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

Comedy Theory (2022)

rpgadventures.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 182 posts

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#161

Post by smokedetector1 »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #160
smokedetector1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that we will just need to do that is a form of faith, no more rational (in my opinion, less so) than belief in a soul.

Making up nonsense will always be easier than actually understanding reality. Just because we can’t explain something right now does not mean you can insert whatever you want into that hole and assert it’s just as valid as any other explanation.

It's funny how much I agree with your whole comment ;)

Also, "making up nonsense" is a very disrespectful, and intellectually dishonest, way to approach someone's understanding of life which is hard-earned through experience and thousands of hours of introspection and study. Consider that people who disagree with you on this may still be just as educated and smart as you are.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#162

Post by jsrcout »

BizarroLand wrote: post #138
the_af wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related to what you're saying, there's a whole essay by Mark Twain where he explains the difference between comedy (and comedic storytelling) and simply "telling a joke". He didn't think much of the "punchline" type of jokes, he was all about the storytelling... as you can tell by "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" and his many other stories.

Mark Twain wrote a book called "Roughing It", and I can't put my finger on it and tell you exactly what it is about this book, but there's some essence of Mark Twain dictating this story to you, the reader, that has persisted all of these many years since it was written that imbues it with a special kind of comedy magic the likes of which you are unlikely to find anywhere else. I have tried to read it 3 times and end…

What a wondrous book. So many hilarious anecdotes. Tom Quartz the mining cat. The escaped tarantulas. The retired Admiral. But it's not just the little stories. His characters, the comical exaggerations, his poking fun at his younger and ridiculously naive self, the description of the places, the little observations serious and humorous, the very language are all just a pleasure.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#163

Post by golergka »

clucas wrote: post #58
OisinMoran wrote: post #51

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” The equating of jokes and comedy here is an affront for anyone who has explored different avenues of comedy in any way. The analysis is fine and even interesting for (as others have pointed out) one specific type of joke but just flippantly calling that all of comedy is very jarring as it is obviously wrong. I just completed…

Yes, the article mistakes punchlines for comedy. Watch some of Norm MacDonald's stuff on Conan (troubled moth, Jacques de Gatineaux, drunk dart thrower, Andy the Swedish-German)... sure, the punchlines fit the model in the article, but the real humor comes from his delivery and the weird worlds he creates leading up to the punchlines.

Thank g-d for the hatchery.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#164

Post by smokedetector1 »

fracus wrote: post #148
smokedetector1 wrote: post #84

It's really annoying and deadening, not to mention foolish, when people try to reduce every activity of the soul to a mechanical, comprehensible process.

How deadening would it be to imagine that our consciousness and agency is just an illusion created by firing synapses and hormones and that everything we think and do has been predetermined.

Couldn't agree more! I am trying to spread the word that materialism is not the only rational position! (in fact, I find it quite irrational indeed)

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#165

Post by visarga »

smokedetector1 wrote: post #153
visarga wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a dual search loop - outside, we act using our experience to gain new data. Inside, we compress this data and update our experience. We search for experience and search for understanding. Acting is search for new insights, learning is search for error minimization. I think the way we encode our experiences is relationally, like neural networks. We relate new experiences against past experiences, this creates…

I commend your diligence, your theory may even be internally consistent, but I don't see why I should believe this rather than the comparatively simple and intuitively true (to me, anyway) notion that there is a genuine soul, it has its own volition, and it certainly interacts with the physical body and brain through a link that is currently (and may always be) mysterious.

What you say that the soul acts like a homunculus, "interacts with the physical body and brain through a link that is currently mysterious". It is a "center" thing that has volition, and semantics, and is genuine.

And it is understandable to do so. It certainly feels unified, and genuine. And it is simple and nice to be so. But intuition fails us hard when it comes to introspection. We feel alive, and conscious, but we are a few billion neurons connected by trillion branches, all wrapped in a bio-robot, put inside a complex environment full of living things in a state of cooperation and competition.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#166

Post by boogieknite »

everdrive wrote: post #7

I've yet to see a theory of comedy which actually addresses that there are multiple kinds of comedy: - Bullying, where the joke is not particularly funny, but instead relies on attacking someone's status in front of a crowd. The crowd laughs in recognition of the successful attack, not because the joke is clever. - Epiphany humor -- the joke relies on some new thought, connection, or idea, and the "joke" is the leap…

> Tone-of-voice humor. This is a joke where there's no real joke, but the tone of voice is really doing 90% of the work. It's just retelling a relatively benign event, except the tone of voice exaggerates the emotions attached to the words. I don't have an example ready for this one because I really dislike this "style" of humor, but imagine some of the less creative or talented stand-up artists.

Glad you mentioned this. Watched stand up specials in groups where the set up for a story joke used mostly tone-of-voice and my friends laughed and I wondered why they found it funny. Maybe the anticipation of a joke combined with the tone-of-voice make people laugh? I struggle to get it.

An exception that comes to mind is SNL's REALLY segment. Pohler and Meyers beat the joke so deep into the dirt it comes back around as funny

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#167

Post by smokedetector1 »

visarga wrote: post #165
smokedetector1 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commend your diligence, your theory may even be internally consistent, but I don't see why I should believe this rather than the comparatively simple and intuitively true (to me, anyway) notion that there is a genuine soul, it has its own volition, and it certainly interacts with the physical body and brain through a link that is currently (and may always be) mysterious.

What you say that the soul acts like a homunculus, "interacts with the physical body and brain through a link that is currently mysterious". It is a "center" thing that has volition, and semantics, and is genuine. And it is understandable to do so. It certainly feels unified, and genuine. And it is simple and nice to be so. But intuition fails us hard when it comes to introspection. We feel alive, and conscious, but…

Again, that is your theory. Just because you've created it using the primitives of materialist science doesn't mean it's true or that it's more likely than another theory. The fact is there's no scientific basis for believing what you've said. There just isn't.

If it feels like there's a scientific basis for what you're saying, that's because you're invoking the metaphysical principle of strict materialism, which is a common (though not inherently valid) way of thinking about science, and if that were true then yes, something like your theory would have to be true.

But be clear - that is not something proven by science, it is an axiom that is far from obviously true or universally accepted.

It may also feel that your theory should be true because so much about how the body and brain works is, I agree, materialist in nature, so why not hypothesize that everything is materialist? But that is very much a hypothesis and an intuition, not something that is scientifically proven or logically forced. And, as you say, intuition can be flawed.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#168

Post by CooCooCaCha »

smokedetector1 wrote: post #161
CooCooCaCha wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making up nonsense will always be easier than actually understanding reality. Just because we can’t explain something right now does not mean you can insert whatever you want into that hole and assert it’s just as valid as any other explanation.

It's funny how much I agree with your whole comment ;) Also, "making up nonsense" is a very disrespectful, and intellectually dishonest, way to approach someone's understanding of life which is hard-earned through experience and thousands of hours of introspection and study. Consider that people who disagree with you on this may still be just as educated and smart as you are.

Not if they think making up supernatural explanations is valid.

It’s the same logic as God of the gaps. Science doesn’t understand something yet so better fill it up with feel-good made up stuff and pretend it’s just as valid as actual science.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#169

Post by smokedetector1 »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #168
smokedetector1 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how much I agree with your whole comment ;) Also, "making up nonsense" is a very disrespectful, and intellectually dishonest, way to approach someone's understanding of life which is hard-earned through experience and thousands of hours of introspection and study. Consider that people who disagree with you on this may still be just as educated and smart as you are.

Not if they think making up supernatural explanations is valid. It’s the same logic as God of the gaps. Science doesn’t understand something yet so better fill it up with feel-good made up stuff and pretend it’s just as valid as actual science.

To me, this theory is Science of the gaps. "Science can't prove it yet, but it will." :shrug: That's faith, not logic.

Re: Comedy Theory (2022)

#170

Post by CooCooCaCha »

smokedetector1 wrote: post #169
CooCooCaCha wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if they think making up supernatural explanations is valid. It’s the same logic as God of the gaps. Science doesn’t understand something yet so better fill it up with feel-good made up stuff and pretend it’s just as valid as actual science.

To me, this theory is Science of the gaps. "Science can't prove it yet, but it will." :shrug: That's faith, not logic.

One of the stupidest things I’ve read on here. Science has an incredible track record. Faith doesn’t.
Post reply on HN