2012-09-03, 03:41 | Link #30341 | ||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
That whole Touya-Ikuko meeting scene is weird as fuck, any way you slice it. Quote:
Though, I wouldn't be 100% sure it was in 1986. Most versions of Ikuko=Yasu don't have the encounter between Touya and Ikuko happening in 1986. |
||
2012-09-03, 04:30 | Link #30343 | |
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Quote:
Yep, she was, it says she had surgery about it.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-03, 08:00 | Link #30345 | ||||||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All people that live on the moon have a race car I live on the moon I have a race car This is a BARBARA syllogism, and it's one of the few whose structure is valid. Quote:
Thinking that the format of a syllogism can be applied to cases that aren't the accepted forms is absolutely wrong. With this example you think you can infere that the premise is true because the premise is true, a good example of a circular logic, and it is wrong because you simply can't do that. It doesn't have anything to do with syllogism nor it has anything to do with logic in general. You cannot use a premise to infere the very premise. On a side note it's funny you used this as an example, because "the bibble is true because the bible says so" is what's usually used as a way to berate retarded bible-thumpers. No one with a good grasp of how logic works consider this a valid argument regardless of their religious view. Quote:
X is a positive integer Y is a positive integer XY = 21 given these premises I can now make two different assumptions: IF X = 3 THEN Y = 7 or IF X = 7 THEN Y = 3 That's as far as you can go by using assumptions. Note the structure "IF-THEN" that is proper of assumptions. This has nothing to do with syllogisms that are supposed to be used with facts and never make use of options in any case. A circular logic applied to this case would work this way: "Let's assume that X is 3, then Y must be 7 Now that we know that Y must be 7, it follows that X is 3. Therefore my original assumption is proven." A circular logic often is the result of someone losing track of the fact that his reasoning is based on an assumption and not on facts, and that everything that follow from his assumption is also an assumption and cannot be used to prove the original assumption. This is a circular logic and that is why it is a logical fallacy. Quote:
Another thing is thinking that your assumptions or anything that follows from them can be used to infere your very assumption, or to prove it, or to reinforce your assumption or even as a circumstancial evidence that your assumption is right. Only in the latter case it is a circular logic. And it is always wrong. Lastly I'd like you to understand that "logical fallacy" is the definition of a logic that is wrong. If you want to argue that circular logic is valid, at least say that it isn't a logical fallacy in your opinion. Saying that logical fallacies can be valid is like stating that black is white and white is black.
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-09-03 at 08:52. |
||||||
2012-09-03, 10:53 | Link #30347 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
2012-09-03, 17:07 | Link #30348 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
The meat of it is the same - Tohya not only couldn't force himself to remember Battler, but when he did, considered him an entirely other, alien person to himself. It's Tohya himself who grows to accept his current state, and build an identity around it. Quote:
Quote:
I think it comes down to you finding Random!Ikuko far too contrived (which it is), and me finding Yasu!Ikuko emotionally repugnant. |
||||
2012-09-03, 17:31 | Link #30349 |
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
Putting my two cents betwen jjblue1 and Kealym: Tohya loosing his memory in the seas is more likely, because when someone is deprived of air enough time it can lead to brain damage or worse. It's more likely loosing memory while drowning that when being ran over by a car... otherwise half my city wouldn't remember themselves (I live in one of the cities with more trafic accidents in the world XP). It's more normal ending dead or severely maimed than loosing your memories that way, and if you forget something it's almost always about the day you were hit, the week at the most, not all your life.. If a car hits you in the head, believe me, you end as pasta in the road (I've seen that -_-). People that was drowning, on the other hand, easily get brain injuries or worse if they're not saved in time.
It's weird as hell anyway, but memory loss by half-drowning is more likely than memory loss by car bumper.
__________________
|
2012-09-03, 18:59 | Link #30350 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is that not only is instilled in us the doubt she might have hit him by Tohya himself but her 'defence' is extremely weak. Sure, it can be a red herring and I tend to consider it as such but I can't discharge the idea that it also might not be a red herring and Ikuko really ended up hitting him. Though in this case I would be more inclined to believe she was a random stranger who effectively helped Tohya out of guilt and wish no one would investigate on how he got injured. In this case it would make sense she would bribe the doctor so that he would keep silent while at the same time she would feel the obligation to take care of Tohya. Not very honest, one can say, but very human. Quote:
But maybe it's just wording and we're saying the same thing. Quote:
If Ikuko is random!Ikuko for all she knows Battler might have been the killer, an accomplice of the killer or the whole thing was a complete incident and, although it would be painful for him to learn his family had died, it's not like he would be completely alone as he has an aunt and a sister, so it would probably be better to tell him the truth (which he could remember/learn anyway) and send him back home. That if random!Ikuko knows he's Battler/recognizes him as such. Otherwise she wouldn't even know that he might remember something painful. Quote:
The interesting part is that most of what Ikuko does mimics what Kinzo did with Beato 1; he brought her to a doctor asking her to keep the matter secret and bribing him and then keeps her hidden, all for himself. The same he did with Beato 2 (this time he didn't have to bribe a doctor to heal her but likely he asked Nanjo to keep the birth of her child and her death as a secret). Sure, maybe it's just karma but the parallel is interesting. Quote:
Sure, Ryukishi could have used the 'miracle' trick or cared less about the dinamics of the whole thing. As for the memory loss being easier... the point is you need brain damage and this can be given either by drowing or by hitting your head due to a car incident. Sure, in a car incident you don't have to necesssarily hit your head... but this doesn't make more unbelievable that you can hit it. However it's all a matter of what one finds more likely. |
||||||
2012-09-03, 21:01 | Link #30351 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry if my wording was unclear. Quote:
"And then ... he had a fit... ...after something like that, it was only natural that Ikuko would tell him thet he didn't need to remember Ushiromiya Battler anymore." Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2012-09-04, 06:09 | Link #30352 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
Quote:
I must say however, since many of these causes get worse over time and can lead to potential deterioration and death even if the patient appears initially ok (especially bleeds and pressure) this was some pretty shady work by the doctor. Quote:
Also what the heck WAS the point of giving her cancer, it's not like she even used the motivation to find Battler. It was like she needed the cancer to give Ikuko the motivation. That lady has some serious character flaws (besides keeping a man as a playmate because she was lonely) |
||
2012-09-04, 07:19 | Link #30353 | |||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Quote:
"The bible is true therefore the bible is true" is deceptive in that it makes it look as if the second preposition is derived from the first proposition. It isn't derived, it IS the first preposition. It is also twofold deceptive because it tries to make it look as if this is a three steps logic, while actually the middle sentece is absolutely not necessary to reach the last. Quote:
What is this, Wanderer? This is a forum What are people supposed to do in a forum? Discuss The context is quite clear, or at least it should be. Let's go back to what started it all. Wanderer: She doesn't just pick them off the street. She adopts them and hides them from the outside world. Who does this besides someone who wants their own personal amnesiac? Jan-Poo: Ikuko. That's really the only person you can state with certainty that she would. Because no one else did that. Yasu didn't do that, unless you assume that Yasu=Ikuko to begin with, and then that becomes circular logic. You were trying to provide arguments as to why Ikuko is Yasu. And here you used as an argument the fact that "Ikuko wants her personal amnesiac", which doesn't mean a damn thing unless you used circular logic. I claimed that your argument would become a circular logic if you assumed "Yasu=Ikuko", which is, I think, undeniable since "Ikuko=Yasu" is what you were arguing. Since this is a forum, since we are supposed to discuss, you should realize that circular logic arguments should be banned.
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-09-04 at 07:37. |
|||
2012-09-04, 11:22 | Link #30355 | |||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
The point is that it's still pretty goddamn stupid and there's a million reasons why, implausibility being one of them. A feeling of thematic emptiness that could perhaps have been addressed had he fleshed out certain things more distinctly (such as the is-Ikuko-or-isn't-she discussion). Obviously the most thematically sensible answer is Tohya=Battler. My point, which neither you nor Jan-Poo appears able to understand, is not that he isn't. It's that Tohya cannot know whether he is. It's not possible. He believes he is, and he has experiences which suggest to him that he is. However, if he weren't Battler, he could have more or less identical experiences that lead him to the same notion. So it's quite understandable why Tohya is uncomfortable with the intrusion of Battler's memories/"memories": He cannot ever know whether Battler is him or not or even if there was a "Battler" as he remembers being. So, for all intents and purposes, Tohya is sort of taking this on faith. And that's thematically interesting, I suppose, but it leads to a lot of questions about just how he's really remembering anything. And that leads to a lot of fun speculative diversions, which should not be taken seriously. Unless they turn out to make a lot of sense, in which case they should be written as forgeries by people with more time than me so we can read them. Quote:
So why the hell can we turn around and say "Oh but personality death also works for amnesia?" How is that fair? If it works for any sublimation of personality it works for anything, and Kinzotrice is alive and well. That's stupid, but that's the natural consequence of allowing the red to do that. Whereas if Battler actually is (physically) dead, that problem is not necessary. But then Tohya isn't him, so who is Ikuko and what is the point of the epilogue? It runs into issues either way. Quote:
Each of these films has a plot twist that is critical to the narrative, but those aren't premises. We accept the premise of The Sixth Sense that the boy can indeed see ghosts and that ghosts exist; if in the final act it were revealed that he can see ghosts because an alien gave him that power, we'd find it absurd, even though the story is about seeing ghosts. There's a difference between a plot twist that makes sense and enhances the story despite changing how we view it (which all three of these films do quite well) and just slamming together a series of incredible coincidences later on and asking us not to look for potential explanations as to why they're not really coincidences. Basically it's like the epilogue was half-finished. Quote:
Even if someone tells her it's true. Even if that person is telling the truth. She could come to distrust them and believe they are lying to her. If they're lying about one thing, what else are they lying about? Genji and Nanjo are not exactly trustworthy people, and I can easily see such a scenario arising. That level of doubt is underplayed, I think. It's quite existentially crippling to not be certain of who you are. Quote:
I suspect Ryukishi didn't say simply because he doesn't know. He certainly has no clue how amnesia works, so it's not much of a stretch to say he didn't want to commit to a particular cause lest someone go "But <injury> can't cause amnesia the way you wrote it!"
__________________
|
|||||
2012-09-04, 11:22 | Link #30356 | |||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
Valid simply means that "given that the premises are true, the conclusion is true". In this sense, circular reasoning is valid. But it's still fallacious because it lacks logically persuasive power. Quote:
I was borrowing the assumption that "Ikuko wants her own personal random-stranger amnesiac" to demonstrate problems with the Ikuko=random scenario. That particular quote was me emphasizing it's unlikelihood in order to demonstrate that an alternative is more plausible. Well, obviously a doctor would be able to tell if it's a bullet or a bus. But, it might be hard to tell between if memory loss came from oxygen deprivation or from psychological factors. Last edited by Wanderer; 2012-09-04 at 11:35. |
|||
2012-09-04, 13:50 | Link #30357 | ||
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-09-04, 13:52 | Link #30358 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
However I'm not very fond of that whole trick. It's basically a random flashback (as it's unlikely it takes place when Ange is 18) inserted so late in the story merely to trick us into not figuring is a flashback. Hum... I'm not sure to know how to express it well but placing that flashback there seems to sacrifice the flow of narrative in virtue of tricking the reader. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Reasoning Ikuko's heart with the little we're told is... well, difficult. (Yes, it's weird how Ange swallows it all. It's almost as if she doesn't want to think about it and she doesn't care anymore having her brother as long as she knows he's alive. Probably I'm phraising this the wrong way but... well, it gives an odd feeling to me. Plus the situation is very unnatural and yet for Ange it's all fine.) Quote:
Or there's the reverse scenario. Eva believes Battler to be the culprit/an accomplice of the culprit (even if Battler is innocent). Battler is suffering amnesia so he can't defend himself. Yasu isn't exactly a reliable source in defending him (she sent money to the siblings, she actually planned 'something' which likely went wrong and caused the incident, her identity is a bit hazy, she got Kinzo's money in a not exactly legal way, she helped Natsuhi and Krauss in hiding Kinzo's death and so on) and Rokkenjima is half destroyed so it's possible there's no way to prove Battler is innocent. Sure, maybe it can't be proved he's the culprit either (I don't know how the Japanese system work) but if Eva accuses him, things can become ugly. Yasu would likely lose the money and Battler would be investigated and accused by the public opinion if not the police. So if Yasu doesn't trust Eva to act as a loving aunt it makes sense she would keep for herself the fact that Battler is still alive. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
2012-09-04, 14:31 | Link #30359 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
If you buy personality death, you must as a necessity also buy the entire support structure around it that permits the specific incarnation of Shkanon intended by Ryukishi to exist. If you do buy that, and you must, then should any other example crop up, it has to follow those rules as well. You can't spend a whole bunch of episodes discussing apples, and the properties of apples, and how something is an apple, and then show the reader and orange and say "this is also an apple." The consequence if you do do this is that I can see your "apple" (Beatrice/Shannon/Kanon trichotomy) and your "orange" (Battler's amnesia) and then point out a "pear" (soandso ceased to be their name and became a character they were acting as after faking their death) or a "grape" (Kinzo conspired to vanish and never be seen again thus becoming legally dead as Ushiromiya Kinzo) and tell you "this is also an apple." How are you going to say it doesn't work that way when you just said an orange is an apple? If you maintain that an apple and only an apple can be classified as an apple, then you can tell me "no, that's a pear and that's a grape, those aren't apples, therefore they don't work" and remain entirely consistent (even if the explanation of what makes something an apple is dumb). However, if you say with a straight face "apples and also some oranges are apples, but it can't apply to anything else because I say it can't," you're cheating. If Battler is dead! (but actually alive) is true, then either Battler's personality death is 100% analogous to Shkanon or two completely different things can be described as "death," at which point there is no escaping a slippery slope of other perfectly valid conceptions of personality death which would utterly wreck what remains of the narrative because we can just conjure up any dead person we wish if we have a dumb enough explanation that "fits."
__________________
|
|
2012-09-04, 14:44 | Link #30360 | |
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
Quote:
Is not perfect and I'm not saying that the rules weren't terribly stretched. What I'm saying is that in the great scheme of things, an amnesiac counting as dead is better play than some actor getting tired of his characters. Not that is more correct or anything, just that is more believable if he was going to use a trick like that.
__________________
|
|
|
|