You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2006.
The cartoon has always been my favorite type of TV show. I enjoy the ability for animation to transcend normal rules and conventions that apply to daily life, and a lot of times the art and colors are enjoyable as well. After some thought, it occurred to me that most animated series can be grouped into one of three categories:
* Type I (“cliffwalker”): Laws of nature (conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravity) are arbitrarily ignored–i.e., a character can walk off a cliff without falling immediately or can produce a giant hammer at will. But normal laws can apply in other situations. Generally there is no long-term effect of an injury. Examples: Tom & Jerry, Looney Toons, Animaniacs, Spongebob Squarepants, Sealab 2021
* Type II: (“altered reality”): Certain aspects of reality are altered, but for the most part these elements remain consistent. A futuristic show may have robots with artificial intelligence or talking animals, but once this is established the show does not break any of its own rules. Injury may result in some effect, although perhaps with minimal effect and duration. Examples: Scooby Doo, Gargoyles, Futurama, many types of anime, most superhero series
* Type III (“animated reality”): No physical laws or aspects of reality have been changed. The show may take place in various settings or time periods, but they always try and accurately reflect something “realistic”. Injury is as serious as it would be in real life (and is generally less comical than in types I and II). Examples: some types of anime, other animated dramas
Of course, many shows are a hybrid between these three base types; and some shows have one dominant type but sometimes oscillate to another. For example, the Batman animated series is mostly type III, but occasional elements are introduced that are beyond the scope of reality that place it within type II. In any case, hopefully this will somehow lend to enriching your cartoon viewing.
Such simple instructions, but you couldn’t follow them, could you?
A couple had a favorite vacation spot. They would spend as much time as they could manage there, in a tropical and magical atmosphere. This destination always provided them a fresh outlook, compared with the drudgery of daily work. Every time they went on this vacation, they would bring their cameras and journals, with the intent of capturing some of the magical moments they experienced. But they always left without having taken any photos or written anything down. It just seemed better not to try and take those experiences home–and to instead simply look forward to the next time they visited.
It’s a classic experiment to determine when “self-awareness” occurs: a monkey (or child, or other creature) is placed in front of a mirror. A hat, food item, or other object is placed on the subject’s head. If the monkey reaches toward the image in the mirror, it is assumed that the monkey thinks there is someone sitting in front of it. If, however, the monkey looks in the mirror and proceeds to reach on top of its own head to retrieve the object, then the monkey is said to be self-aware–because it knows that the image in the mirror is itself.
Although the experiment itself is interesting, I have always had a problem with the conclusion. Does this really test self-awareness, or is it simply a way of assessing a creature’s learning ability (i.e. when does a creature learn how a mirror works?). Just because a monkey/baby/whatever reaches for the images doesn’t mean they aren’t self aware; it doesn’t even mean they don’t recognize their own image. All it means is that they do not understand the reflective properties of a mirror (after all, why wouldn’t they assume that a duplicate was created in the image of the mirror?). Self-awareness is indeed a difficult thing to assess, but often it seems to me that the methods for quantifying this are vague at best.
What kind of meteo grad student are you? Take this test I just made to find out–even if you’re not in meteorology or a grad student!
Recent Comments