Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo






runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

Poll results (voting closed)
All Items Manually (no tools) Detachable from each other are Objects
2 votes
 
 29%
Only Contextual item-pieces already apart at Event are Objects alone
1 votes
 
 14%
An Object is Contextual.. Shoelaces go with shoe
0 votes
 
 0%
If you tore a shoe apart in the Room, all it´s pieces would become Objects
4 votes
 
 57%
Total: 7 voters.  Total votes: 7.  Max items per vote allowed: 1.
 
Cattrina Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered Collector

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 1449
Reply | Quote
Theory on How to Define what is an Object


Hey there, I am Cattrina

Since I saw my first episode last thursday (I live in Finland) I had to download the whole series from internet, and it got me hooked!

But ONE THING about the Object theory bothers me:

"How does one define what is an Object and what is not?"

Let me expline a bit:

There are several debates over whether Cigarettes, all of them are an Object each--- or is the Cigarette case with the cigarets the Object

And is the Soap and Soap Wrapping separate Objects? One could gather those two are shown separate in the show.


My theory is this:

"An item is an Object if it was physically apart from it´s contextuals during the event"

That would mean a soap and wrapper to be separate Objects because the soap was unwrapped just before the Event.

A shoelace would not be separate from the shoe, unless the Occupant WAS replacing the laces during the Event

And why are the shoe, the shirt and the Coat Objects? They were WORN therefore attached to the Occupant...
well the Occupant is a LIVING thing so I would be so bold to claim that items WORN can not be merged together with flesh.

But that does not answer why the cufflinks and coat and shirt did not merge together... perhaps we should think items "worn" during the Event just are not able to merge together at all.

Therefore it leaves two questions:
Were the cigarettes inside the case during the Event?
and
"What if one removes a cigarette, a shoelace or a card from deck of cards... does that A ) act as an individual Object B ) It would be considered destroying an Object, therefore not possible to remove parts of an "item" C ) If done inside the Room it would then become the destruction of the Object, if parts of it were taken outside the Room---therefore a new equivalent Object would be created/ only the rest of the "Item" would remain with powers


With this interesting theory, It would seem all items attached (aka fastened) to the Room would be parts of the Room... like the mirror, the TV the phone the curtains and the sink... and not Objects with powers when separated from the Room.


My POLL is: How would you define an Object?

1) All Items Manually (no tools) Detachable from each other are Objects
That means the consept of the shoelace & Cigarettes all to be separate Objects, as you need not much effort to remove them without tools
That would also mean the zipper on the pants to be one Object with the Pants as you need a tool to rip it of... eh person with common strenght that is

2) Only Contextual item-pieces already apart at Event are Objects alone
That would be a Cigarette case with Cigarettes is an Object together (if the cigarettes were not scattered about that is)
That would also mean if the Deck of Cards were in their casing they would be an Object only together.... and how about the Watch Case? Why would the Occupant travel with the box?

3) An Object is Contextual.. Shoelaces go with shoe
Shoelace is one with shoe, because a shoe would be useless without laces, however a cigarette case would be separate from the cigars whetherless they were inside the case or not during Event, as you use the cigarettes without the case... same goes with soap, playing cards and the coins
However that would make an interesting dilemma with cufflinks... as you need a shirt to use them...

4) If you tore a shoe apart in the Room, all it´s pieces would become Objects
There are parts in shoe... if a shoelace is separate Object alone, why not remove ribbits, sole and heel from the shoe inside the Room and have that many more Objects??? This would be also your Matrix answer: "There is no Spoon"


I go for answer 2

---

Collector's Forum Hyperlink List TLR FACTS&FAQ
11/17/2008, 12:05 pm Link to this post Send Email to Cattrina   Send PM to Cattrina
 
Chucklbunny Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Founder & Administrator

Registered: 06-2007
Location: Room 10 at The Sunshine Motel
Posts: 3047
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


Hey cattrina !

           I saw that post over at the Sci-Fi lost room forum.....and I was going to answer there until I saw the same poll here.

Great question........I voted for # 4 and here's why...in the Room all Objects are normal again..I.E. no powers.

if you opened the pack of cigarrettes in the room then you would now have 20 more Objects of unknown power once you left the room. the same goes with the shoelaces which are not hardbound to the shoes...one could easily remove them outside the room for they are not bound to the shoes...they simply ride in the lace holes unlike the pack of cigarrettes which are still in the clear cellophane wrapper which is indestructable outside of the room hence they are bound to the pack unless opened in the room.

Glad you found us ! I hope you like our lil cabal !!

keep up the questions....we love em !!


Chuckles emoticon







Last edited by Chucklbunny, 11/17/2008, 12:23 pm


---
Chucklbunny - OA, RMC

The Founder of The Collectors


11/17/2008, 12:23 pm Link to this post Send Email to Chucklbunny   Send PM to Chucklbunny Blog
 
Cattrina Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered Collector

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 1449
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


Thanks for answering emoticon I just went through the Q&A thread and THAT just gives me more ideas *laughs*

Well, I would like to point you towards the 1) choise too

compare that to the 4) if you please emoticon


and thank you fro the answers on Sci Fi forum... was not sure if it was still active... meaning could not find a resent enough post from a True Collector in there... and found my way here!! I think it was a link on Chukls's signature.. so I figured here it to be faster to get any answers.


I am a RolePlayer and I got this Grand Idea about running an RPG campaign with this theme... kinda a way of collecting item descriptions and ideas for it here... try to make the campaign as accurate I can... but might include few Objects my own.... as many things need to be tied together for my Players... RPG being a good media to do a little "Fan Fiction" if you will. emoticon

Last edited by Cattrina, 11/17/2008, 3:36 pm


---

Collector's Forum Hyperlink List TLR FACTS&FAQ
11/17/2008, 3:20 pm Link to this post Send Email to Cattrina   Send PM to Cattrina
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

The Prophet & Moderator

Registered: 06-2007
Posts: 5959
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


Hi Cattrina,

I voted for number 4. In my opinion, it is the only really universal model for an object. If there are any contextual issues, then we get wrapped up in problems of meaning.

I have a theory that explains how this could work:

Cleister Anomaly

Since, in my theory, an object represents a region of Eddie’s mind, a part of an object would simply represent a smaller region.
11/17/2008, 9:21 pm Link to this post Send Email to Spikosauropod   Send PM to Spikosauropod
 
peerkoel Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered Collector

Registered: 07-2008
Posts: 68
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


I voted #1, because if you destroy the shoe in The Room, the conservation of objects rule will pick a new Object.

---
"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."
11/21/2008, 3:40 pm Link to this post Send Email to peerkoel   Send PM to peerkoel
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

The Prophet & Moderator

Registered: 06-2007
Posts: 5959
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


quote:

peerkoel wrote:

I voted #1, because if you destroy the shoe in The Room, the conservation of objects rule will pick a new Object.


Good point. I completely omitted CO from my thinking.
11/21/2008, 4:42 pm Link to this post Send Email to Spikosauropod   Send PM to Spikosauropod
 
Cattrina Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered Collector

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 1449
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


Good thinking Peer, that one eluded me... you are right... basicly that would mean choice number 4 is not valid at all....

---

Collector's Forum Hyperlink List TLR FACTS&FAQ
1/6/2009, 1:12 pm Link to this post Send Email to Cattrina   Send PM to Cattrina
 
Ghinius Sahalin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered Collector

Registered: 08-2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 579
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


Well from my point of view an object is defiantly something that was in the room at the time of the event. Now for someone to tell me the water in room 10 is an object doesn't seem right to me. To me its something the objects are creating like the pencil makes pennies. The Pennies it makes are not objects, just like it the pen could right and the pencil could write the graphite or ink is not an object it is something the objects created that are not objects in them self's. Like God (pencil) created man (pennies), man is not a god because God created man.

But it is true sometimes things can get convoluted for example what about the carpet in room 10. My view is something that isn't suppose to be removed from the room like the sink, or the built in mirror/medicine cabinet, light switches and plates, the shelf the TV sits on, The lights in the room. All those things are part of the room. As if you just finished making the room but haven't furnished it.

So all the other objects like the curtains and the hangers and the bed and the dresser and so forth are objects.

But then a new criteria has to be created for objects in them self's. now we know the legion had the shoes separate from the lace. so there is a certain point at witch an object can be broken down and have powers. But we do not know if it is possible to take apart the pen without it being in the room. Or if the watch can be taken apart. However when objects are combined we know they have new unique powers. So it might be to say that objects while separated have lesser powers unto them self's. But gain powers that are of greater consequence as they are reunited. So it might just be that you can take apart the pen and have 7-9 new object. But they might not have any determinable powers. Its like a factory. There is an assembly line, in this line say a car is being created. But if you take the different sections and separate them they now are not functioning to make a car. If i separate the people who make the radiators for the cars and move them to another building i don't have a car manufacture anymore i have a radiator plant now.

So, when the pen is put together it might be like having a full car making. but in there separate components they might just be producing something that isn't useful without the next section to go off there work. However this can be seen also in the big picture. Say in actuality the pen its self it the radiator manufacturer. and it needs to joined with other objects to make something more.

So we can think of the objects as a community that wants to get back together to create whatever they were intended to do. While separate they still perform their individual function and when brought together they make the next step on the assembly line.

---
"All that matters, is the price. That's what nobody gets. There’s always a price to pay, for using the objects. Weather you know it or not, There's always, a price."
1/6/2009, 6:13 pm Link to this post Send Email to Ghinius Sahalin   Send PM to Ghinius Sahalin AIM MSN Yahoo
 
RootbeerJunkie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered Collector

Registered: 01-2009
Posts: 4
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


i don't think we can assume that the shoelaces were separated from the shoe by the Legion, it very well could be that the Occupant was just about to polish his black shoes with his brown shoe polish and took the laces out to do so when *WHAM* the Event! happened.
at least that is what i figured, they were separate to start with.
1/7/2009, 12:01 am Link to this post Send Email to RootbeerJunkie   Send PM to RootbeerJunkie
 
Ghinius Sahalin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered Collector

Registered: 08-2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 579
Reply | Quote
Re: Theory on How to Define what is an Object


Well if you look when Joe is looking around the motel room with the Polaroid you can see the shoes on the occupant with lace. but i would think a large organization like the legion wouldn't get such wrong information about the classification of an object. Seeing how they are out there to find them.

---
"All that matters, is the price. That's what nobody gets. There’s always a price to pay, for using the objects. Weather you know it or not, There's always, a price."
1/7/2009, 4:39 pm Link to this post Send Email to Ghinius Sahalin   Send PM to Ghinius Sahalin AIM MSN Yahoo
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)

The Collectors is a cabal of fans of the SciFi series "The Lost Room" who want you to join our cause
and search for The Objects, discuss the series and show off your own collection plus help others
with their collection and remember....... some forums are better left closed.