h a l f b a k e r y(Serving suggestion.)
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This seems obvious on the surface, however, I would like to truly use the scientific method to ensure that when someone says something that truly does not make sense, people don't understand. I propose conducting experiments involving entirely made up terms and phrases, such as "the hexagigadecimetrical
hypothesis of increasing disapprehension" (which admittedly kind of makes sense when you look at it again), and introducing new fields such as "preexistential facial characterization" into the popular dialougue and seeing how much sense people can make of them. Please let me know just how little sense you can make of this so I can finish this particular experiment attempting to disaffirm the hexagigadecimetrical hypothesis of increasing disapprehension.
The Sokal Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Wikipedia article: Physicist Alan Sokal submits hoax paper to scholarly journal—and they publish it. [Jim Bob of Merriam Park, Sep 14 2009]
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
http://www.physics...._v2_singlefile.html
Sokal's nonsense paper. [Jim Bob of Merriam Park, Sep 14 2009]
'Jabberwocky' by Lewis Carroll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky
Seems to fly in the face of your theory, Sparkyplugclean. Perhaps you should develop a 'Special Theory of Incomprehensibility' to account for artistic nonsense. [DrBob, Sep 14 2009]
Mind horizon profile
Mind_20Horizon_20Profile
quantitative vectorization of scholarly, societal, and communicative effectiveness [Sparkyplugclean, Sep 15 2009]
Shameless plug
Googolplexidecimal
[CaptainClapper, Sep 16 2009]
Exposure to nonsense makes you smarter?
http://www.scienced...09/090915174455.htm
"The idea is that when you're exposed to a meaning threat –– something that fundamentally does not make sense –– your brain is going to respond by looking for some other kind of structure within your environment. And, it turns out, that structure can be completely unrelated to the meaning threat."
I take that to mean that if you read nonsense you will do your damnedest to convert it into something else that isn't nonsense. [DrBob, Sep 17 2009]
Pomo generator
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
inspired by Sokal - create your own meaninglessness. [pocmloc, Sep 17 2009]
A Mathematical Theory of Communication (working link)
http://math.harvard...entropy/entropy.pdf
By C. E. SHANNON July, October, 1948. [notexactly, Jun 15 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
What about, War On Terror? |
|
| |
Why bother making stuff up when you have an entire academic field called philosophy to use? |
|
| |
//popular dialougue// - can't be that popular unless you mean "dialounge" - a place where dials hang out to discuss the behaviour of their pointers. |
|
| |
ps - welcome to HB mr/mrs/mss/ Sparkyplugclean |
|
| |
Do you realise that given the obfuscatory title of this idea, every time someone looks at it is evidence against it being correct? I would suggest that you make it increasingly obscure until it's ignored. |
|
| |
That's simply not true, [nineteenthly]. The initial hypothesis pendulates anterior to incomprehensibility contra tendencies to stimulate third-party indifference. |
|
| |
//like a homesick turd making its way home// - That's a strange simile. Is that what homesick turds do? |
|
| |
Good example, [egg].
Good call, [ian], [poc]
I've heard of dorsal olfactory incomprehensibility theories, but understood they only applied to dogs.
[bad jim] Pre-existential facial characterization is just a hobby for me.
[xenzag] thank you, however, I like to stand alone in the crowd, dials or not.
[bigsleep] the more bullocks I talk, the less people will understand, I think that was quite muddled, unless it got jammed. (checking soon, will cross)
[dent] superleen tartary pouring skillwirsky
[teenthly] I'm putting it on craigslist next.
[poc] maximally accurate hypothesisation of causal reasoning of distally obfusticated titling arrangement.
[bubba] Wow.
[hippo] yes, that's why I'm here.
[jimbob] thank you for the interesting link.
[Drbob] I thought larry niven and the writer of alienvspredator both did a pretty good job with the jabberwocky and the "furious bandersnatch" This is somewhat like the prose I enjoy writing, but my syntax is more symbolic and purposefully confusing. |
|
| |
The return key is just so passe these days, don't you find? |
|
| |
***smiling inwardly***My response was the most incomprehensible***s.i.*** |
|
| |
//was// - because you have let slip its significance, hahaha |
|
| |
. thgirottfelgnipytdna rabecapsehtsisa |
|
| |
my super cypher! Can you crack it? It's something I came up with so my classmates and I could pass notes without fear of being understood when they would inevitably be confiscated. |
|
| |
KO XIN WUG YEX WEZ OLX WAO WCE JWO QBZ! |
|
| |
here's a bigger sample - anyone who cracks it gets auto-bun for life... (I had to take the hyphens out due to word length restrictions) |
|
| |
The subject is contextualised into a capitalist posttextual theory that includes art as a paradox. But several dedeconstructivisms concerning predialectic nationalism may be discovered. See link. |
|
| |
I'm going to try this theory with [beanangel] and see what happens. Wish me luck. |
|
| |
[IT], I did that. (I also updated the link but kept your title
and description.) Was I supposed to
be confused by what I read? |
|
| |
Also, why do I seem to stumble upon so many ideas that
have been untouched for ten years less a few days to a few
months? |
|
| |
8 billion tenths of a meter, so 800 megameters. |
|
| |
(Though that reminds me: one of the most surprisingly
useful unit conversion factors I know off the top of my head
is that 1 astronomical unit is almost exactly 150
gigameters.) |
|
| |