Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

zapatopi.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 177 posts

Re: The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

#41

Post by MattGaiser »

mc32 wrote: post #27
MattGaiser wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add in that the animal world is full of wacky creatures that don't fit heuristic models for plausibility. People thought the Platypus was a hoax was it was initially discovered. It is real.

Add the propensity to colloquially grant newly discovered things names that borrow from existing things: sea cow, catfish, etc. so why couldn’t there be something called a tree octopus?

Today I learned that a tree crab is a thing. I knew a tree lobster was a thing. There is something that could plausibly be called a tree clam.

Re: The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

#42

Post by MattGaiser »

replygirl wrote: post #36
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are large crabs that climb trees and eat coconuts. There are fish that can survive on dry(-ish) land for extended periods of time. And don't get me started on the utterly bizarre slime mold. The number of species that defy our expectations is countless. Bluntly, there's a lot of arrogance in the claim that anyone should be able to easily and automatically rule out the existence of some species based on their pe…

> there's a lot of arrogance in the claim that anyone should be able to easily and automatically rule out the existence of some species based on their personal knowledge some, certainly yes. i don't think anyone would disagree that some claims are more plainly ridiculous than others. i'm replying to someone who let themselves be convinced the tree octopus was real by a page picturing an octopus climbing a tree. let's…

Which of the following are real?

- Tree lobster - Tree crab - Tree clam - Tree fish

Re: The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

#45

Post by replygirl »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #39
replygirl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a lot of arrogance in the claim that anyone should be able to easily and automatically rule out the existence of some species based on their personal knowledge some, certainly yes. i don't think anyone would disagree that some claims are more plainly ridiculous than others. i'm replying to someone who let themselves be convinced the tree octopus was real by a page picturing an octopus climbing a tree. let's…

I think you'll find your idea of "common sense" is perhaps not so universal as you think. For example, why is a tree octopus any less likely than the platypus, a venomous aquatic mammal that has a beak, lays eggs, and detects prey by sensing electric fields like a shark?

call me arrogant but i won't stoop to the level i have to be at to take your question seriously.

do i think i'm as intelligent as anyone, or that everyone is as intelligent as me? of course not. but i do think your standard for gullibility is too high if you don't think believing the linked article satisfies it.

Re: The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

#46

Post by BaseballPhysics »

replygirl wrote: post #45
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find your idea of "common sense" is perhaps not so universal as you think. For example, why is a tree octopus any less likely than the platypus, a venomous aquatic mammal that has a beak, lays eggs, and detects prey by sensing electric fields like a shark?

call me arrogant but i won't stoop to the level i have to be at to take your question seriously. do i think i'm as intelligent as anyone, or that everyone is as intelligent as me? of course not. but i do think your standard for gullibility is too high if you don't think believing the linked article satisfies it.

Stoop? I challenge you with a perfectly valid example of an unlikely animal, and your response is to claim I'm somehow, what, failing to argue at your level?

I suppose that's enough to make my point for me.

Re: The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

#48

Post by replygirl »

MattGaiser wrote: post #42
replygirl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a lot of arrogance in the claim that anyone should be able to easily and automatically rule out the existence of some species based on their personal knowledge some, certainly yes. i don't think anyone would disagree that some claims are more plainly ridiculous than others. i'm replying to someone who let themselves be convinced the tree octopus was real by a page picturing an octopus climbing a tree. let's…

Which of the following are real? - Tree lobster - Tree crab - Tree clam - Tree fish

you're presenting an entirely different scenario from the OP. try again with photos, maps, propaganda posters, and a few thousand words on each, and replace your question with an assertion. in absence of that i do a quick search and find out three are real and one is not but may be a colloquial term referring to a sporadic phenomenon

Re: The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

#50

Post by CydeWeys »

wood_spirit wrote: post #16

The context of this showing up on HN made me kinda assumed it was a chatgpt generated thing. A quick google shows it seems to be a well known classic hoax from the late 90s. But there really are crabs and lobsters that live in trees and things, as do lots of type of mollusc (eg slugs and snails). So it isn’t completely silly. So it’s not like a tree octopus is any more ridiculous than the coconut crab? It seems there…

> So it’s not like a tree octopus is any more ridiculous than the coconut crab?

It is a lot more ridiculous though because land crabs are a well known thing (e.g. hermit crabs) whereas land octopuses don't exist. Octopuses are very much a water-only type of organism.

It just requires a little prior knowledge about the broad strokes of animalian orders.

Post reply on HN