Print

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

[AbacusWizard]

"F(human)=human" makes sense in a way but is also boring, so I'd propose that F(human) would have to equal something that is somehow more human than human.

F^-1(human) would presumably be something like a human but less anthropomorphic. Neandarthals wouldn't be a bad approximation.

[atomfullerene]

I remember reading a fantasy story set in a version of the ancient Mediterranean full of satyrs, centaurs, merfolk, harpies, sphinxes, and similar fantasy creatures.  The very first human tribes are just starting to move in, and the main character, a centaur, sees his first human and gets this weird inferior feeling, as if he's seeing the previously unknown form which all the peoples he knows of are somehow shadowy imitations of (which is true, I suppose)

[Quatch]

"F(human)=human" makes sense in a way but is also boring, so I'd propose that F(human) would have to equal something that is somehow more human than human.

F^-1(human) would presumably be something like a human but less anthropomorphic. Neandarthals wouldn't be a bad approximation.

Perhaps we should state it in words as the anthropomorphising function. It makes the input more human featured-behaviourally, structurally, etc.

Maybe then it would just strip away non-human-average features? Sort of like a smoothing function?

Then we could say that humans are anthrpomorphized (big word, abbreviating to AN) apes, which works fine. Applying the de-AN function (^-1() for the confused individual above), would enhance anamalistic features. Less grasping, talking, planning, etc. Eventually, repeated applications either become boring, or reach a non-smooth discontinuity.

I suppose reapplying it to humans could instead make different races with some kind of distinction.

Also, it would appear that several of you are quite math-nerdy. I approve (Although I'm sure you'll note from the level I've used here that I didn't get past second year university math).

[Neruz]

"F(human)=human" makes sense in a way but is also boring, so I'd propose that F(human) would have to equal something that is somehow more human than human.

F^-1(human) would presumably be something like a human but less anthropomorphic. Neandarthals wouldn't be a bad approximation.

Anthropomorphism is the application of Human characteristics to non-Human things (creatures, phenomena, material states, objects and concepts). Ergo Anthropomorphizing a Human is an illogical and meaningless concept, as a Human is not a non-Human thing and thus not eligible for Anthropomorphization.

[AbacusWizard]

"F(human)=human" makes sense in a way but is also boring, so I'd propose that F(human) would have to equal something that is somehow more human than human.

F^-1(human) would presumably be something like a human but less anthropomorphic. Neandarthals wouldn't be a bad approximation.

Anthropomorphism is the application of Human characteristics to non-Human things (creatures, phenomena, material states, objects and concepts). Ergo Anthropomorphizing a Human is an illogical and meaningless concept, as a Human is not a non-Human thing and thus not eligible for Anthropomorphization.

Anthropomorphism could be thought of as a direction rather than merely motion towards a specific end goal. What I'm asking is this: if we reach "human" and then continue moving in said direction, where does that take us?

[PermanentInk]

Put another way, Human is not in the domain of the function.

Also, for "anthropomorphization" I propose the abbreviation "a18n," in the tradition of "i18n" for "internationalization" and "L10n" for "localization."

[Neruz]

"F(human)=human" makes sense in a way but is also boring, so I'd propose that F(human) would have to equal something that is somehow more human than human.

F^-1(human) would presumably be something like a human but less anthropomorphic. Neandarthals wouldn't be a bad approximation.

Anthropomorphism is the application of Human characteristics to non-Human things (creatures, phenomena, material states, objects and concepts). Ergo Anthropomorphizing a Human is an illogical and meaningless concept, as a Human is not a non-Human thing and thus not eligible for Anthropomorphization.

Anthropomorphism could be thought of as a direction rather than merely motion towards a specific end goal. What I'm asking is this: if we reach "human" and then continue moving in said direction, where does that take us?

Nowhere, once you reach Human you have reached the end of the function. In fact technically you've already gone beyond it, as Anthropomorphization is not the process of turning a non-Human thing into a Human, it's the process of applying Human features to non-Human things. If the result is a Human, then you don't have a non-Human thing with Human features, you have a Human, ergo you've already gone past the end of the Anthropomorphization function.

[AbacusWizard]

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

[Xgamer4]

That's what I was told in first or second grade. <_<

[Neruz]

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?

But there isn't any further to go once you've reached 'Human'. Biology is not Mathematics. That seems to be where you're making your error.

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.

[LordZorintrhox]

Might it be better/fairer to give the function two arguments? Or three?  Something like:

F( <base creature>, <target creature>, <amount> )

It takes <base creature> and shifts it towards <target creature> according to <amount> (which would be an element of some normalized range, like [0,1]).

So if you put in F( human, human, 0.5), you just get human.  That way the function is not arbitrarily andro-centric and has no silly prerequisites or discontinuities.

Of course, this is all speculative, and, uh:

"Urist!  I need more nerdosity!"
"I cahnt do it, capt'n!  The micolinium crystals are too green as it is!  She cahnt take much moore of this!"
"Dammit Urist, we haven't defined the anthropomorphicization function yet!  Carp, give me a reading!"
"Highly logical captain."
"You here that, Urist!?  Things are getting LOGICAL up here!"
"Great Armok, capt'n!"

[Neruz]

Might it be better/fairer to give the function two arguments? Or three?  Something like:

F( <base creature>, <target creature>, <amount> )

It takes <base creature> and shifts it towards <target creature> according to <amount> (which would be an element of some normalized range, like [0,1]).

So if you put in F( human, human, 0.5), you just get human.  That way the function is not arbitrarily andro-centric and has no silly prerequisites or discontinuities.

Of course, this is all speculative, and, uh:

What you've got there is a Chimeric function; combines one thing with another thing, and indeed, as you would expect, if you combine human with human, you get human.

Or i could alloy Lead with Lead, and guess what? I'd get Lead.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Correction - combine human with human, you get another human. The output is not identical to either input unless the input creatures are exact clones.

Same with alloys. It's slightly relying on nomenclature, but high-grade and low-grade gold is called gold regardless of its purity. Alloy the two, and you still get gold, but of different purity.

The function could be used to neatly combine a large amount of slightly diverse creatures into one "species average".

[CobaltKobold]

*looks it up* Yes, idempotent. And yes, it could Sean.

Spoiler: raaant (click to show/hide)

"F(human)=human" makes sense in a way but is also boring, so I'd propose that F(human) would have to equal something that is somehow more human than human.

Error, likeness to humankind is maximal at identity.

Anthropomorphism could be thought of as a direction rather than merely motion towards a specific end goal. What I'm asking is this: if we reach "human" and then continue moving in said direction, where does that take us?

Can you go north from the north pole? No. (PPE: I see Neruz caught this one too.) It is as meaningful to ask what happens if you go farther into the woods from their center.

It is like asking what happens if you further purify 100% H₂O. The maximum for anthropomorphisation, that is, applying the traits of human, is...a 100% human!

Applying human traits will not change a human to something that is not.

I remember reading a fantasy story set in a version of the ancient Mediterranean full of satyrs, centaurs, merfolk, harpies, sphinxes, and similar fantasy creatures.  The very first human tribes are just starting to move in, and the main character, a centaur, sees his first human and gets this weird inferior feeling, as if he's seeing the previously unknown form which all the peoples he knows of are somehow shadowy imitations of (which is true, I suppose)

:-/ This saddens me for some reason.

[Neruz]

Correction - combine human with human, you get another human. The output is not identical to either input unless the input creatures are exact clones.

The concept of Anthropomorphism or Chimeric creatures isn't quite that defined. You're not combining a specific creature with a specific human, you're combining the general average of one creature with the general average of another to create a third, new, general average.