Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

While we are at it: F(Horse)=Centaur

I don't think that follows from our other discussions.  F(horse) should be a horse with hands that runs around on its hind legs, not a horse that has substituted a human torso for its head.

Or a human with a horses body and rear end coming out of thier backside, lol.

Still, it all comes down to the definition of anthropomorphic or humanoid we are looking at, anthro like 'furry' anthro or anthro as in having primate attributes, or anthro/humanoid as in having two arms, two legs, and a head.

How about F(Jellyfish+Manta Ray)? Probably would look something like those aliens from the Abyss movie.

[Cruxador]

You know, one of the most defining features of humanity is our... fuck if I can remember the proper term. Basically, it means how we look like babies.
And if you crank that up to 11, you get anime.

Humanmen are anime characters.

[CobaltKobold]

While we are at it: F(Horse)=Centaur

No, it's not. I already pointed out that F(fish) is not equal to mermen. . .also, none of your definitions seem to make F(horse) = centaur.

It's blending.
Starfish- well, humans have 5 things coming out of their torso anyway!
Coral...I dunno. Sea-dryads.

While I don't know how F(jellyfish) turns out, some have opinions. (Clearly the function for that one is more radical in its changes than my pseudocode.)
And a stingrayperson, since you mention it.

PPE:Cruxador: The word you are looking for is "neoteny", I suspect.

[Vector]

You know, one of the most defining features of humanity is our... fuck if I can remember the proper term. Basically, it means how we look like babies.
And if you crank that up to 11, you get anime.

Humanmen are anime characters.

Neoteny.

...

f(Human) -> Loli.... blech.

[Akigagak]

[/derail]

[CobaltKobold]

[/derail]

Pardon? We're clearly talking about the animal->animalman template, if in a more generalised sense than Toady has implemented it thus far.
Oh, and, new UnList item. Again, one that saves Toady time in what he is already doing.

• Creature Templates

[smjjames]

I had no idea we were talking about the animal->animalmen template, at least not that specifically as I wasn't sure what it was started about.

Anyways, I dug up a pic for the Abyss aliens I mentioned:
(Spoilered because of large size)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[LumenPlacidum]

Hahaha, I love these forums.  Where else can you combine mathematical theory with fantasy tropes in such interesting company?

[AbacusWizard]

And I suppose once you've reached zero you can't subtract any more because there aren't any numbers less than zero?

Nope, but once you get to the North Pole, can you keep going North beyond the North Pole?

Clearly this just means that "north" is a poorly defined direction. Try the same thought experiment with the East Pole and you'll find that you can easily keep going east.

There is nothing 'beyond' Human, there is just Human, in the same way there is nothing beyond 'Lion' or beyond 'Snake', there is just 'Lion' and 'Snake'. Once you reach them, there is no further place to go, you can head off down the track towards another animal, but you can't go 'beyond' Human, it simply does not exist.

Perhaps a better way to explain what I'm trying to say is that F(human) would take all the things that make us human (perceptively, not biologically) and make them more so.

[Vector]

And I suppose once you've reached zero you can't subtract any more because there aren't any numbers less than zero?

Nope, but once you get to the North Pole, can you keep going North beyond the North Pole?

Clearly this just means that "north" is a poorly defined direction. Try the same thought experiment with the East Pole and you'll find that you can easily keep going east.

No, what this means is that "North" is well-defined, and "East" is poorly-defined.  The point of poles is that they allow opposites.  If you admit an "East pole," then that means that a "West pole" is naturally defined to be directly on the other side of the globe.

Essentially, if we say that some location is "East," rather than just some direction being "East," then we'll get the situation Neruz has outlined.  The question is whether or not humanity is a direction or a state of being (i.e., is humanity a "location" on our map).  I'd say that people are defined with a direction, to be sure, because there is such a thing as "more or less human."  However, it seems apparent that we do have a Human Pole, because people exist as well-defined entities with various characteristics.

This brings me to my next point:

Perhaps a better way to explain what I'm trying to say is that F(human) would take all the things that make us human (perceptively, not biologically) and make them more so.

The truth is that we're already doing this, though, by considering "human" as a generalized category.  We're working with the human archetype, which is to say the very essence of humanness.  It's the difference between holotypes and paratypes, if you want.  The concept in our mind of what constitutes "human" is already more human than any one human, or really than the group as a whole (if we take a good hard look at ourselves).

This is especially important if you think about it this way: what is f⁴²(human), under your definition?  We'll end up with something that is more and more "human," but will really have gross exaggeration of human characteristics until it reaches the point of monstrosity.  Just like "east" and "west" ultimately don't mean much without referencing poles, the function won't mean much, either.

That's even more true on a sphere with no other poles defined.  If we don't have any reference points whatsoever, we're going to be totally screwed.  We need some sense of direction and markers to go exploring, and in this case we've got no sun or stars.

What this really means is that if we don't define a "human pole," so to speak, so that f(human) == human, our function will be extremely poorly defined.  It looks like it's best to go with the previous idea of f as a closure operation, so that f is idempotent on the space of anthropomorphizable stuff.  That way it will have all kinds of nice properties for free.


The next question is what kind of output we'll get for a subset, like the chimeric function other people have been talking about.

[DreamThorn]

That' okay if you visualize the phase-space as a sphere, I guess.

If, however, one visualizes it as an n-dimensional space, the function becomes simpler:

1. Define A: The vector which is the difference between the human point (H) and the input creature point. (I)
2. Output: I + (A * alpha)

The different opinions expressed vary mostly in two ways:

1. The choice of the n-dimensional creature space.
2. The domain of alpha.

If F(horse) = horseman, alpha = 0.5 and a biological space is used
If F(horse) = centaur, alpha is undefinable and a rather messy and complicated space is used
If F(human) = human, alpha is constant
If F(human) = humanman, alpha is divided by |A|, causing divide by zero

If alpha is an input parameter:

F(cat, 0) = cat
F(cat, 0.5) = catman
F(cat, 1) = human
F(cat, 1.5) -> Less cat-like than a human.
F(cat, -0.5) -> Less human-like than a cat.

The choice of space is important, compare:

If F(horse) = horseman, a morphological space is used
If F(horse) = centaur, a body-parts space is used
If F(horse) = houyhnhnm, a conceptual space is used
etc.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I think it's just the metaphor that isn't applying well. On one side, you could agree that a human is as human as it can be. However, you can make a wolf "more wolf", make a cat "more cat" by exaggerating its key features until the result is a monstrocity with all the defining features elevated to absolutely overwhelming dominance over the creature. While some features are primarily numerical, like the number of legs, or spatial, like size and shape, there are some vectors along which a creature can be exaggerated. A wolf can be made more feral, a cat more playful and independent. In this regard, the product of an F(human) function will no longer be an average human - it will be a humanoid, an intelligent humanoid with all of our key personality features exaggerated. It may not be all that physically different, but its mental structure will change. Heightened intelligence, increased dexterity, less body hair. I don't really know where exactly this mutation will go. If you ever experimented with a program called Poser, you'll know how overexaggerated some details can get, all it takes is a spin of a dial.

[AbacusWizard]

The idea of exaggerating the features that we think of as making us human reminds me of the sensory/motor "homunculus" model shown here:
http://www.darklingwood.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/27/sensory_and_motor_homunculi_2.jpg

More information here:
http://www.darklingwood.com/2008/05/dac-and-the-vls.html
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus

[Toksyuryel]

In this regard, the product of an F(human) function will no longer be an average human - it will be a humanoid, an intelligent humanoid with all of our key personality features exaggerated. It may not be all that physically different, but its mental structure will change. Heightened intelligence, increased dexterity, less body hair. I don't really know where exactly this mutation will go.

Maybe something like the Roswell "greys"?

[Akigagak]

In this regard, the product of an F(human) function will no longer be an average human - it will be a humanoid, an intelligent humanoid with all of our key personality features exaggerated. It may not be all that physically different, but its mental structure will change. Heightened intelligence, increased dexterity, less body hair. I don't really know where exactly this mutation will go.

ELVES!