban a story from even existing that satisfies ours?

There's a better example in this topic, but it's too late to hunt it down. You probably could slime out of it because there's no "I prefer" statements to peg it, though. :P
 

 

I still have yet to see any completely solid argument against my thought that protodermis was made excessively complicated

But what makes it excessive? If not your personal preferences?

 

Fact? :P
 

Of course, even with preferences, arguments can be made about majorities. I was waiting for this to be people's automatic response, but since we've gone so long without it let's bring it up. (But I think the truth is more nuanced than that. But maybe it would be better to wait for that discussion until we can agree on some basics like that entertainment is about desire, not mere need.)

But story has to have a bare minimum of some logical consistency, bones, otherwise it's not really entertaining at all. (In this topic I'm arguing that not having proto would hurt the logical consistency here, and thus make it less enjoyable for a lot of people...)
 

Keep in mind I know a lot about what the apparent right answers to all that are (other than what your reasoning is; only you can explain that to us :)), from studying fiction writing in college, practice, following S&T for so long etc. I'm asking for your benefit; the best way for you to see any flaws in our own reasoning is to find them yourselves (IMO) through asking questions about what's behind your ideas. Because it is so common for people to be relying on assumptions and not be aware of it

bones, we all rely on some assumptions. Some of us test them and verify them a more than others, but then we have to assume that testing and verifying assumptions actually does help. (Otherwise I wouldn't test them, and now I know because I have...)

Anyway, on to the next post.
 

 

Okay, that's definitely cool, and I'll agree - I thought of Bionicle that way for a long time TBH. The "this is another universe and that's just the way it is" explanation does work half the time.

Just wanted to post to make it clear I agree with this. (I suppose I already said it, but yeah. To be crystal clear. :P)
But then again, a story doesn't need ( :P) to use "just the way it is" either, lol.

 

Yes, but it would appear that a lot of stories want to use "just the way it is". As opposed to explaining everything with protodermis. :P

 

You used the word "ours" in the post that I quoted. That implies that more than one person has your taste. You and what army? :P

People were posting so fast for a while there, I've completely lost track now, so no idea which part you mean. :P I was probably referring to one of the things you said earlier that I agreed with. :shrugs:

 

I raise you this post again:
 

You could say it, but I've been answering just about everything yall have raised, perhaps to a fault. :P Why should your taste override ours and ban a story from even existing that satisfies ours?


:P
 
 


 

Possible, but people come up with illogical arguments for all sorts of reasons in general, not all of which have to do with personal taste. I'm not sure why you blame PT so often, when any number of other things could be at work - even just simple misconception or mistakes in reading. Best not to assume. :P

That's actually my point. Since this happens so often, and it's fallacious to base a "should" argument on subjective taste (other than maybe majorities), critics (or others :P) shouldn't assume that taste is not behind their motivation. :) So it's an important thing to bring up and ask them to consider. Not that it matters really; it's all just for fun... but when I see people taking something like this so seriously, that's one of the classic red flags that it's probably the case, so bringing it up might help them. ^_^

 

I just don't think it is as likely as you make it out to be. Every time someone gets slightly annoyed at something you think they should not be annoyed at, you hit the personal taste button. Then they show signs of not understanding what you're saying. Sometimes I don't even understand what you're saying.

I think it comes off as you saying your taste is superior to theirs and that they should stop being annoyed at stuff you aren't annoyed at. You aren't correcting the real logical errors in here.

(I shouldn't assume that I am, either...the point of the original post was that we do have a difference of opinion here, and I think that point is made.)
 

Remember that taste itself is not what I'm blaming in the case of illogic, but the decision to (unconsciously or not) base arguments about objective truth on them.

To be clear, I do agree with this statement. The world does not revolve around any one person's tastes. (Nor does Lego, for that matter.)
 

I could also quibble that since taste is such an inherent part of what it is to be human it's unlikely that most illogic in general has nothing to do with it ( :P), but I bring it up for entertainment more because people presumably come into entertainment hoping to be pleased.

But given the vast variety of entertainment, complaining about one not meeting your wants is foolish, because you can just move on to the next one if you get too annoyed. Blaming entertainment for not reading your mind is a waste of time. :P (I agree on that.)

What I maintain is that the human brain can experience reasoning fallacies independent of personal taste. I naturally think that these are more common that PT defense mistakes, because I wake up and ten seconds later, my brain makes a minor error. Then it corrects itself. If it doesn't do that, it makes another, and another in an ugly reasoning death spiral which requires a larger correction. I don't want to do that or have a preference to want to do that. It just happens. (In fact, I have a very strong preference to have more corrections and less errors.) I don't think that only happens to me. Could be wrong...

It's not beyond my imagination that the "death-spiral" errors can't make their way into posts. I've made a few, at least.
 
The real question is, why do you think taste is the strongest factor here, as opposed to simply making an error (and thereby assuming that your favorite entertainment is making an error, based on your error)?.
 
I'm starting to see this, though. This one's pulling a few more disagreements I have, and I'm starting to see how they feed into this one. Interesting, but I don't have time to go there, and this is already waaay off topic. 
 

Basically I'm talking about what is likely to explain why people fail to consider things. Usually people who like something are motivated to understand why it's there and what it adds to a story, and get it intuitively, while people who don't like it tend to not be motivated to do that, and if they do try to understand it, it's usually more in a "why did that have to be there?!" way. BG's reasoning has gone along those lines, even though many significances have already been brought up in the topic. So yes, IMO that's strong evidence that taste is probably behind why he's missing those things. :shrugs:

Possible. But then, all one would have to do is point out the things that he's missing. If he refuses to consider that, he's not going to consider your diatribe about personal taste either. :P  Openness to thought applies to that too. 

 

And it seems that every time you bring it up, you confuse people and drive them away from your positions.

That's okay -- that tends to come because people aren't already aware of those important life lessons that I'm talking about. When people lack knowledge, encountering somebody who knows a lot of things relevant to a subject almost inevitably has that effect. But the alternative in my experience is that nobody ever learns from each other anyways, because they just argue their biases back and forth and get nowhere. Sound logic is a tool all reasonable people, even though they disagree on their opinions, can agree is helpful for figuring out what's true and what isn't together, and actually come to change minds. :) As I often say, sometimes these things have to get worse before they get better. ^_^ It's a process.

 

And that is where those other disagreements come in. Short version: this is presumptuously didactic. Which this post is now extremely guilty of on my part, so I'm shooting myself in the foot with every word I type...logic errors...
 

And that works both ways, of course; I may be the one lacking knowledge that they have (perhaps about why something in their reasoning, whether a mistake or not, isn't about taste), but we can only find that error by discussing it together. Right? :) (Assuming I don't happen to think of it on my own.)

Agreed.

I find it ironic that I started this arguing against something being confusing, and now I'm arguing that something is confusing...

EDIT:

correct me if i'm wrong, but im getting the message that bonesiii cant write comments that arent condescending and hard to understand....... (and of course every post needs emoticons up the wazoo)

A lot of people get this vibe, but you need to read his posts when he's not in a debate like this. I find that he's actually a really nice person, objectively. :shrugs:

Edited by fishers64
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...