Talk:Buttered cat paradox

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Citation for the claim that toast is an inanimate object?

Are we sure that toast is both inanimate, and lacks the desire to right itself? 2600:1700:2EE0:2DD0:D1FF:EE36:EDAF:9F53 (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm also sure that anyone who believes that toast does have desires is a moron. Please read the previous discussions on this. SpinningSpark 09:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The statement clearly isn't required, and seems to be kept mostly for humour. A less strident response would be more in line with this desire. You catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar. (Hohum ^@) 09:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right that I did not need to be rude, and I apologise. You are not right that the statement is not necessary. If we are going to have an "in reality" section, this is needed because it is the central reason why the idea is fallacious, along with more general adages such as Murphy's law, Sod's law, and the Malice of inanimate objects. I am just so tired of people raising this on the talk page or slapping a citation needed tag on it as if it were actually a suspect claim. That is just useless, time-wasting, make-work. It is the end result of the Wikipedia little blue number disease whereby some editors think that every single scrap of text must have an inline citation. It doesn't. Further, it doesn't by policy. There comes a point when we just have to start resisting this trend, and that point is reached by utterly silly requests to cite this claim. Not that it can't be cited, Richard Dawkins in his book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True says exactly that. But we are not going to put it in as a cite because it has been repeatedly agreed on these talk pages that it is neither necessary nor desirable to have cites like this. SpinningSpark 15:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Beg to differ with revert. If you look up nearly any reference to pareidolia, toast is mentioned as inanimate.

[1]

"In 2004, an online casino bought a toasted cheese sandwich for $28,000 from Diane Duyser, bearing the face of a woman. Duyser said she was taking a bite from the toast when she noticed a face in her toast staring back at her, which is a bit scary.

Duyser's sandwich is just one of the many things when people often see faces in everyday objects, from a surprised bowling ball to a grimacing apple. Some would also claim that they see Jesus on their toast, taco, and pancake or even on a banana peel just as how Dursey saw a woman on hers.

Seeing faces in inanimate objects is called the face pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon that relates to how the human brain is primed. " Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wakelamp is referring to this more recent deletion which post-dates, and is unconnected with, the earlier discussion here from July. Extracting from the source's statement that people see faces in toast, that toast is inanimate is the epitome of WP:SYNTH. Read the guideline, we don't do that here. It is not for me to "look up nearly any reference to pareidolia", the issue is that the source you put in the article does not say that. Besides which, as I said above, Richard Dawkins provides a much better citation that is directly on the subject of falling toast. It's never been used because the overwhelming consensus from the ten zillion discussions we've had on this is that no citation is needed at all. So even if you do find a good citation, it will likely still be reverted by someone. SpinningSpark 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Spinningspark Possibly "Read the guideline, we don't do that here." is a bit harsh for a discussion about buttered toast and cats, but I assure you I am not at a barbarians at the gates of WP:SYNTH.

However, "toast, being an inanimate object, lacks both the ability and the desire to right itself" is also WP:SYNTH as there is definitely an implied thence and a few syllogisms going on,

Inanimate objects do not have the ability move

Toast is is an animate object

=> Toast does not move

Inanimate objects do not desires

Toast is is an inanimate object

=> Toast does not have the desure

The turning cat acutually does not have a desire, but has a need as the movement is a necessary for survival. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it sufficient to say that because I think someone is a moron for believing something, that a counter-claim is forbidden? I believe there cannot be life so small I cannot see it with my eyes, only a moron would think so, therefore a claim saying such life exists is not necessary. I believe there cannot life inside the radioactive parts of a nuclear power plant, inside the ice of the Antarctic or inside rocks; anyone making such a claim is a moron. Or I may be wrong.

It might be a joke that toast lands buttered side down because the world hates us, but there is no harm in testing that theory. We might just discover that smaller or larger slices stop it happening (they do), living on a body with greater or weaker gravity or with a different atmosphere could prevent it (it could). What about rectangular crispbreads: does the orientation of fall make a difference (and might that result in learning something about evacuating bed-bound people from hospitals)? Research has been done into prayer to see if it works - imagine if that had proven prayer does work, as so many people believe it does. Just because I don't expect it to work does not make testing it invalid. Do nuns and murderers have the same toast falling experience? How about charity volunteers and traffic wardens?

Yes, in this specific instance, specifically about buttered toast and its evil tendency to turn 180° at will really does warrant research because so many lay people think, or wish, or imagine it might be the case, morons or not. Just because by observation the sun is going round the Earth, does not make it so, and a quick check might be in order, just in case.

Hence I think, just this time, a 'citation needed' is appropriate. There is clearly a need for someone to check, just in case, that buttered toast really has no free will and no self-righting desire, even if just to get it published in the Annals of Improbable Research. Humanity needs to know. And philosophy needs to know too, to expand the meaning of 'inanimate'. Just in case. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note: An editor added a "cleanup" tag to this article, on the basis that it was assertedly 'dripping with satire'. I have removed the tag based on the previous discussions and consensus that the tone of the article is appropriate for the subject. BD2412 T 03:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BD2412 I think it is dripping with satire, and may also be a trap for the unwary as citation required, but no citation is deemed acceptable.

  Thinly veiled Ad hominem arguments about morons don't help the case. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, is there any other sentence in the article besides the one about toast being inanimate that is "dripping with satire"? It seems odd to label an entire article as needing cleanup on that point over a single sentence, so I would like to know what other points cited in the article are objectionable. As for toast being inanimate and therefore lacking an ability or desire to act, I have now added a reference for the general proposition that inanimate objects do not have desires. BD2412 T 14:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the whole section titled "In reality" has the same issue, although a "tone" tag may be more appropriate than a cleanup tag. Honestly though, if you don't know what I'm talking about here I'm somewhat at a loss to explain it to you.

  If there have been a variety of previous discussions on this topic, perhaps the "consensus" that there's nothing wrong with the article doesn't actually exist? this sounds like the kind of situation that results when the majority of editors think the article is unserious, but most of them don't want to bother with a content dispute. - car chasm (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Have we lost sight of the fact that this is supposed to be funny (call it satire if you wish)? That it does not try to suggest that any of the physical properties of toast are realistically described? If we want to split hairs (and thereby defeat the purpose of the humor), we could challenge whether buttered toast might actually have physical properties that could make it more likely that the buttered side will become oriented with the butter side down. That would not require any anthropomorphological assumptions about toast having a "desire". So should we expand the "In reality" section to include more detailed scientific analysis from physicists? Sundayclose (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

perhaps, well, I don't know, if the article is supposed to be funny, perhaps maybe it doesn't belong in article space? - car chasm (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, though, I'm not *really* on a crusade to stop people from being funny on the internet, so if enough people feel strongly about this and want to keep it, I don't really feel the need to pursue this any further. - car chasm (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The article itself is not supposed to be funny. The paradox is supposed to be funny. We can write articles about funny concepts. Sundayclose (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Further to that, it is fairly difficult to write a serious article in a clinical way about a humorous phenomenon without sounding overly earnest. Compare How much wood would a woodchuck chuck and Chicken or the egg. BD2412 T 23:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Buttered Cat Paradox

The Buttered Cat Paradox piques our interest with an odd mental image of a buttered bread, its golden side shining, perched on a cat’s nimble back. This amusing conjecture raises an intriguing question: when this cat performer jumps, will it land quickly or will it turn the toast butter side down to defy gravity?

Table of Contents

The Physics Behind the Quirk

Deciphering the Physics Play-by-Play

This paradox combines Newtonian principles of motion with the reflexive landing instinct of cats. Imagine the gravitational dance between the infamous “always land butter-side down” toast-falling lore and the cat’s natural tendency to land on its feet.

NLP’s Role in Unraveling Linguistic Riddles

Navigating Linguistic Complexity with NLP

Natural Language Processing (NLP) serves as our guide in unraveling the linguistic web of this paradox. By parsing linguistic intricacies and contextual cues, NLP aids in understanding how this paradoxical scenario challenges conventional comprehension.

Demystifying Misconceptions and Unveiling Realities

Beyond Gravity: Influencing Factors in Freefall

This paradox is a web of influencing elements that goes beyond simple gravity and reflexes, despite its comical facade. The final result of this bizarre circumstance is shaped by a confluence of forces.

Key Influencers at Play:

Air Resistance: A silent force shaping the descent of the cat-toast duo, altering their angular velocity mid-fall.

Angular Momentum Conservation: Governing the rotation of the combined system as it plummets gracefully.

Feline Reflexes: The agile cat’s ability to adjust its position mid-air, a significant determinant of the final landing.

The Intellectual Lure and Amusing Quandary

Stimulating Intellectual Inquiry through Playfulness

The Buttered Cat Paradox isn’t merely whimsy; it’s a gateway to deeper intellectual exploration. It nudges us to contemplate the complexities of physics while tickling our funny bones with its delightful absurdity.

Conclusion

In summary, the Buttered Cat Paradox blends linguistic curiosity with scientific concepts in a playful way. Our cognitive journey is enhanced when we recognise the physical basis of language and the significance of NLP in deciphering linguistic anomalies. Hassangujjar123 (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)