An Experiment in Math
Draco18s
side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down nine
small rocks*
The question here folks, is:
What number is exactly in the middle?
*He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
How you answer is based on how you think of numbers. Research has shown
that babies /do/ have a concept of numbers, but that it's /logarithmic./
They can tell the difference between 5 and 10 just as easily as the
difference between 10 and 20, but the difference between 8 and 9 isn't
observed.
So unless you're part of a tribe of people that lives in the Amazon
junggle, you're answer for the above question is going to be 5.
However, if your "baby math" isn't adverted into linear numbers (which
happens over the course of the first 3 years of childhood), then the
answer you'll give is *3.*
So I guess this is a bit of curiousity on my part about an individual
rather than the group, but I'd really like to know which answer Lkuznac
would see as the middle between 1 and 9. I'd address Simon/Lkuznac
individually, but I'm afraid your email address comes through a bit
mangled (I don't think it really has 3 questionmarks in it, especially
not when google shows the last three characters before the @ as periods,
and I get "?n?" instead).
In any case, it was an intersting little story on the radio this
evening:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/09
--
Lord Draco18s
DC2.Dw Gm L- W- T Phvwalt Sks Cag^ Bco|# A- Fr++ Nu M--- O H+ $ Fo R+++
Ac+ J+
S+ I-# V++ Q++ Tc+++[C++]/Tc--- E+
"Yum!" |> v-v-v-v |>
| , , .|. | n | .|.
'. |_/| | |'''''''''''| | \
(q p),-| | HERSHEY'S | |'-._ ))
/_(/ | | CHO|"|LIT | | ) '-.___//
---W"W----'-'----'-'----'-'----------'--------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bearer of the Bronze Medal for Most Posts in March 2007 (283)
Bearer of the Gold Medal for Most Posts in April 2007 (826)
Holder of the Scroll of Nobility from Lady Viriatha for that win
Kalos Kalyre
> *He has people gather around, and he draws a line in the sand, on one
> side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down nine
> small rocks*
>
> The question here folks, is:
> What number is exactly in the middle?
>
> *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
The way you phrased that question, my answer actually would have to be
one: 0 rocks in the middle + 1 line = 1
:P
--
Kalos
Draco18s
dear...@comcast.net says...
Well }:=3P to you too.
Tathar
wrote:
So then I'm a kid for thinking that it's a series with 3 in the middle?
Draco18s
6b0823...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, tatha...@gmail.com says...
> So then I'm a kid for thinking that it's a series with 3 in the middle?
No, its just that babies use a logarithmic understanding of quantity.
It's apparently the way our brains are wired naturally. Everyone sees
1, 3, 9, 27 as a series, but most people don't recognize it as /evenly
spaced steps/ the same way they do for 2, 4, 6, 8.
Dafydd Edward Dragon
> In article <hb3a20$m38$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> dear...@comcast.net says...
>> Draco18s wrote:
>>> *He has people gather around, and he draws a line in the sand, on one
>>> side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down nine
>>> small rocks*
>>>
>>> The question here folks, is:
>>> What number is exactly in the middle?
>>>
>>> *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
>> The way you phrased that question, my answer actually would have to be
>> one: 0 rocks in the middle + 1 line = 1
>
> Well }:=3P to you too.
>
the line dragon is the number 1 the rocks mean nothing. Second thought
was 10 by adding the rocks and the line.
I really don't understand why you had it where one rock is placed on one
side of the line, and nine on the other side. That confuses me as the
first thing I keep trying to do is wounder WHY the rocks have been
divided by a barrier. It seems to have no reason for being there.
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Greylight S.
wrote:
I guessed 4.5 taking the minimum number of rocks of one side of the
line and the maximum number on the other side of the line, then using
the line in-between as the middle point. So assuming the line is
placed exactly mid-way between the two rock groupings the number
exactly in the middle would be 4.5 being exactly on the line. Right?
Greylight S.
Greylight S.
dafydddra...@gmail.com> wrote:
*snip*
>
> I really don't understand why you had it where one rock is placed on one
> side of the line, and nine on the other side. That confuses me as the
> first thing I keep trying to do is wounder WHY the rocks have been
> divided by a barrier. It seems to have no reason for being there.
>
> ~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
I'm guessing the line is kindof like two sides of the equal sign. 1
rock on one side and 9 on the other. The idea being to find the number
that is exactly in the middle, that when multiplied by 2 equals the
higher of the two numbers. Of course this changes if the smaller
number is greater than 1. The fact they are rocks is meaningless to
me.
Greylight S.
Draco18s
a1e1ed...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, greys...@gmail.com says...
> I guessed 4.5 taking the minimum number of rocks of one side of the
> line and the maximum number on the other side of the line, then using
> the line in-between as the middle point. So assuming the line is
> placed exactly mid-way between the two rock groupings the number
> exactly in the middle would be 4.5 being exactly on the line. Right?
5 silly dragon. }:=3P
1 + 9 = 10
10 / 2 = 5.
1 + 4 = 5, 5 + 4 = 9.
Tathar
wrote:
> In article <4d5cb4f4-8c14-478d-8a4e-
> 6b0823e0d...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, tatharn...@gmail.com says...
So then it's easier to teach powers and logarithms to babies?
Dafydd Edward Dragon
Not really Draco, the thing is the human brain is designed logarithmic.
All functions are logarithmic. Sense of touch (tempature and pressure is
only noticed by log values, not linear), sound (volume and pitch is only
detected differant by log values), sight (colour differance is only
detected by log values, not sure about brightness but likely too), and
so forth. The brain uses log because detending a log differance is much
easyer for it to process. The log function is a hardwire piece of the brain.
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Lord Flame Stryke
news:MPG.253ef3eb3...@free.teranews.com:
> *He has people gather around, and he draws a line in the sand, on one
> side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down nine
> small rocks*
> The question here folks, is:
> What number is exactly in the middle?
> *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
Actually, I would say 0. There's 1 rock on one side, 9 rocks on the
other, and simply a line with no rocks between them. What does /that/
answer say about how numbers are perceived....? };=8�
Lord Flame Stryke
--
DC2.D~ Gm L120f60t180w W T Phawlt Sks Cbk,ere' Bfl A+++! Fr++ Nm M+ O H+
$ Fc~ R+++! Ac+++ J+ S++ U! I# V+++! Q Tc++ E++
Draco nigrum, oculi rubere, suppositus, magus.
Holder of the Scroll of Nobility from Lady Viriatha, Keeper of the Wand
of Sparklies in its case from Hex, Wielder of the Lady Viri Signature
4x8 from Ysable, Eater of the Mint Cheesecake from Whisper, Mate to Lady
Viriatha, Owner of Flame Stryke's Windex� Factory, Lord Balloonmaker,
Borrower of the Ebony Wood Fife from Luxatos, Accepter of the Small
Statue of a Green Dragon Covered in Ice Cream Toppings from Juniper,
Employer of a miniature Jester doll from SeaKing, Bearer of the Magic
Ever-Bill from SeaKing, Carrier of the gold piece from whisper: o,
Builder of Dragon Fyre Keep, First Dragon of Realism, Giver of the
Pickaxe of Icebreaking to Kalos, Winner of the *shiny* riddle award from
Pegasus, Wearer of the big *shiny* medal of posting-ness from Pegasus,
Taker of the Gold Medal for Most Posts in March 2007 (369), Aquirer of
the little blue flower from Pegasus
--
"So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked
what is the root of money?" -- Ayn Rand
Draco18s
Flame...@Gmail.com says...
> Draco18s <draco18s@DOES_NOT_LIKE_SPAM_gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.253ef3eb3...@free.teranews.com:
>
> > *He has people gather around, and he draws a line in the sand, on one
> > side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down nine
> > small rocks*
> > The question here folks, is:
> > What number is exactly in the middle?
> > *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
>
> Actually, I would say 0. There's 1 rock on one side, 9 rocks on the
> other, and simply a line with no rocks between them. What does /that/
> answer say about how numbers are perceived....? };=8�
Haha.
I think the way it was devised was as a communication device due to
lanuage barriers: not being able to properly ask "what's the average of
1 and 9" in such a way as to not /necessarily/ mean (1+9)/2.
--
Lord Draco18s
DC2.Dw Gm L- W- T Phvwalt Sks Cag^ Bco|# A- Fr++ Nu M--- O H+ $ Fo R+++
Ac+ J+
S+ I-# V++ Q++ Tc+++[C++]/Tc--- E+
"Yum!" |> v-v-v-v |>
| , , .|. | n | .|.
'. |_/| | |'''''''''''| | \
(q p),-| | HERSHEY'S | |'-._ ))
/_(/ | | CHO|"|LIT | | ) '-.___//
---W"W----'-'----'-'----'-'----------'--------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bearer of the Bronze Medal for Most Posts in March 2007 (283)
Bearer of the Gold Medal for Most Posts in April 2007 (826)
Holder of the Scroll of Nobility from Lady Viriatha for that win
Rhainor
>
> Haha.
> I think the way it was devised was as a communication device due to
> lanuage barriers: not being able to properly ask "what's the average of
> 1 and 9" in such a way as to not /necessarily/ mean (1+9)/2.
The term you'd be looking for then would be "median".
--
Rhainor
rha...@gmail.com
Simon Richard Clarkstone
> On Oct 14, 9:59 pm, Dafydd Edward Dragon <-nospam-
> dafydddra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I really don't understand why you had it where one rock is placed on one
>> side of the line, and nine on the other side. That confuses me as the
>> first thing I keep trying to do is wounder WHY the rocks have been
>> divided by a barrier. It seems to have no reason for being there.
>
> rock on one side and 9 on the other. The idea being to find the number
> that is exactly in the middle,
Yeah.
> that when multiplied by 2 equals the
> higher of the two numbers.
Err... no. :-D
> Of course this changes if the smaller
> number is greater than 1. The fact they are rocks is meaningless to
> me.
--
src/
Simon Richard Clarkstone
Actually "median" isn't right here either. That is defined as the
middle number in odd cases, or the mean of the two middle numbers in
even cases.
--
src/
Simon Richard Clarkstone
> Not really Draco, the thing is the human brain is designed logarithmic.
> All functions are logarithmic. Sense of touch (tempature and pressure is
> only noticed by log values, not linear), sound (volume and pitch is only
> detected differant by log values), sight (colour differance is only
> detected by log values, not sure about brightness but likely too), and
> so forth. The brain uses log because detending a log differance is much
> easyer for it to process. The log function is a hardwire piece of the
> brain.
Well, it's not quite that the log function is *in* the brain so much as
lots of things in it use logarithmic scales. But otherwise yes.
--
Simon Richard Clarkstone:
s.r.cl?rkst?n?@dunelm.org.uk / s?m?n_cl?rkst?n?@yahoo.co.uk
Citizen, listen: Kurt Vonnegut did not intend _The Euphio Question_
as a resolution to the Fermi Paradox. (Even he wasn't that depressing.)
Simon Richard Clarkstone
> Draco18s wrote:
>> In article <hb3a20$m38$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> dear...@comcast.net says...
>>> Draco18s wrote:
>>>> *He has people gather around, and he draws a line in the sand, on
>>>> one side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down
>>>> nine small rocks*
>>>>
>>>> The question here folks, is:
>>>> What number is exactly in the middle?
>
> I really don't understand why you had it where one rock is placed on one
> side of the line, and nine on the other side. That confuses me as the
> first thing I keep trying to do is wounder WHY the rocks have been
> divided by a barrier. It seems to have no reason for being there.
Without really trying, you seem to have come up with a more inhuman
answer to this question that I am able to. Oh well.
Simon Richard Clarkstone
> *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
>
>
> So I guess this is a bit of curiousity on my part about an individual
> rather than the group, but I'd really like to know which answer Lkuznac
> would see as the middle between 1 and 9.
It will be tricky to ignore what I am accustomed to thinking (5).
> I'd address Simon/Lkuznac
> individually, but I'm afraid your email address comes through a bit
> mangled (I don't think it really has 3 questionmarks in it, especially
> not when google shows the last three characters before the @ as periods,
> and I get "?n?" instead).
The idea is that you can guess what letters the question marks are
supposed to be from my name. Especially as the first one is identical
to the "from" address of all my recent posts.
> In any case, it was an intersting little story on the radio this
> evening:
> http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/09
Hmm, nice.
Lkuznac Acigt-x
> *He has people gather around, and he draws a line in the sand, on one
> side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down nine
> small rocks*
>
> The question here folks, is:
> What number is exactly in the middle?
(Following here I write "[PT]" to mean that a phrase is an inaccurate or
imprecise translation.)
The groups are not numbers, they are sets. The smaller set is not a
subset of the larger one, so there is no ordering of this pair of sets.
I resolve this as the question to refer to the cardinalities of the
sets because those are natural numbers which may be projected onto
rational numbers, real numbers, etc.
The phrase "exactly in the middle" is ambiguous, because it depends on
the definition of distance. I can use different kvhsi ("part of mind"
[PT]) to install various meanings [PT] to the numbers thereby installing
various definitions of distance. For each I also tell the English name.
* If I use the kvhsi for small pieces of translation-symmetric Euclidean
space then distance is vector magnitude and the numbers are two points
so 5 is exactly in the middle of 1 and 9 (arithmetic mean).
* If I use the kvhsi for of modifying one natural number into another
via approximate addition and removal with proportional error then
half-way from 1 to 9 is a distribution of mostly 7 and 11 and less of 6
and 8 and 11 and 10 and much less of other numbers (no English name).
* If I use the kvhsi for of growth and decay then 3 is in the middle of
1 and 9 (geometric mean).
* If I use the khvsi for enclosure in two dimensions or radius in two
dimensions, then 4 is exactly in the middle of 1 and 9 (quadratic mean).
* If I use the khvsi for magnitude of certain tasks/algorithms [PT],
about 8 is in the middle of 1 and 9 (no English name).
* If I use the khvsi for density and frequencies, 1.8 is in the middle
of 1 and 9 (harmonic mean).
* If I use the khvsi for generality of definitions [PT], 9 is very close
to most other natural numbers and there is no number exactly in the
middle of 1 and 9. But 2 is closest the middle and greater than the
middle and 1 is below the middle (no English name).
* My corporeal mind (i.e. that below neck level) does not much
distinguish 9 repeated actions from 8 of such or 10 of such. In the
middle of 1 and 9 is about 3 or 4 because of the change in stability of
neural limited-repetition oscillator circuits when parameters are
changed (no English name).
I can think [PT] many of these simultaneously because they do not
resource-conflict because they use different brain areas and are
different types [PT] of thought but I cannot think [PT] all of them
simultaneously because some of them resource-conflict and some are not
pure thought [PT].
> *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
Why not me? Because I am the least-human person here?
> So I guess this is a bit of curiousity on my part about an individual
> rather than the group, but I'd really like to know which answer Lkuznac
> would see as the middle between 1 and 9.
[...]
> http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/09
What is the target audience of that programme? Why do they define
logarithms?
--
Lkuznac Acigt-x :: Not exactly a dragon; not exactly an email address.
DC2.D"Kigdatsi" Gh L3.5m1.5t8w W~ T100k Phfwlt Sks,wl Cgr,bye+ B- Ar-
Fr Mr++8 $---! Fo R% Ac++ J+ S% U! I--# V---! Q+[RFT] Tc+++! E--
"%" = Unlike you, I don't live as a human, and I look human to no-one
Simon Richard Clarkstone
> Draco18s wrote:
>> *He has people gather around, and he draws a line in the sand, on one
>> side he places down a small rock, on the other, he places down nine
>> small rocks*
>>
>> The question here folks, is:
>> What number is exactly in the middle?
[snip Lkuznac's list of various answers and how it thinks them]
If I may speak as an author:
That took several hours to write, following most of a week of occasional
brainstorming of ideas. I wish I could illustrate (or indeed invent)
better how the Kigdatsi mind works. It's supposed to be slightly more
modular than ours, with more conscious control over switching things on
and off and directing information (flexibility like this adds large
overheads to everything; as any programmer finds out).
OTOH all the things Lkuznac can't translate really don't have any common
English word AFAIK, and I did not resort to technobabble at any point.
Draco18s
s.r.cla...@dunelm.org.uk says...
> Dafydd Edward Dragon wrote:
> > I really don't understand why you had it where one rock is placed on one
> > side of the line, and nine on the other side. That confuses me as the
> > first thing I keep trying to do is wounder WHY the rocks have been
> > divided by a barrier. It seems to have no reason for being there.
>
> Without really trying, you seem to have come up with a more inhuman
> answer to this question that I am able to. Oh well.
Dafydd really is closer to an animal mind than the rest of us, I think.
Draco18s
s.r.cla...@dunelm.org.uk says...
> Draco18s wrote:
> > *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
> >
> [...]
> >
> > So I guess this is a bit of curiousity on my part about an individual
> > rather than the group, but I'd really like to know which answer Lkuznac
> > would see as the middle between 1 and 9.
>
> It will be tricky to ignore what I am accustomed to thinking (5).
Yet, it's a learned behavior.
> > I'd address Simon/Lkuznac
> > individually, but I'm afraid your email address comes through a bit
> > mangled (I don't think it really has 3 questionmarks in it, especially
> > not when google shows the last three characters before the @ as periods,
> > and I get "?n?" instead).
>
> The idea is that you can guess what letters the question marks are
> supposed to be from my name. Especially as the first one is identical
> to the "from" address of all my recent posts.
Durrr. x3
> > In any case, it was an intersting little story on the radio this
> > evening:
> > http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/09
>
> Hmm, nice.
I thought so too.
Draco18s
s.r.cla...@dunelm.org.uk says...
> [snip Lkuznac's list of various answers and how it thinks them]
>
> If I may speak as an author:
>
> That took several hours to write, following most of a week of occasional
> brainstorming of ideas. I wish I could illustrate (or indeed invent)
> better how the Kigdatsi mind works. It's supposed to be slightly more
> modular than ours, with more conscious control over switching things on
> and off and directing information (flexibility like this adds large
> overheads to everything; as any programmer finds out).
>
> OTOH all the things Lkuznac can't translate really don't have any common
> English word AFAIK, and I did not resort to technobabble at any point.
It was very well written, and I think at least one of them hurt my brain
trying to understand.
Draco18s
lku...@kigdatsi.org says...
> > *He knows the answer everyone is going to give...except for Lkuznac*
>
> Why not me? Because I am the least-human person here?
Quite.
And your response was definiately not one I anticipated at all. Thank
you.
> > So I guess this is a bit of curiousity on my part about an individual
> > rather than the group, but I'd really like to know which answer Lkuznac
> > would see as the middle between 1 and 9.
> [...]
> > http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/09
>
> What is the target audience of that programme? Why do they define
> logarithms?
I don't know exactly who the target audience is, other than "people who
listen to NPR." And I don't know.
Dafydd Edward Dragon
> In article <i8idnSz-CfoUBnHX...@giganews.com>,
> s.r.cla...@dunelm.org.uk says...
>> Dafydd Edward Dragon wrote:
>>> I really don't understand why you had it where one rock is placed on one
>>> side of the line, and nine on the other side. That confuses me as the
>>> first thing I keep trying to do is wounder WHY the rocks have been
>>> divided by a barrier. It seems to have no reason for being there.
>> Without really trying, you seem to have come up with a more inhuman
>> answer to this question that I am able to. Oh well.
>
> Dafydd really is closer to an animal mind than the rest of us, I think.
>
*murrps and noses Draco* murrm, I think that be very true. I've rarely
seen dragons more animalistic than I >.>
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Drak'rrth Ssekmith
dafydddra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Draco18s wrote:
> > In article <i8idnSz-CfoUBnHXnZ2dnUVZ8lj_f...@giganews.com>,
> > s.r.clarkst...@dunelm.org.uk says...
Hehe, now comes the discussion as to what that entails, since humans
are technically animals too.
Draco18s
@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, drak...@gmail.com says...
> On Nov 8, 1:32=A0am, Dafydd Edward Dragon <-nospam-
In this sense, the lack of sentience. Little to no "higher brain
functions."
Simon Richard Clarkstone
> In article <wOOdneCoLoz8nHPX...@giganews.com>,
> s.r.cla...@dunelm.org.uk says...
>
>> [snip Lkuznac's list of various answers and how it thinks them]
>>
>> If I may speak as an author:
>>
>> That took several hours to write, following most of a week of occasional
>> brainstorming of ideas. I wish I could illustrate (or indeed invent)
>> better how the Kigdatsi mind works. It's supposed to be slightly more
>> modular than ours, with more conscious control over switching things on
>> and off and directing information (flexibility like this adds large
>> overheads to everything; as any programmer finds out).
>>
>> OTOH all the things Lkuznac can't translate really don't have any common
>> English word AFAIK, and I did not resort to technobabble at any point.
>
> It was very well written, and I think at least one of them hurt my brain
> trying to understand.
It seems my fishing for compliments has caught one. I/it can attempt to
explain bits you don't understand, unless you want them to remain
mysterious.
Dafydd Edward Dragon
> In article <ab4076f0-f3e7-4b2d-aa0d-27cf80e82a80
> @g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, drak...@gmail.com says...
>> On Nov 8, 1:32=A0am, Dafydd Edward Dragon <-nospam-
>> dafydddra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Draco18s wrote:
>>>> Dafydd really is closer to an animal mind than the rest of us, I think.
>>> *murrps and noses Draco* murrm, I think that be very true. I've rarely
>>> seen dragons more animalistic than I >.>
>>>
>>> ~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
>> Hehe, now comes the discussion as to what that entails, since humans
>> are technically animals too.
>
> In this sense, the lack of sentience. Little to no "higher brain
> functions."
>
Errp? I gots higher brain functions, just lack of specific types as a
dragon. No tool-using skills, specific types of logic not present. I got
cunning and ability to reason, just not the same as a human. My
intelligence type resembles that of the smarter breeds of dogs and
wolves. Can do tactics, can do very basic steps to manipulate
environment, but only that sort of stuff, not humany stuff.
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Drak'rrth Ssekmith
wrote:
> In article <ab4076f0-f3e7-4b2d-aa0d-27cf80e82a80
> @g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, drakr...@gmail.com says...
To me, that's actually arguable as well, since we have no standard
definition for "higher brain functions". It's actually relative, since
comparing a fish to an amoeba would make the fish look sentient - and
for all we know, it thinks it is :) Personally, I abandon the term
"sentient" altogether. I prefer to use "intelligence", but even that's
rather arbitrary too, given the multiple kinds of intelligences. In
the end, it is impossible to state if anything is "better" than the
other in mental terms.
Still, I suppose that to say "...is closer to a non-human mind
than..." would cause less controversy, since there is a clear boundary
between species - more or less, anyway.
Drak'rrth Ssekmith
One wonders how you typed this out then...
Anyway, it's certainly possible there are different types of dragons,
just as there are different types of humans (aka. Mensa-member or
mental-hospital-patient). There are so few dragons, and none at all
physically (as far as I know), I'll keep my mind open. Too early to
start deliberating anything about them, besides name and species.
Maybe not even species.
Dafydd Edward Dragon
I thought this was well established being that this is a community of
dragonkin O.o but I guess I'll have to break it down for you.
/Draconicly/ that is the way my mind is. THIS LIFE the one I currently
have, the one I'm typing with, I'm human, I possess all human qualities
like anyone should expect. However I am still in touch with my draconic
self, the way I'd think, the way I felt, the way I was. I still get
instinctual impulses, phantom limbs, and so forth. Sorry if this
explanation sounds lazy but you should already know all about this stuff
by now. You shouldn't need to wounder how I typed this out. If I were in
dragon form, with dragon mentality for my particular breed and species I
would not be here in the newsgroup. I'd be on the news, in a zoo,
science lab, or someone's exotic pet by now if I were in my form.
Also 'dragon' is a damn broad word. It's true translation is 'giant
lizard' which isn't even accurate as some dragons can also be very tiny.
You can't even say dragons are 6-limbed reptiles because many are
hot-blooded, or may only have the standard 4 limbs (like a Wyvern), or
heck none if a Serpent. Yet all people could agree are 'dragons'. So
there will be tons of variations between dragons. It's like classifying
a kingdom rather than a species (ie. animals from insects rather than
birds from bees). I hope that clarified for you O.o
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Lord Flame Stryke
news:hd9jkl$l9q$1...@aioe.org:
> Drak'rrth Ssekmith wrote:
>>> Errp? I gots higher brain functions, just lack of specific types as
>>> a dragon. No tool-using skills, specific types of logic not present.
>>> I got cunning and ability to reason, just not the same as a human.
>>> My intelligence type resembles that of the smarter breeds of dogs
>>> and wolves. Can do tactics, can do very basic steps to manipulate
>>> environment, but only that sort of stuff, not humany stuff.
>> One wonders how you typed this out then...
> I thought this was well established being that this is a community of
> dragonkin O.o but I guess I'll have to break it down for you.
This is getting uncomfortably close to a flame was all of a sudden.....
Daf, I'm sure Drak didn't mean anything negative in his comments, and in
fact it seemed to me to be more of a jest than anything else. If I were
in my dragon form, I wouldn't be able to find a keyboard that would
stand up to the force my fingers push down on the keys if I got excited
or emphatic.
Please, everyone, let's drop this line of thought, or at least, moderate
our tones.
> Also 'dragon' is a damn broad word. It's true translation is 'giant
> lizard' which isn't even accurate as some dragons can also be very
> tiny. You can't even say dragons are 6-limbed reptiles because many
> are hot-blooded, or may only have the standard 4 limbs (like a
> Wyvern), or heck none if a Serpent. Yet all people could agree are
> 'dragons'. So there will be tons of variations between dragons. It's
> like classifying a kingdom rather than a species (ie. animals from
> insects rather than birds from bees). I hope that clarified for you
> O.o
I always say there are as many types of dragons as there are dragons;
we're all unique in our own way, even if some of us are amazingly
similar.
Drak'rrth Ssekmith
> Dafydd Edward Dragon <-nospam-dafydddra...@gmail.com> wrote innews:hd9jkl$l9q$1...@aioe.org:
Sorry if I appeared to be disrespectful, I know clear well we're all
human - physically, at any rate. It was an insensitive jest on my
part.
And yeah, I kinda picked it up from humans - there are an amazing
number of variations of humans, so I figured it would be the same for
dragons. Just concerned that it presents the image that all dragons
are like that.
Gah, hope I didn't offend anyone.
Draco18s
@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, drak...@gmail.com says...
> And yeah, I kinda picked it up from humans - there are an amazing
> number of variations of humans, so I figured it would be the same for
> dragons. Just concerned that it presents the image that all dragons
> are like that.
There are more variations on the term "dragon" than there are on
"human." Human at least implies a few certainties about the nature of
the creature we are talking about (bipedal, mammal, oposable thumb, etc.
etc.)
Dragon though, implies...almost nothing.
Let me quote the introduction to a collection of short stories I have.
"If dragons are complicated creatures, and they are, it might have
something to do with the etymological complexity of the word itself.
Acording to Webster, there are two lines of derivation, the first being
the Middle English, Old French /dragun/, which in those tongues derived
from a word meaning "a place to stand," from which somehow arose
"standard," as an agreed-upon measurement; how this connects with
dragons eludes me, but the dictionary states it as a possible
etymological root. The more familiar and more likely root is the Greek
/drakon/, a serpent, though that, too, is a bit enigmatic, since Webster
aver it arises from /derksesthai, literally "the seeing one."
"If that is not confusing enough, the dictionary enumerates many
different definitions, for example, a fierce person and/or a watchful
chaperone; a saurian of the genus /draco/, commonly known as the flying
dragon or flying lizard; a constellation of the northern hemisphere; a
kind of pidgeon; a short musket with a dragon's head represented at its
muzzle; a soldier so armed, also known as a dragoon; a large serpent or
snake; any of various plants, such as the green dragon, so named
because of its mottled stem that is reminiscent of snake's skin; and a
heraldic device.
"Dragns have been so equated with the Devil; the Satanic serpent is the
etymological source that Bram Stoker drew upon when naming his famous
vampire Dracula. The dragon/devil equation presumably rises from the
fact that in the Authorized Version of the Bible, the word was used as
the common translation for a number of different Hebrew words that are
now understood to have mean many things, including "serpent," "jackal,"
and "old serpent," the latter presumably a reference to Satan, although
the devil is a latecomer in the Bible; in the Old Testament he was not
the same entity as in the New.
"But nevertheless, the concept proved to be popular, and the dragon
became the classic mythic creature that we know today: dangerous, fire-
breathing winged serpents impervious to weapons except for the beasts'
soft underbellies. According to legend they despoil villiages, demand
virgin sacrifices, and rob all and sundry of gold and precious metals,
which they rest upon in their gaves in greedy contentment.
[skipping some bits; dragons in the orrient...equated with the four
elements...beneficent and wise...honored...]
"One of the most intriguing things I have noticed in contemporary
fantasy fiction that employs dragons is a tendency to cross-pollinate
the characteristics of Oriental and Occidental dragons. Sometimes, as
in the film /Dragonheart/, the creature is kindly disposed towards
humanity[...]Somethins the dragon, though fierce, may yet engage in
social converse, such as Tolkien's Smaug or John Gardener's old dragon
in /Grendel/. Still, there are many examples of od-style dragons in
twentieth-century fairy tales, as anyone familiar with /Weird Tales/ is
well aware."
[And then skipping the end, as it introduces the book itself, /The
Dragon Quintet/]
Dragons are anything the author wants them to be. "Dragon" is a broad
term that desribes a vague, general, outline. One dragon might have one
set of wings, none, or even two! Humans at least are limited to 4 limbs
(excepting cases of severe deformity likely due to injury)!
What about body covering? Hair, featers, hide, scales, scutes,
skin...all available, and in full 32 bit high definition color. Humans:
skin (in one of roughly 3 colors of various shades: "white," "black,"
and "muddy red").
How about hands/forepaws? How many fingers you want? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6?
More? Claws, retractable, none, or always on? Opposable thumb [y/n]?
There are more customizable variables with dragons than there are for a
human. In a human you're getting down to subtle details distinguishing
an individual from another, whereas with the dragon you haven't even
narrowed down the /species/ yet, let alone one individual from anthoer!
(That there is Elma, she's the one with the hot pink scales and has the
two very small horns under her main ones, the slightly smaller dragoness
next to her is Rashel, you can tell because she's got scales that are
redder in color and her secondary horns are a full half length of her
main horns, and that there is Vard, he's got even darker scales than his
sister Rashel, but his main feature is his size, he's a good eight years
younger than Rashel, but he's almost half again her size! His secondary
horns have grown so long, they've started to curve noticably more than
his main horns...)
Draco18s
s.r.cla...@dunelm.org.uk says...
> Draco18s wrote:
> > In article <wOOdneCoLoz8nHPX...@giganews.com>,
> > s.r.cla...@dunelm.org.uk says...
> >
> >> [snip Lkuznac's list of various answers and how it thinks them]
> >>
> >> If I may speak as an author:
> >>
> >> That took several hours to write, following most of a week of occasional
> >> brainstorming of ideas. I wish I could illustrate (or indeed invent)
> >> better how the Kigdatsi mind works. It's supposed to be slightly more
> >> modular than ours, with more conscious control over switching things on
> >> and off and directing information (flexibility like this adds large
> >> overheads to everything; as any programmer finds out).
> >>
> >> OTOH all the things Lkuznac can't translate really don't have any common
> >> English word AFAIK, and I did not resort to technobabble at any point.
> >
> > It was very well written, and I think at least one of them hurt my brain
> > trying to understand.
>
> It seems my fishing for compliments has caught one. I/it can attempt to
> explain bits you don't understand, unless you want them to remain
> mysterious.
No, that's ok. Any attempt to do so would lead to my having to do
research into things I know nothing about (harmonics, etc).
Dafydd Edward Dragon
It seems everyone suddenly jumped as if struck by flames here. I was not
lashing out. unfortunately text does not relay one's tone of voice nor
flow of their words. I was confused and somewhat annoyed, the same
degree of annoyance one would have correcting someone miss-pronouncing
their name. This annoyance was towards having the strong impression that
I had someone yet again think I was some loony that thought I was
dragon in form somehow or doing make believe, which I grow tired of
clarifying the boundaries of reality and typical lines of what I'm
talking about.
When I post here I assume people already know things such as the factor
of human self vs dragon self differences, as well as the way we use
emotes to express typically our draconic selves in a conversation. These
are normally a given in our conversations. The way the post was written
it seemed like Drak'rrth was completely unaware of any of these
suttleties or possibility just pulling a joke. I automatically assumed
the former as it didn't seem like a joke as more of a real question.
I took no direct offense to it, nor wish to give any offense towards it.
Now that this is cleared up, I'd like to be able to relax again and just
post. If anything seems rude, offensive, or unlike me, it may mean
either I poorly typed it your you read it and got the wrong impression
of me. If I dislike something I say it flat out, I make my negative
impressions completely obvious and those are rare in the first place.
Now lets stop making big long detailed posts about an argument that
doesn't exist and go back to the more interesting conversations shall we?
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Dafydd Edward Dragon
> In article <143ca3cc-d908-4f65-9cc0-c419cef836e8
> @x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, drak...@gmail.com says...
>
>> And yeah, I kinda picked it up from humans - there are an amazing
>> number of variations of humans, so I figured it would be the same for
>> dragons. Just concerned that it presents the image that all dragons
>> are like that.
*Mega Snip*
Here's another entry for you to add to your list Draco. In Welsh which
is one of the very old galic (sp?) based languages, the word dragon is
in welsh guthorm (I think google translate failed me, but that's a close
approximation to the spelling). Directly translated it means
battle-worm. The welsh language describes dragons as battle or war
WORMS. Also worth noting worm and snake is the same word in welsh, much
like how green and blue are the same word in welsh as well to my
understanding O.o'
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Drak'rrth Ssekmith
To be frank, I suffer from low self-esteem, and this whole incident's
pushing it down lower. So, yeah, wrap it up and end everything. Auld
Lang Syne.
And to clear up one last bit of misconception, although I know you
know what it is now:
"...having the strong impression that I had someone yet again think I
was some loony that thought I was dragon in form somehow or doing make
believe..."
I admit that the way you put it actually sounded like you were
physically one, seeing that you put it in present tense, so I was
trying to correct you in a roundabout way. And no, I don't think
anyone's a loony for thinking they're a dragon - the impression I've
gotten is that everyone is perfectly sane and able to recognize their
physical human form, therefore everyone (myself included) is actually
referring to themselves as a dragon mentally/spiritually, which is
unprovable either way (true/false) and therefore, acceptable.
Seriously, I highly respect all of you draconic elders here, so I
apologize for all the distress I caused. I'll try to ensure it does
not occur again.
Dafydd Edward Dragon
>
> To be frank, I suffer from low self-esteem, and this whole incident's
> pushing it down lower. So, yeah, wrap it up and end everything. Auld
> Lang Syne.
>
> And to clear up one last bit of misconception, although I know you
> know what it is now:
>
> "...having the strong impression that I had someone yet again think I
> was some loony that thought I was dragon in form somehow or doing make
> believe..."
>
> I admit that the way you put it actually sounded like you were
> physically one, seeing that you put it in present tense, so I was
> trying to correct you in a roundabout way. And no, I don't think
> anyone's a loony for thinking they're a dragon - the impression I've
> gotten is that everyone is perfectly sane and able to recognize their
> physical human form, therefore everyone (myself included) is actually
> referring to themselves as a dragon mentally/spiritually, which is
> unprovable either way (true/false) and therefore, acceptable.
>
> Seriously, I highly respect all of you draconic elders here, so I
> apologize for all the distress I caused. I'll try to ensure it does
> not occur again.
There's been no distress here, and sorry for the confusion. I prefer to
imagine that all conversations that take place are as if we were in a
virtual place in dragon forms able to interact (via emotes) and such.
Ergo mucking or secondlife by text.
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Drak'rrth Ssekmith
'paws ground' I understand now.
There ought to be a clear indicator of such things. Otherwise we may
end up in a messy situation again.
Dafydd Edward Dragon
Murrm, I'm unsure if there is much of a way of a clear indicator to use
really. But hopefully that sort of mess doesn't happen much at all.
*flops over lazily*
~Dafydd Edward Dragon~
Simon Richard Clarkstone
> Errp? I gots higher brain functions, just lack of specific types as a
> dragon. No tool-using skills, specific types of logic not present. I got
> cunning and ability to reason, just not the same as a human. My
> intelligence type resembles that of the smarter breeds of dogs and
> wolves. Can do tactics, can do very basic steps to manipulate
> environment, but only that sort of stuff, not humany stuff.
I can't really imagine what that would be like, but my imagination tends
not to be very good for mental stuff.