What is Up with Protodermis?

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

Yeah Protodermis was confusing. I remember hearing about Energized Protodermis in 2002 as the catalyst that caused the Toa Mata to become Nuva... but after they starting saying "solid protodermis" and "liquid protodermis" in the Metru Nui era I started to get confused. It's just weird that one substance can exist in so many forms - regular, harmless forms and then one that can destroy or change you depending on your destiny? Weird...

 

-NotS

[Regitnui]

Mata Nui's creaky left elbow...

 

OK, anyone here who can come up with a better replacement for protodermis than what we already have, put up your hand. You may stay. Everyone else, get the Karzahni out!

 

All I'm seeing here is a bunch of people (i'm going to be charitable here, and not say children) shouting at each other for no good reason and just to defend their Point of View without sitting down and actually listening to what the other people are saying. Let me try and summarize both sides of this so-called debate.

 

Protodermis

• This is the way it is.
• We like it the way it is.
• Clay is a reasonable analogy for protodermis' use in the MU
• Protodermis exists in many forms because it can replace many more 'normal' elements in many natural compounds.
• It's much simpler to have one substance doing everything than it is to have many special substances.

Antidermis

 

• It hurts my brain because it's confusing.
• The way it is sucks because I think it does.
• Protodermis is rock. How can it be organic too?
• There have to be special 'Protodermis quarks' for protodermis to appear in many different forms.
• Everything except air in the MU is pure protodermis.
• Protodermis is not logically consistent.

Alright now. I'm on the Protodermis side, so let me try and finally answer the objections to protodermis:

 

• Shame.
• Poor baby.
• Protodermis isn't rock any more than carbon is diamonds. You've got the relationship backwards there. Diamonds are a form of carbon. So is graphite. Rock in the MU is a form of protodermis. So is the characters' armour and the Silver Sea. At the molecular level, every living being is inanimate. According to scientists, even you are nothing more than a self-sustaining series of chemical reactions that happens to result in some process us humans think is 'life'.
• No, because the macro form of matter (what we see) is decided at the molecule level. The difference between methanol and ethanol is a carbon atom. The difference between solid protodermis (rock) and liquid protodermis (water) could be different elements mixed into the protodermis, while protodermis itself is still the main 'element' or compound involved in the make-up of the substance.
• If everything in the MU was made up of pure protodermis, why is the major part of Ga-Metru's industry refining it? I'm sure everyone here knows what refining means, so I'll suffice it to say that making anything new in the MU requires that protodermis be extracted from something else. Ga-Metru gets it from the Silver Sea, and takes all the impurities out of it to allow (eg.) Ta-Metru to add other impurities to make Masks and Kanoka.
• Have you read the rest of my post? Think through it and unless you possess a doctorate in physics and chemistry, I'm pretty sure that accepting protodermis as a very versatile substance in conjunction with small amounts of other (gaseous) chemicals can react to become variants with different states of matter.

Now, I don't see anything on the Antidermis side that prevents any point the Protodermis side has come up with besides taste and outright objection, so we'll hopefully leave it at this.

 

I'll agree that bonesiii is a nice person objectively. The problem here is that I'm not, especially when an argument drags on because of one party not listening to the other. Conclusively prove my points (the third batch of bullets) wrong, and I will gladly agree with you. Start making more 'but-but-but' noises like a dyslexic chicken, and all you'll do is hurt your own argument. Good day.

[bonesiii]

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

Exactly. Nobody's saying it doesn't have the downsides you mentioned in the rest of your post. It's just that those don't necessarily make it worse, and the alternatives would have downsides too (like being more cliche).

 

Which do you pick?

 

Well to me the answer's pretty obvious; every other story has already done the alternative somehow or another. Like I said on page one, this way is bolder and there's no objective reason it can't be done. So err on the side of having a wider variety of fiction out there, so people who would like this over the usual way get something for them/us.

 

 

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)

Right.

 

 

 

I raise you this post:

 

bonesiii, on 08 Oct 2014 - 7:59 PM, said:

 

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

"Ours" there would mean everybody who likes the thing that member said he doesn't like. Whoever that is (which obviously includes somebody at LEGO ).

 

 

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...)

I agree. Why do you seem to imply I might not? That's half of what S&T is about. My issue is that it seems like some are coming at it and not wanting to agree that this is within that level easily.

 

Yes, it's a little confusing that "everything's proto", but as I've shown, there's plenty of reasons why that isn't too much of a burden, since things that actually exist (like video game worlds) share that. It seems to me that this is decisive, but people aren't agreeing and seem to be ignoring the point and still disageeing... this is puzzling and I would like to know why they're doing that, yanno?

 

 

 

Every time someone gets slightly annoyed at something you think they should not be annoyed at, you hit the personal taste button.

The mere fact that this is annoying some tells me maybe people lately aren't realizing as much as in past years on BZP (mainly when Bionicle was active originally) just how pervasive subjective preferences are in how people look at fiction. For ten years virtually everybody here got this, to the point that some thought it was so obvious it didn't need stated. Apparently you're disagreeing, but why? As I said, the patterns all fit the past cases...

 

If you think about it, shouldn't the fact that you're seeing people be annoyed at things that I know they shouldn't (or think I know ), given how much experience I have with the subject, concern you as perhaps a sign that some important life basics may be being missed by them? In that case, I feel for their benefit it's important to briefly and where relevant mention them rather than leave them in the dark, even if it's a little annoying. If anything that's good because that way I'm not cheating or manipulating to make them like the thing I like (somewhat ) more than otherwise.

 

Yeah, I'm weird, but again, I've seen this approach actually make progress so many times. And I'm seeing it here too; the signs may be subtle but I'm seeing them right where predicted.

 

think it comes off as you saying your taste is superior

That's the complete opposite of what I've said... O_o The whole point is that because different personal tastes are equal, there's no need for them to feel the need to prop them up with "LEGO should" opinions (which doesn't work -either way- anyways). To get that from my posts it seems you have to ignore most of what I'm saying... No offense...

 

that they should stop being annoyed at stuff you aren't annoyed at.

I don't understand this. Nobody's saying you HAVE to find a way to stop being as annoyed, but surely everybody would WANT to, if that's possible. Do people want to continue having less enjoyment?

 

Is it not true that often as our understanding of something improves, it can grow on us?

 

But for that to work, we have to first choose to be open to even considering it. Yeah?

 

What I maintain is that the human brain can experience reasoning fallacies independent of personal taste.

Sure -- at least, I can't rule that out. Since I don't understand how we get to all fallacies in the first place, I obviously can't know that they are all related to taste. But this tangent is boring me, so let's just leave that one at that. Anyways, wasn't my point.

 

The real question is, why do you think taste is the strongest factor here

I'm not sure I would go that far, actually. I don't know how you measure those things nor why we would want to. It doesn't really matter if my suspicions are right; I raise it so people can consider it themselves. Personally I find it always wise to err on the side of realizing just how powerful my own tastes can be, especially since arguably nothing happens in our brains without some kind of motivation or another.

 

But then, all one would have to do is point out the things that he's missing. If he refuses to consider that

I've been doing this long enough to realize that while that sounds good, in practice it usually goes nowhere. I've learned that it's more important to sense whether somebody is open to hearing out and thinking of possible answers first, and if not, understand why that will probably later interfere in their "getting" the answers even if they're given them. Basically, I think we should be up front about that, rather than act like the answers we give are definitely enough to make them like it and then have to pull this in later. And I've experimented with both thousands of times, remember. I know what I'm talking about here.

 

 

 

I remember hearing about Energized Protodermis in 2002 as the catalyst that caused the Toa Mata to become Nuva... but after they starting saying "solid protodermis" and "liquid protodermis" in the Metru Nui era I started to get confused. It's just weird that one substance can exist in so many forms - regular, harmless forms and then one that can destroy or change you depending on your destiny? Weird...

Lol, yeah.

 

But it's okay for it to be weird.

 

 

 

 

No, because the macro form of matter (what we see) is decided at the molecule level.

Okay, I was wondering if this would come up... First, note that I must have missed the thing about quarks. Anywho, I'm inclined to agree with you, and Greg once confirmed it, but part of the reason for my delay in my upcoming protodermis theory launch has been that apparently the confirmation has been lost in BZP's archives loss (I guess it was a post that was never repeated in the PM convo archives). And recently in the LMB, Greg has literally forgetconned it, to say he doesn't know what it is. (He left open the (way overused and frankly hopelessly illogical but that's okay lol) option of it being another atomic element.)

 

Anyways, you're right that this can work, and my theory still works as an explanation of how, but I wouldn't expect Greg to understand why, so I doubt he or LEGO in general intended to go that route definitely. Let's be honest here -- they don't have the slightest clue how it could work and never intended to. That wasn't what it was about.

 

But that does help anyways, to me, no matter what the actually explanation "would be" (if it was a real thing), because at least we can tell that it's possible for these different physics behaviors to be explained somehow. In the real world, by different molecules. With protodermis, something else. And we keep discovering/inventing new behaviors all the time as our knowledge of chemistry expands. We know plenty now to say with near certainty that aside from the powers themselves, everything about protodermis is easily plausible. (But fans still don't have to know that anymore than they need to know how HP magic works.)

 

 

Later folks... and please remember to be nice, and it isn't worth fighting about.

Edited October 9, 2014 by bonesiii

[Gonel]

OK, Unikitty says we have to slow down. So do Gali, Matoro, Nokama, and a lot of others who fear the break up of BZPower. (Kopaka says he's neither nor there about it -wait, he didn't- but just ignore him for now.)

 

 

So far I've seen some pretty logical... discussions... from either end of the spectrum. Personally, before even reading them, I feel more inclined to trust those who make countless quotes and debate them. It shows they're at least trying to understand the quoted and counter argue. I also like when bones suggests putting the other person's argument in your own words and explaining why you don't agree. It's nice. It's polite. It keeps things from getting out of hand and people from losing their warm and fuzzy feeling inside. Like me.

 

 

I think we should just forget everything in that whirlwind on page 1 and 2. So how 'bout a theory to tear apart and eat for dinner and that all of you can agree is equally silly.

 

 

Perhaps proto can only replicate those elements put into it --metal, fire/plasma/lava, rock, water,

 

 

plantlife,

 

 

--and some how come out with physical similarities to whatever element. I know we really haven't seen lots of protodermis with other elemental traits, but, I just thought the idea might be intriguing.

 

 

Another thing: Somehow I got the impression that many people may think Mata Nui (Location) had real actual trees and stuff. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you're right, but in my opinion, it would be weird for a robot who consists entirely of protodermis "cells" would suddenly be able to generate something completely organic (regular organic). I would think it would be like growing lava for hair. Not impossible, I suppose. Just highly improbable.

 

[fishers64]

 

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...)

I agree. Why do you seem to imply I might not? That's half of what S&T is about. My issue is that it seems like some are coming at it and not wanting to agree that this is within that level easily.

 

I would go to say that the story needs (evil word ) that logic minimum. At the very least, it has to make sense to somebody. That person may not be me, but someone. That was responding to your statement that it was mostly (if not all) about taste.

 

Maybe I'm not reading your posts correctly, but I don't think you were arguing from that, though. The only thing you were talking about is personal taste. Very few responded to my post about proto logic - they all responded to your posts about taste in considerable discomfort.

 

That's probably not correct, but that's what I'm seeing, as wrong as it is - and in any event, I shouldn't presume things to be that way. 

 

It seems to me that this is decisive, but people aren't agreeing and seem to be ignoring the point and still disagreeing... this is puzzling and I would like to know why they're doing that, yanno?

Either 1) they don't understand what you mean or 2) don't want to understand what you mean. Why assume 2)?

 

(I see that you tried to answer this below, so I'm going to go with that.) 

 

 

 

Every time someone gets slightly annoyed at something you think they should not be annoyed at, you hit the personal taste button.

The mere fact that this is annoying some tells me maybe people lately aren't realizing as much as in past years on BZP (mainly when Bionicle was active originally) just how pervasive subjective preferences are in how people look at fiction. For ten years virtually everybody here got this, to the point that some thought it was so obvious it didn't need stated. Apparently you're disagreeing, but why? As I said, the patterns all fit the past cases...

 

If you think about it, shouldn't the fact that you're seeing people be annoyed at things that I know they shouldn't (or think I know ), given how much experience I have with the subject, concern you as perhaps a sign that some important life basics may be being missed by them? In that case, I feel for their benefit it's important to briefly and where relevant mention them rather than leave them in the dark, even if it's a little annoying. If anything that's good because that way I'm not cheating or manipulating to make them like the thing I like (somewhat ) more than otherwise.

 

Yeah, I'm weird, but again, I've seen this approach actually make progress so many times. And I'm seeing it here too; the signs may be subtle but I'm seeing them right where predicted.

 

This is where I must admit: I do not see these patterns you speak of. I see some patterns sometimes, but mostly the people patterns thing goes over my head, and the patterns that I do see are wrong sometimes.

 

Probably my weakest brain skill.  

 

think it comes off as you saying your taste is superior

That's the complete opposite of what I've said... O_o The whole point is that because different personal tastes are equal, there's no need for them to feel the need to prop them up with "LEGO should" opinions (which doesn't work -either way- anyways). To get that from my posts it seems you have to ignore most of what I'm saying... No offense...

 

No offense intended, and none taken. I'm just trying to understand...and failing. Typical me. 

 

I think I addressed this above, and I'm really out of time...

 

that they should stop being annoyed at stuff you aren't annoyed at.

I don't understand this. Nobody's saying you HAVE to find a way to stop being as annoyed, but surely everybody would WANT to, if that's possible. Do people want to continue having less enjoyment?

 

Is it not true that often as our understanding of something improves, it can grow on us?

 

But for that to work, we have to first choose to be open to even considering it. Yeah?

 

I agree with your response, but that's inconsistent with your other posts. The purpose of the personal taste argument in the first place is to say "your personal tastes are blinding you to this fact, and if you only got this, you would like it like I like it!". 

 

This obviously comes off as "dislike is illogical" which is a fallacy. People just...don't like stuff sometimes. Why would I want to like the things that I don't? That makes no sense. 

 

 

The real question is, why do you think taste is the strongest factor here

I'm not sure I would go that far, actually. I don't know how you measure those things nor why we would want to. It doesn't really matter if my suspicions are right; I raise it so people can consider it themselves. Personally I find it always wise to err on the side of realizing just how powerful my own tastes can be, especially since arguably nothing happens in our brains without some kind of motivation or another.

 

But that's inconsistent with mentioning it every post in here, to the exclusion of straight logic.  The fact that I was saying the straight logic might have been a factor though...

 

 

But then, all one would have to do is point out the things that he's missing. If he refuses to consider that

I've been doing this long enough to realize that while that sounds good, in practice it usually goes nowhere. I've learned that it's more important to sense whether somebody is open to hearing out and thinking of possible answers first, and if not, understand why that will probably later interfere in their "getting" the answers even if they're given them. Basically, I think we should be up front about that, rather than act like the answers we give are definitely enough to make them like it and then have to pull this in later. And I've experimented with both thousands of times, remember. I know what I'm talking about here.

 

Yes, but in my experience if someone isn't listening to what you have to say, throwing more information (or arguments) at them will never make them listen. In practice, THAT goes nowhere. If they aren't listening to your logic on proto (which makes sense), why would they listen to you talk about personal taste (which is even more confusing than logic on proto )?

 

If they aren't listening to you, save the breath/text for someone who will listen IMO.

 

But then again, what you've described is the skills of a teacher, which I admittedly and obviously do not have. Makes it twice as hard to "get" those who do.

Edited October 9, 2014 by fishers64

[Toatapio Nuva]

I don't have a problem with the nature of protodermis or even the fact that pretty much everything in the MU is made from it... it's not like the trees stop being plants just because they are proto-based, for example. It's just a magical material that can perform many functions. That's quite cool, IMO.

 

There were a lot of things with Bionicle that disappointed me in the later years (frEAkin' alTernATe uNniverRseeeeEees!), but protodermis is not one of them.

[bonesiii]

I agree with your response, but that's inconsistent with your other posts.

Sorry, but no it isn't. It can't be, since that's what I meant in those other posts. Aaaanywho, it sounds like that's been cleared up now, so let's move on.

 

Yes, but in my experience if someone isn't listening to what you have to say, throwing more information (or arguments) at them will never make them listen. In practice, THAT goes nowhere.

Which is why I am mostly instead going at the root problem here, and trying to get people to work through the underlying logic themselves.

 

It's okay if you don't get what I mean -- just don't assume I mean something bad by virtue of that (that's never really a good idea, and obviously anybody who knows me by now knows that isn't the case).

 

why would they listen to you talk about personal taste (which is even more confusing than logic on proto )?

I don't think it's confusing. People want things or don't want them, and that has a profound role on everything else they do (we do; all people). So if we're going to make "LEGO should" opinions, this is the first thing we need to make sure is not being treated fallaciously (relying on one person's preferences to say that means LEGO should do something, which is contradictory since other peoples' preferences are just as valid, though again majority logic can actually work here to an extent). If everybody was just saying "yeah, I guess that was based in part on taste, so I can't be sure of this, but here's some more explanations of my preferences for what it's worth; maybe LEGO shouldn't actually do that", there would be no issue really. But people have been insisting that isn't the case, without showing sound logic to replace it. Yanno?

 

Basically what my approach does is it asks people to show how their LEGO should opinions are objective. This is good because if they can pass that test, then they've shown they have a strong argument. And that way, if they're right, I can come to agree with them, and help argue their case too.

 

If not, then it's up to them what to do with it, but at least progress was made yeah?

 

Anywho... we clear now?

 

 

Edit: I was thinking about this while I was working on something else just now, and I realized something else should probably be emphasized. Missing this might explain some of the problems people were having earlier with simply recognizing the basic truth of what I said about taste (which really should have only needed a quick agreement and move on). Two things actually, just to be sure:

 

1) Keeping in mind this is in the context of everybody's individual likes being equal, don't forget that the goal of Bionicle was always entertainment. I don't see how likes and dislikes can be unrelated to these things, because how do you please somebody if they don't enjoy what you do? Think about this (I know you don't agree with BG, but let's take his "need" argument for example) -- BG is saying something should have happened (or not happened), yet if as he thinks, preferences aren't involved in what's motivating him to think that way, then isn't he saying he's pushing for something that even he wouldn't enjoy?

 

So to me that doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of doing it. To me it's a much more powerful argument to say "here's objective reasons why they should do it, and yes, I've been very careful to take seriously the risk of personal bias in that reasoning, and keep it out, and I'm at least one person, or I know a lot of people or have heard from them, that would like it, so it could be worth it." Focusing on the risk of bias related to taste isn't about keeping taste unrelated to things, it's about putting it in the right context so that one person's preferences aren't arbitrarily imposed on others. Keep it carefully out of "should", but be willing to admit it's probably "why we care". 'Cuz it is.

 

(And it doesn't have to be us that would like it; if we've seen good research that a majority would like something, but we wouldn't, it would still make sense to push for it even if we wouldn't like it. But it's also just as okay for BG to admit he wants what he's pushing for, but also be willing to step back and test whether it's really objectively wise and if it turns out it isn't, be okay with that.)

 

Not to pick on you, BG. Just using your argument as the example since it's your topic.

 

2) Since you emphasized annoyance (talking to fishers again here), remember that (again, without saying this is definitely the case here), somebody who is unaware of the role of taste in their thinking and has slipped (understandably) into a mistake of trying to push their tastes as what LEGO should do, just so they would get pleased personally -- somebody making that (innocent usually) mistake can be annoyed when somebody forces them to confront the mistake, because it does mean they have to realize that maybe LEGO shouldn't have done what would please them. Not getting what would please people is a natural, obvious potential source of annoyance yeah?

 

So seeing people getting annoyed at focusing on the equal, subjective nature of taste and how powerful a role it could play in their thinking, even without them noticing consicously -- seeing that shouldn't make us think "huh, maybe we shouldn't talk about the role of taste." Quite the contrary, it may mean we need to deal with that elephant in the room all the more because of this risk (risk, not certainty, remember).

 

Makey da sensey? =)

 

(And honestly, I'm not really aware, at least off the top of my head, what other reason there could be for somebody being annoyed at pointing out how their reasoning might be subjective like that. Which doesn't mean there isn't any other reason though. Shouldn't we enjoy exploring our personal tastes and the role they can play in what motivates us? That's a huge part of who we are, after all. To me it seems that topics like this, that ask "I want to know how you feel" (that's a direct quote ) are all about that. Right?)

Edited October 9, 2014 by bonesiii

[fishers64]

My mind is still running the script that taste doesn't necessarily play a role here. However, everything that script tries to get to support itself makes no sense, and even I can see that. *kills script*

 

Still, in the case of entertainment  you probably have a point that it is possible for this to be the case, and perhaps even likely. I would not consider myself fully convinced at this point, but I definitely think I need to reread this discussion, as I have been clearly missing and misinterpreting the things you are saying.  

 

In that respect, you can consider the topic cleared.