Harry took all the silver emotion that fueled his Patronus Charm and shoved it at the Dementor; and expected Death’s shadow to flee from him -
-and as Harry did that, he flung his hands up and shouted “BOO!”
The void retreated sharply away from Harry until it came up against the dark stone behind.
In the hall there was a deathly silence.
...And to everyone but Harry, that deathly silence seemed to say “Please do not punish this one, my Dark Liege!”
Harry turned his back on the empty void, and had a moment to wonder why Dumbledore and Lucius were making such odd faces before the Aurors acted on reflex.
(I guess Dementors aren’t that smart.)
Secondly, I noticed that Harry’s first Transfiguration lesson includes a photograph of a Dementor. What would that look like? What does Harry see, compared to everyone else? Why was he asking all the other students what they saw in the Patronus lesson without ever once thinking of that photograph?
That seems like it must be it, but it still doesn’t make much sense. Page 5 has a woman with horribly discolored skin screaming in agony, page 6 has… a guy in a cloak! Oh no!
So add some sort of minor fear charm to that page of the textbook. Wizards aren’t limited to paper and ink in their tools at conveying information to an audience.
Ah, but Harry doesn’t intend to kill Dementors in particular, he aims to eradicate death itself (destroying them indirectly) and he is NOT confident that he will accomplish that in his lifetime. A Dementor that pisses off Harry dies immediately, while a Dementor that doesn’t will only die if Harry lives long enough to succeed.
I doubt Dementors have a proper understanding of just how much Harry hates them. Also, I suspect that delaying the inevitable is a pretty universal reaction of intelligent creatures—you never know, the horse might learn to sing.
Are you familiar with the story I was referencing?
The king had a favorite horse that he loved very much. It was a beautiful and very smart stallion, and the king had taught it all kinds of tricks. The king would ride the horse almost every day, and frequently parade it and show off its tricks to his guards.
A prisoner who was scheduled to be executed soon saw the king with his horse through his cell window and decided to send the king a message. The message said, “Your Royal Highness, if you will spare my life, and let me spend an hour each day with your favorite horse for a year, I will teach your horse to sing.”
The king was amused by the offer and granted the request. So, each day the prisoner would be taken from his cell to the horse’s paddock, and he would sing to the horse “La-la-la-la” and would feed the horse sugar and carrots and oats, and the horse would neigh. And, all the guards would laugh at him for being so foolish.
One day, one of the guards, who had become somewhat friendly with the prisoner, asked him, “Why do you do such a foolish thing every day singing to the horse, and letting everyone laugh at you? You know you can’t teach a horse to sing. The year will pass, the horse will not sing, and the king will execute you.”
The prisoner replied, “A year is a long time. Anything can happen. In a year the king may die. Or I may die. Or the horse may die. And if that fails, who knows? The horse may learn to sing. ”
Delaying the inevitable is actually a perfectly rational thing to do.
Are you familiar with the story I was referencing?
I’ve heard it, it’s cute and has a sometimes applicable moral. But my response is to the universal generalization across all intelligent creatures in all circumstances. Are you familiar with the “Mind Projection Fallacy” I linked to?
I haven’t heard the phrase, but it’s a pretty obvious concept to anyone who’s read sci-fi. My point is that delaying the inevitable is an actual strategy, and one that has good reason to exist, whatever the type of intelligence. Unless you’re literally prescient, playing for higher variance in a bad situation makes good sense.
The Dementor can try to undercut Harry now, and die for it, or it can play for time, hope he stumbles on another obstacle, and perhaps survive. The latter seems saner to me, assuming that Dementors are not overflowing with empathy for their bretheren(or that they’re simply lacking in plotting ability). Which part of this is goalpost-moving?
Exception to general claims countered by more proof for specific claims (which are trivial and not denied.)
For instance I still maintain this:
You don’t generally accomplish that by antagonizing the one guy who can kill you.
Unless they already plan to kill you, in which case antagonizing them can potentially reduce their threat.
Yet clearly would not apply it in the specific case where a dementor is guarunteed to fail in the short term. ie. When their threat reamains at 100% and has not been reduced.
I would guess it’s pretty universal in non-superintelligent but still intelligent creatures, because it does work to a point. A non-superintelligent creature is unable to reliably foresee the future, and what seems “inevitable” right now often is not (because of external events, or because of a solution found later on). So, delaying something that seems inevitable will sometimes end up in finding a way to counter it.
So, Dementors Part Deux.
First, because someone had to say it:
(I guess Dementors aren’t that smart.)
Secondly, I noticed that Harry’s first Transfiguration lesson includes a photograph of a Dementor. What would that look like? What does Harry see, compared to everyone else? Why was he asking all the other students what they saw in the Patronus lesson without ever once thinking of that photograph?
Probably just a cloaked and hooded figure.
Next you’ll be wondering why the robes in the picture don’t decay.
That seems like it must be it, but it still doesn’t make much sense. Page 5 has a woman with horribly discolored skin screaming in agony, page 6 has… a guy in a cloak! Oh no!
Ministry-issued textbooks might not have the best dramatic pacing.
The kids know what’s in the cloak.
So add some sort of minor fear charm to that page of the textbook. Wizards aren’t limited to paper and ink in their tools at conveying information to an audience.
It does seem to be a missed opportunity for continuity.
The Dementor’s goal was to not die. You don’t generally accomplish that by antagonizing the one guy who can kill you.
Unless they already plan to kill you, in which case antagonizing them can potentially reduce their threat.
Ah, but Harry doesn’t intend to kill Dementors in particular, he aims to eradicate death itself (destroying them indirectly) and he is NOT confident that he will accomplish that in his lifetime. A Dementor that pisses off Harry dies immediately, while a Dementor that doesn’t will only die if Harry lives long enough to succeed.
I doubt Dementors have a proper understanding of just how much Harry hates them. Also, I suspect that delaying the inevitable is a pretty universal reaction of intelligent creatures—you never know, the horse might learn to sing.
Or at least it could be a universal reaction of intelligent mammals.
Are you familiar with the story I was referencing?
Delaying the inevitable is actually a perfectly rational thing to do.
I’ve heard it, it’s cute and has a sometimes applicable moral. But my response is to the universal generalization across all intelligent creatures in all circumstances. Are you familiar with the “Mind Projection Fallacy” I linked to?
I haven’t heard the phrase, but it’s a pretty obvious concept to anyone who’s read sci-fi. My point is that delaying the inevitable is an actual strategy, and one that has good reason to exist, whatever the type of intelligence. Unless you’re literally prescient, playing for higher variance in a bad situation makes good sense.
The goalposts seem to have moved irrecoverably.
The Dementor can try to undercut Harry now, and die for it, or it can play for time, hope he stumbles on another obstacle, and perhaps survive. The latter seems saner to me, assuming that Dementors are not overflowing with empathy for their bretheren(or that they’re simply lacking in plotting ability). Which part of this is goalpost-moving?
Exception to general claims countered by more proof for specific claims (which are trivial and not denied.)
For instance I still maintain this:
Yet clearly would not apply it in the specific case where a dementor is guarunteed to fail in the short term. ie. When their threat reamains at 100% and has not been reduced.
I would guess it’s pretty universal in non-superintelligent but still intelligent creatures, because it does work to a point. A non-superintelligent creature is unable to reliably foresee the future, and what seems “inevitable” right now often is not (because of external events, or because of a solution found later on). So, delaying something that seems inevitable will sometimes end up in finding a way to counter it.