> far from the central finite curve of human experience

Do you mean anything in particular for this, or are you appropriating a TV show phrase to mean "unusual"?

(Just pointing out that the 'central finite curve' is something that has meaning to Ricks but isn't really a stand in for 'usual' in any meaningful sense in the context of the TV show -- I'd hate for what's potentially a cool sci-fi idea to turn into a euphemism for "the shell of a high dimensional normal distribution".)

I don't know about the OP specifically, but I generally dislike that sort of writing. It uses underspecified concepts in an attempt to sound smart, but all it does is fail to convey much meaning.

Whenever I come across it, I think "this person wanted to say something smarter than they could, so they dressed it up in smart-speak".

Turgid prose

Great word.

Saving the next person who also didn’t know what turgid meant a Google search:

Turgid (adjective) - swollen and distended or congested - (of language or style) tediously pompous or bombastic

"Purple prose" is also a commonly cited related concept.

> It uses underspecified concepts in an attempt to sound smart, but all it does is fail to convey much meaning.

That sounds like it conveyed the meaning perfectly: they wanted to present an idea that struck you as smart, but which you didn't understand -- we're meant to see the show as Morty, not Rick. So we just get a Rick-ism that clearly has some structure to how the Ricks are organized (which the Ricks understand), but which doesn't immediately mean anything more to us. Rick and Morty isn't a science lecture -- we should expect narrative language, not scientific language.

It suggests that the Ricks are organized around some central, finite core of Rick-ness that we don't know about (notice that they have worse lives as they acquire letter variations on their curve numbers, eg TV personalities on the citadel). That's the point -- they don't want to get into a detail physics argument about it, but frame a (later revealed) structure among the Ricks.

I just don't think we should assume that structure is the shell of a normal distribution instead of something Fry-esque (ie, I'm-my-own-grandfather shit) -- we should leave them the room to insert whatever structure fits narrative-wise when we get to the point that makes sense in the story.

My personal philosophy sees no difference between an "unusual" branching and what Rick ultimately is referring to.

I'm happy you noticed my reference there, and give you full liberty to feel any which way you may about it.

My point is that retard Rick could be the "central finite curve", and the other Ricks just hate the fact so much they made up a euphemism for him but don't kill him out of a fear of destabilizing the system of Ricks.

We don't really know what it is at the core, and so these girls could very well be the human "central finite curve", and not "off" it in any sense.

I was suggesting we not project our biases onto things like "central finite curve", eg that it's a curve which embodies "normalcy", until we see what role they actually play in the story.

I agree 100% with you. We each have our own "central finite curve", and we bend it by working with novelty.

> I applaud Mother Nature for spitting on our idea of limited identity

The true mother nature's plan was probably killing the mother and both girls at birth time. I would thank the obstetrician at charge and his/her team instead.

Flip side of that is Mother Nature also made the doctors who made it possible for them to live. We can’t view the doctors as some outside force.

By that logic all technology is "natural" and there is no distinction between the inventions of man and the creations of nature/god. Such logic sidelines self reflection, leading to horrible places.

No, it just means that self reflection must be based on something other than an arbitrary and meaningless distinction between things that existed before humanity and things that existed after humanity.

So climate change is a natural phenomenon under that interpretation?

If we see ourselves as part of nature, but with a unique ability to impact more of nature than most other forces within nature, I think we would have a greater imperative to rectify mistakes we have made, vs seeing issues like climate change as mostly impact “others.”

If you ever get the chance, I recommend the book Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn.

Thanks - I'll check it out!

It's a philosophical work about leavers and takers and what is the nature of both nature and humans, as well as their role in it. It's told from the perspective of a man taking instruction from a speaking ape.

It is something I've read many times and get something new every time I read it. Given the context of this thread, I'm not sure I could recommend a more salient book.

All evidence and theories point to climate change being caused by humans. This interpretation does nothing to change that conclusion. My view is that it is an entirely useless distinction to make. If climate change were instead caused by natural sources of carbon dioxide, it would be no less a crisis, and would require no less of an intervention.

Only if you derive your morals in a nature good/synthetic bad frame, which is terribly naive. Nature is filled with awful things and awful acts.

Self-reflexion is the ultimate unnatural act which is (almost if not) completely unique to our species, and it's not to hard to argue not entirely ubiquitous within us.

It's intriguing that this can lead to a conversation on existentialism.