[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Well not exactly. We're told that Battler's memory problems are from when he was drowning for a time, in the sea. The car accident, assuming there was one, caused his immobility for a time, which naturally returned, AND Ikuko is said to not be the one who hit him. She seemed to have called that doctor the first night, or even the morning after, because at that point she hadn't even introduced herself to Tohya, and she doesn't exactly live in a large city. Though I agree the decision to keep it "off the books" is extremely sketchy.

I wonder what kind of injuries Touya had. He suspected that Ikuko hit him but decided that wasn't the case since her bumper wasn't damaged. But if he thought that he was hit by a car hard enough to damage that car's bumper, he must've been physically hurt pretty bad, right?

That whole Touya-Ikuko meeting scene is weird as fuck, any way you slice it.

Originally Posted by Kealym

Hell, in 1986, Ikuko had that extreme little reaction to thinking Battler saying she looked 18.

It's funny. I find this to be one of the better arguments against Ikuko=Yasu, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned it once or twice a long time ago, but I've never heard it from someone else on this forum until now.

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.

[battle22]

Btw Guys, I dont know if my memory fails me but was Yukari diagnosed with cancer? I think I rember something like this in the narration , sorry for the random question

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Thing is, Sakutarou was never presented as being a normal human boy, living his little ol' normal human life. He was CLEARLY an extrapolation of Maria's imagination, and the occasional indulgence from those who recognized that. If, say, Sakutarou were shown as being enrolled in school, but only ... maybe, the teacher and Maria's best friend ever responded to his dialogue, it'd hld a bit more weight as a parallel. Not denying that a parallel exists, but it's a pretty "eh" one.

Well, I was talking more about the fact that he magically appears out of nowhere whenever Shannon is feeling down and comforts her just like how Sakutarou does for Maria. And also, the whole 'little brother' thing does sound like something Umineko's magic would create.

Originally Posted by battle22

Btw Guys, I dont know if my memory fails me but was Yukari diagnosed with cancer? I think I rember something like this in the narration , sorry for the random question

Yep, she was, it says she had surgery about it.

[battle22]

Thanks Captain, If she had a surgery then she survived, Great.... But still Unfair , Life's a bitch.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Since you seem to expressing honest confusion now, I'll explain: You don't know what it means for logic to be "valid". I realize you were intending it by it's general meaning, but it's actually a formal term regarding logical inferences. I'll just give some examples:

You might want to take a look at syllogism which are neither a logical fallacy nor circular logic, albeit they can be (and often are) used wrongly.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Obama is black.
Obama is a politician.
Therefore, Obama is the president.

In this case everything is true, but the inference is invalid.

This case doesn't work because in a correct syllogism the conclusion shouldn't introduce a new variable, in this case "president".

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I live on the moon.
Only people with a race car can live on the moon.
Therefore, I have a race car.

In this case everything is false, but the inference is valid.

Basically:

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.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

The Bible is true.
The Bible says it's true.
Therefore, the Bible is true.

A circular argument, but the inference is still valid.

This is neither a valid syllogism nor it is valid in its inference.
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.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Assumptions are the most basic circular logic:

A is true.
Therefore, A is true.

This is not a valid logic, and it's not how assumptions work. A correct logic using assumptions should work this way:

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.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Thus, without using circular logic at some stage, we are faced with global skepticism (the idea that there is no route to true knowledge). What we do- what we all do- is make one or more assumptions and build our world from there deciding which assumptions construct a world view that is the most acceptable to us.

I hope at this point you will realize that one thing is making an assumption and basing your reasonings on those assumptions. (which is absolutely legit)
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.

[Wanderer]

Spoiler for More logic crap with Jan-Poo:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

This case doesn't work because in a correct syllogism the conclusion shouldn't introduce a new variable, in this case "president".

Not all logic has to be in a syllogism form to be logic, and not all A+B=>C formats are syllogisms. I was never trying to (or not to) create syllogisms in the first place. This one is just a complete non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

This is neither a valid syllogism nor it is valid in its inference.
Thinking that the format of a syllogism can be applied to cases that aren't the accepted forms is absolutely wrong.

My mistake. I didn't mean an A+B=>A format, I meant an A=>B=>A format. This:

The Bible is true.
Therefore it's the truth when the Bible says it's true.
Therefore the Bible is true.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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.

You're going to hate me for saying this, but it's a "valid" argument. It's just not compelling because I don't accept the premise.

Please, for the love of God, read the wikipedia article you posted last week and explain to me how it's wrong, or how I'm misinterpreting it, or what. It's quite short.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I hope at this point you will realize that one thing is making an assumption and basing your reasonings on those assumptions. (which is absolutely legit)
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.

I think I mostly agree with this. Have I indicated otherwise?

Although we disagree on whether assumptions are "circular logic" we seem to agree that there's nothing wrong with using assumptions to think about hypotheticals.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Well not exactly. We're told that Battler's memory problems are from when he was drowning for a time, in the sea.

Hum... where? Because in the conversation between Ikuko and the doctor there's no mention of the drowning...

"......The body is in a very frail condition. Also, it is probable that there will be memory defects. We won't know for sure until the CT scan, but brain damage is also a possibility."
"It's lucky that damage is all we have to deal with. Spend much longer in a spot like that, and things would likely have been much worse."
"......True. In any event, I recommend getting this checked at a large hospital."
"Thank you, doctor. ......Please keep this off the record. It may not be much, but here's some money for your troubles."
"I see no reason to speak of this needlessly, but......no, no, I couldn't possibly accept that much..."
In the end, the doctor took the money and swore to keep quiet about the matter.

Later Tohya says:

My inability to move my body was apparently due to a traffic accident.
On that day, I had been hit by a car, and Ikuko had picked me up from where I lay on the street.

Later not even Ange can say when he lost his memory.

Either because of the time he nearly drowned, or because of the traffic accident, my brother's memory was damaged.

Originally Posted by Kealym

AND Ikuko is said to not be the one who hit him.

Actually it's Ikuko who says she didn't hit him. Battler/Tohya suspected her but then saw her bumper was undamaged. However, considering how he couldn't move if she hit him she had all the time to replace/fix it. I'm not even sure Battler/Tohya would be able to recognize if the car he checked later was the same he saw in that rainy night/evening (the car's lights were lighted and that was all he saw at first... which makes me think it was pretty dark).

......Later on, I, perhaps rudely, suspected that the one who hit me might have been Ikuko herself, but when I saw her completely undamaged front bumper, I gave up on that theory.

All this to say... we've just Ikuko's words. It's up to us to believe her or not.

Originally Posted by Kealym

Also, it's Tohya who creates his new identity, since he's apparently incapable of "being" Battler ever again. Ikuko just named him.

Hum... actually Tohya tried remembering but 'it hurt'

In the beginning, when I couldn't bear not knowing my identity, my head often hurt so much it felt as though it would explode.
......However, as I slowly accepted the fact that I was a new person, with the new name of Hachijo Tohya, ......the headaches became less frequent.
The whole time......no memories returned to me except the fact that I had been 18.
However, I was unable to remember any more, unable even to be sure that 18 was my true age, ......and eventually, I stopped trying to remember my former self.

Originally Posted by Kealym

I would also mention that your Ikuko=Yasu scenario still pretty much amounts to an amnesiac Battler being kidnapped and used as a creative cash cow.

Yes, whoever Ikuko is, she had kidnapped him. If she's Yasu though it could be that before escaping the island he promised he would live with her she might have not viewed it as kidnapping... or she might have thought that his amnesia spared him from the pain of remembering what had happened.

Originally Posted by Kealym

And is counter to how we're told that he actually was highly against ever getting that operation.

Well, Battler refused the brain surgery because he was afraid it could harm his real self... and the brain surgery was merely to lessen his headaches, not to help him remember.

Who am I......really......?
......But no matter how much I thought, I couldn't remember.
From what I've been told, the frequency of the headaches might be lessened by brain surgery, but there was no guarantee that it would do my memory any good.
Ikuko said that she would let me have surgery if I wanted it.
However, I refused.
Even if I can't remember it, ......the real me is still there, sleeping inside my head.
I was scared......that the surgery might harm that 'me' somehow.

Originally Posted by battle22

Btw Guys, I dont know if my memory fails me but was Yukari diagnosed with cancer? I think I rember something like this in the narration , sorry for the random question

Yes, she was.

Kotobuki Yukari.
By now, that name rang loud and clear across Japan.
She sat in a chair, cheerfully chatting with the people who came to greet her.
Last year, she was diagnosed with initial cancer, and after the surgery, her physical strength had dropped sharply.
Because of this, even in this stand-up awards party, she was given a chair and sat down while greeting people.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Hum... where? Because in the conversation between Ikuko and the doctor there's no mention of the drowning...

Later Tohya says:

Later not even Ange can say when he lost his memory.

Well, that doctor never mentions him having been hit by a car, either. I guess I made a bit of a jump from "his memory from when he was drowning in the ocean is a bit hazy" to just assuming that was the cause, but even considering that Tohya's amnesia is essentially fueled by lol-Plot-Device, I find the drowning a more comfortable assumption than the collision. Personal preference, then.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Actually it's Ikuko who says she didn't hit him. Battler/Tohya suspected her but then saw her bumper was undamaged. However, considering how he couldn't move if she hit him she had all the time to replace/fix it. I'm not even sure Battler/Tohya would be able to recognize if the car he checked later was the same he saw in that rainy night/evening (the car's lights were lighted and that was all he saw at first... which makes me think it was pretty dark).



All this to say... we've just Ikuko's words. It's up to us to believe her or not.

I agree that Tohya wouldn't have been able to recognize any car that had hit him that night, AND that Ikuko could have had the bender fixed (or just, multiple cars or something). I just don't see a reason to doubt her story, really, and part of your problem with Ikuko makes the assumption that it was definitely HER that hit him AND gave him amnesia, which didn't seem very strongly implied.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Hum... actually Tohya tried remembering but 'it hurt'

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.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Yes, whoever Ikuko is, she had kidnapped him. If she's Yasu though it could be that before escaping the island he promised he would live with her she might have not viewed it as kidnapping... or she might have thought that his amnesia spared him from the pain of remembering what had happened.

That first option just makes Yasu (more) delusional, and the second can be somewhat ascribed to Random!Ikuko as well.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, Battler refused the brain surgery because he was afraid it could harm his real self... and the brain surgery was merely to lessen his headaches, not to help him remember.

Oh, you're totally right. My mistake. XD
I think it comes down to you finding Random!Ikuko far too contrived (which it is), and me finding Yasu!Ikuko emotionally repugnant.

[Patchwork Chimera]

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.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Well, that doctor never mentions him having been hit by a car, either. I guess I made a bit of a jump from "his memory from when he was drowning in the ocean is a bit hazy" to just assuming that was the cause, but even considering that Tohya's amnesia is essentially fueled by lol-Plot-Device, I find the drowning a more comfortable assumption than the collision. Personal preference, then.

Yes, the interesting part is that the cause of the amnesia is never stated... though the doctor should know if the brain damage was due to a blow or due to lack of air.

Originally Posted by Kealym

I agree that Tohya wouldn't have been able to recognize any car that had hit him that night, AND that Ikuko could have had the bender fixed (or just, multiple cars or something). I just don't see a reason to doubt her story, really, and part of your problem with Ikuko makes the assumption that it was definitely HER that hit him AND gave him amnesia, which didn't seem very strongly implied.

No, I never thought she gave him the amnesia. Personally I wouldn't even doubt her words about not hitting him as she seems damn calm when she goes and talk to him asking him if he's a roadkill. Either she's very coldblooded, the scene is reported with a completely wrong tone or she didn't just hit him.
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.

Originally Posted by Kealym

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.

Hum... maybe it's a matter of wording, that's why I'm finding difficult to agree with you. By your words I've the feeling Tohya artifically created a new identity... while likely his new identity created by itself due to the experiences he was making.
But maybe it's just wording and we're saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by Kealym

That first option just makes Yasu (more) delusional, and the second can be somewhat ascribed to Random!Ikuko as well.

This only if random!Ikuko recognized him as Battler and believed he was an innocent who had lived a terrible experience.
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.

Originally Posted by Kealym

Oh, you're totally right. My mistake. XD
I think it comes down to you finding Random!Ikuko far too contrived (which it is), and me finding Yasu!Ikuko emotionally repugnant.

Well, yes, unless Yasu were to think that Eva was the culprit and therefore handing Battler to her might lead to his demise, or that Eva would accuse Battler of a crime he hadn't done but of which there's no way to prove his innocence which might lead to his imprisonment, kidnapping him turns out like a rather horrible thing.

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.

Originally Posted by Patchwork Chimera

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.

I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that someone who drowned for a time long enough to produce brain damage generally needs to be aided to recover, especially because when you get to this level you might have cardiac and respiratory arrest. Tohya instead gets up and walk around until he ends up on the street.

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.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Yes, the interesting part is that the cause of the amnesia is never stated... though the doctor should know if the brain damage was due to a blow or due to lack of air.

Agreed - I don't see why Ryu would've written it so vaguely, though maybe it's the sort of detail that doesn't matter to him? Like culprits getting wet in the rain...

Originally Posted by jjblue1

No, I never thought she gave him the amnesia. Personally I wouldn't even doubt her words about not hitting him as she seems damn calm when she goes and talk to him asking him if he's a roadkill. Either she's very coldblooded, the scene is reported with a completely wrong tone or she didn't just hit him.
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.

I actually landed on this same thought, as it would very cleanly fill most of the logical gaps in the scenario. I don't think it's what happened, but I would prefer if that were what had happened.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Hum... maybe it's a matter of wording, that's why I'm finding difficult to agree with you. By your words I've the feeling Tohya artifically created a new identity... while likely his new identity created by itself due to the experiences he was making.
But maybe it's just wording and we're saying the same thing.

You're correct - we're saying the same thing, here.
Sorry if my wording was unclear.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

This only if random!Ikuko recognized him as Battler and believed he was an innocent who had lived a terrible experience.
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.

Well, we don't know when Ikuko figured out his identity ... but it would've been very clear to her after learning it, that remembering things from that past were causing Tohya pain. When she mentions the Rokkenjima Incident to him a second time, he pretty much short circuits on her. And Yukari makes a similar assumption when they finally meet (though to be honest, she accepts the entire story kinda ... easily)

"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."

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, yes, unless Yasu were to think that Eva was the culprit and therefore handing Battler to her might lead to his demise, or that Eva would accuse Battler of a crime he hadn't done but of which there's no way to prove his innocence which might lead to his imprisonment, kidnapping him turns out like a rather horrible thing.

Well, I have a feeling that "Yasu thought Eva was a murderer" was not a very likely scenario. And Battler wouldn't be any more culpable for anything on Rokkenjima than Eva was. It IS interesting that the first forgery Tohya does the plotting for has an Eva-culprit, but ... hey, I think the dude wrote End as kind of a "sure the hell not, I'M DAT BABY", so whatever.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

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.

Heh, it is kinda interesting. I see her relatives talking amongst themselves about "that strange man" the neighbors have sometimes seen roaming the hills near her house.

[GuestSpeaker]

Yes, the interesting part is that the cause of the amnesia is never stated... though the doctor should know if the brain damage was due to a blow or due to lack of air.

As he said, if all he had was a superficial examination it might be difficult to tell if the damage was ischaemic from the air, or from other causes (direct trauma, bleed, pressure etc) without a CT scan or other imaging of the brain. All he might have been able to see externally was that Battler had a head injury, and that Battler had memory loss. He can't necessarily prove the link with that alone.

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.

I actually landed on this same thought, as it would very cleanly fill most of the logical gaps in the scenario. I don't think it's what happened, but I would prefer if that were what had happened.

Aw, and then she slowly began to love him, before wrestling with the task of telling him the truth or not. I smell an Oscar.


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)

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Not all logic has to be in a syllogism form to be logic, and not all A+B=>C formats are syllogisms. I was never trying to (or not to) create syllogisms in the first place. This one is just a complete non-sequitur.

Even if you didn't realize it, you were using syllogisms, without knowing the proper rules.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

My mistake. I didn't mean an A+B=>A format, I meant an A=>B=>A format. This:

The Bible is true.
Therefore it's the truth when the Bible says it's true.
Therefore the Bible is true.

This whole text has absolutely no logic relevance and doesn't involve logic at all.
"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.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

You're going to hate me for saying this, but it's a "valid" argument. It's just not compelling because I don't accept the premise.

Please, for the love of God, read the wikipedia article you posted last week and explain to me how it's wrong, or how I'm misinterpreting it, or what. It's quite short.

The context - that of an argument - means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy.

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.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I think I mostly agree with this. Have I indicated otherwise?

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.

[GreyZone]

A winchester bullet to the head can lead to a brain injury too. Of course a bullet in the head, while still surviving, is a miracle in itself.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Patchwork Chimera

There's an interview were Ryuukishi07 said "Yes, it was Battler". All the hints point to "Yes, it was Battler". There's not a single line that questions or negates the "Yes, it was Battler"

What in the world is so hard to catch about the "Yes, it was freaking Battler" confirmed by the word of god?

Nothing. You guys are just being dense and missing the point. It's clear what Ryukishi intended the answer to be. No one here does not realize this and trying to defend it so vehemently just indicates that you don't understand what people are talking about.

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.

Originally Posted by Patchwork Chimera

Without the quotation intervals... you just answared yourself. So what if 'Battler is dead'? Everyone knows that a declaration of death in Umineko is not something to take blindly and all that amnesia thing makes Battler effectively dead. His body continues on, as Tohya, but Battler is dead and stays half-dead for long decades till that last part in the TP???.

Hang on there cowboy: Whenever I point out that anybody could be alive when declared dead in red, I'm told personality death doesn't count for just anyone, only "furniture" or fictional constructs or whatever.

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.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Plot twists are never mentioned in the premise, that would defy the whole idea of a plot twist. The sixth sense, the others, the usual suspects, fight club. None of them tell you from the beginning what the story is actually about in the premise. It doesn't change that the premise of the story is entirely based on that plot twist, you just learn it at the very end.

The premise of The Sixth Sense is "a boy can see and talk to ghosts." The premise of Fight Club is "disaffected young men in an emasculating society start a club where they can unleash their primal instincts and feel powerful." The premise of The Usual Suspects is "a man is being interviewed about a series of events that happened earlier and is telling a complex story about it."

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.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Yes, I don't believe it to be true either, after all Yasu complained in red about being saved and receiving a horrible wound... though she didn't say when or how she received it so we can force a blue truth that says she wasn't talking about that specific fall from the cliff... or that Genji and Co lied to her to get her to play a role in her little mummery and she reacted badly... again, not that I believe in any of this, it's just funny to work out solutions... but yes, if it were to be true it would be... interesting...

This is exactly the same issue as Tohya and Battler. Yasu cannot know if she's the child or if there ever was a child. Because if she were that child, she would've been an infant and couldn't remember. And if she weren't that child... she was still an infant (or not born yet), and not even present.

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.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

A winchester bullet to the head can lead to a brain injury too. Of course a bullet in the head, while still surviving, is a miracle in itself.

It seems like it'd be easy to tell if someone suffered a brain injury due to penetrative trauma. The bullet might even still be there! Even if it's not, there should be signs of skull fracturing at the entry and exit points. Basically what I'm saying is any doctor who isn't a moron should be able to tell whether a neurological injury probably resulted from oxygen deprivation, blunt force trauma, or a bullet wound.

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!"

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

"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.

I don't understand what you're saying here. In particular I don't understand why you framed the quote the way you did.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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.

Well duh, that's the point. It's an example of circularity, so if it didn't begin at the same place as it ended it would fail as an example. But besides being circular logic (which qualifies it as fallacious), it's also a valid argument. In logic, "invalid" and "fallacious" do not mean the same thing.

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.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

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.

I wasn't assuming that.

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.

Originally Posted by Renall

Basically what I'm saying is any doctor who isn't a moron should be able to tell whether a neurological injury probably resulted from oxygen deprivation, blunt force trauma, or a bullet wound

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.

[Patchwork Chimera]

Originally Posted by Renall

Nothing. You guys are just being dense and missing the point. It's clear what Ryukishi intended the answer to be. No one here does not realize this and trying to defend it so vehemently just indicates that you don't understand what people are talking about.

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.

I do undestand the 'just for fun theories' and that Umineko is all about theorizing. Read the last posts and come tell me this 'Tohya=???/Ikuko=???' is not getting out of control pretty bad pretty fast. Would be acceptable if there was some little basis/foreshadow/hint about it, but is just goddamned Battler...

Originally Posted by Renall

Hang on there cowboy: Whenever I point out that anybody could be alive when declared dead in red, I'm told personality death doesn't count for just anyone, only "furniture" or fictional constructs or whatever.

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.

A guy with no past or idea of how he acted before waking up is a guy with 'personality death'. I feel that more possible that 'a guy playing pretend to be witch and stopping forever can cause a personality death'. So, the first was killed, cannot be revived but with a great and serious miracle... the second can be revived so easily that is easier to just consider him sleeping -Kanon-.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Agreed - I don't see why Ryu would've written it so vaguely, though maybe it's the sort of detail that doesn't matter to him? Like culprits getting wet in the rain...

There's to say in that bit he was trying to trick us into thinking that Tohya was Ange (who supposedly fell from a building) so if he were to say the memory loss was due to a car incident or drowing we would figure out immediately it's not her.

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.

Originally Posted by Kealym

I actually landed on this same thought, as it would very cleanly fill most of the logical gaps in the scenario. I don't think it's what happened, but I would prefer if that were what had happened.

You got me curious. So what's your reasoning for random!Ikuko to pick up an unknown guy/an amnesiac Battler and keep him hidden for a while?

Originally Posted by Kealym

You're correct - we're saying the same thing, here.
Sorry if my wording was unclear.

Oh, I'm the one who's likely to blame as English isn't my first language and sometimes my understanding of it is messy.

Originally Posted by Kealym

Well, we don't know when Ikuko figured out his identity ... but it would've been very clear to her after learning it, that remembering things from that past were causing Tohya pain. When she mentions the Rokkenjima Incident to him a second time, he pretty much short circuits on her. And Yukari makes a similar assumption when they finally meet (though to be honest, she accepts the entire story kinda ... easily)

It's always troublesome though because well, Ikuko does something a normal person commonly doesn't do and... we aren't told the reason at all.
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.)

Originally Posted by Kealym

Well, I have a feeling that "Yasu thought Eva was a murderer" was not a very likely scenario. And Battler wouldn't be any more culpable for anything on Rokkenjima than Eva was. It IS interesting that the first forgery Tohya does the plotting for has an Eva-culprit, but ... hey, I think the dude wrote End as kind of a "sure the hell not, I'M DAT BABY", so whatever.

Well, the point is Yasu might not have had a complete and detailed grasp of what happened on Rokkenjima so if she saw something that lead her to believe Eva was the culprit or a culprit, she might deem her dangerous even if Eva is, in truth, completely innocent.

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.

Originally Posted by Kealym

Heh, it is kinda interesting. I see her relatives talking amongst themselves about "that strange man" the neighbors have sometimes seen roaming the hills near her house.

I think I'll add a story about Tohya and Ikuko to my list of sidestories I'd like to see/read.

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

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)

I think they merely wanted to tell us Ange continued to go through hardship yet she just didn't give up but continued to have a positive look on life and go on for her way. Though personally I'm hoping the manga will handle things better. So far it's doing it.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Patchwork Chimera

A guy with no past or idea of how he acted before waking up is a guy with 'personality death'. I feel that more possible that 'a guy playing pretend to be witch and stopping forever can cause a personality death'. So, the first was killed, cannot be revived but with a great and serious miracle... the second can be revived so easily that is easier to just consider him sleeping -Kanon-.

Except that's not how we were led to believe personality death works, and it isn't how it works for Beatrice. Supposedly, anyway; she's not giving herself amnesia each time.

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."

[Patchwork Chimera]

Originally Posted by Renall

Except that's not how we were led to believe personality death works, and it isn't how it works for Beatrice. Supposedly, anyway; she's not giving herself amnesia each time.

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."

I'm not saying that Beatrice's case is invalid. I'm saying that is more believable to apply personality death on an amnesiac who really doesn't remember his past self than to apply personality death in some guy playing barbie with herself. Maybe it's different in a lot of things, but at the end, Battler was not acknowledged by Tohya (he was scared of himself) and that effectively crosses with the hole 'A furniture's death entails stop being acknowledged' rule.

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.