"I dont know much about GMOS, but I agree with what you said: "GMOs should not be fed to people until we fully understand what the 'non-coding' regions do"...
Also, I think that we shouldn't be close minded about the…"
I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
The value of fiction
So here's an interesting topic for discussion.
In science we usually take what we call a positivist' stance. In short this means that we "stick to the facts". So we only assume that for which we have evidence. A common criticism on this Theory of Knowledge is that this would imply knowledge of fiction is in fact not knowledge ( at least in the scientific sense).
The Reason why I'm brining this up is that aside from it's scientific validity, fiction has had great impact on society. Think about a novel such as 1984 or a play such as Oedipus. So my question to all you out there, is to what extend do you think fiction is valid knowledge and in what context should or shouldn't we use this knowledge?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by The Shiznit on -
Interesting question. I would have to say that knowledge of fictional stories and ideas counts as "true knowledge," and that it is also beneficial. I know that I have personally been heavily influenced by fictional books and movies, like 1984, Star Trek shows, The Matrix, and thousands of others... and that they have all caused me to expand the horizons in my mind, so to speak. Aside from occasionally causing me to ask some hard moral and philosophical questions of myself, they have also fed my repertoire of creativity and humor. The writers of the early Star Trek shows, for example, often used their stories to highlight social and cultural issues and allowed people to see those issues {and their own values & beliefs} in a different light. So while some of the science in those shows {like the transporters} may have been weak, or even impossible, they still had a profound impact on us all.
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony D on -
though a quaint statement, it is neither a response or an addition to the question of whether it is valid knowledge. I could state that fluffy dice enhance a car, but that wouldn't answer the question whether fluffy dice are a valid part of the car.
In short you are right in stating fiction has value for reality, but that's not quite the same as it being knowledge. In the end a lie has value as well, doesn't mean it's valid knowledge.
The question i would like to emphasize is what part of fiction can be considered knowledge (or is it just every part of it)?
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on -
okay; then how about-
reality enhances dreams; enhances creative thinking; enhances creative output in reality.
Knowledge is based on creativity, sure. Creativity is creating something from what was previously just a bunch of unarranged symbols. There was a sci-fi book/comic from the 70s or something which I heard inspired both Blade Runner and Star Wars. That is a valid example (true or not) that creativity in the brain creates things which then become franchises which then eventually materialize in modern culture as knowledge *about that new thing*.
Sure, fiction can be seen as knowledge too. I can hold fictional worlds in my head and that's cool. Knowledge is defined as "whatever information is meaningful" as far as I know..
Any part of fiction is knowledge, I guess. It only becomes "merely data" if it's not practical for use, ever. Our brains self-regulate, effectively, in terms of what memory we keep. So you tell me: is arbitrary facts I know about the world more valuable than knowing what strategy to use to play Skyrim or another RPG? What we know- knowledge.. pretty sure it's the same thing whether it's 'true in reality' or not. People think things without being able to verify them- hell, facts themselves don't technically exist in terms of reality! Whether the sky is unreachable or whether grass can be wet- these are dependent on other humans experiencing them the same. (continuity / consistency)
I mentioned that individual bias here-
http://sanity-death.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/time-and-individualism-e...
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony D on
-
You make an interesting case, noting that as fiction is stored information (within the brain) it must therefore be knowledge.
i do have a critical question to that statement - can you truly say that all information coded into the brain is knowledge? For example, the cerebellum (below the occipital cortex and dorsal to the brain stem) is responsible for coordination and timing. it is not something we are aware of, nor can we turn it into declarative knowledge. plus it's too adaptive to be called procedural knowledge (such as the ability to walk or to read). another issue is emotion. it is (so to speak) hard-wired into the brain; yet calling it a form of knowledge would be incorrect. it is simply a state the mind assumes.
I bring up these issues because the major premise of your argument is that all information stored in the brain is knowledge.
secondly I would also like to bring up the concepts of transferable knowledge. You could consider that fiction is a form of knowledge, but is it transferable? Or do we consider each reaction to fiction unique to the individual?
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on
-
When we create knowledge / understanding of the world around us (in one of my blog posts on existence I use the example of moving your arm, and how that comes about) we are building on top of the very specialize/specific functions (conscious OR subconscious) of our brains. So, I would say that yes, that brain function that controls timing is an evolved/emerged effective piece of intelligence and also it then is seen, effectively, as what our knowledge is built on.. bear in mind of course knowledge is a human concept intended for describing our human experience reality (and not the "physical reality" itself and how the mind works). So, we don't have word constructs for these things like "partial [effectively] piece of knowledge" or "partial intelligence".. When I analyze this stuff I am going over how the brain is, as a biological organism, refined to produce survival mechanisms.. this is all part of the same thing: constructing a being which can form opinions and memories and a self etc etc
there was another video (I got it from here maybe?) but the guy in this video describes what I'm trying to say is my method for looking at it.. basically objectifying the entire species evolution to draw conclusions about how intelligence and knowledge works. It's something really interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2DeTet98o>yet calling it a form of knowledge would be incorrect, it is simply a state the mind assumes.
It's both. We are both sacks of meat and bones and yet we are intelligent. The frame of reference is what determines what you can say. But you can of course use any frame of reference to describe something. I can call grass a green plant, but that doesn't stop me calling it a bunch of atoms or a food..!
With the human mind and human meaning this becomes particularly apparent, as our entire world breaks down with a scientific or objective lens. It can be very shocking. This is what Ron Paul recently in a speech would be referring to in saying "(we have the freedom whether or not to explore) dangerous philosophies"
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on
-
>yet calling it a form of knowledge would be incorrect, it is simply a state the mind assumes.
>I bring up this issue because the major premise of your argument is that all information stored in the brain is knowledge.
Oh, no, it's knowledge but that is what it *effectively* becomes, *however*.. it's still, in terms of physical reality, "just" an arrangement of atoms or matter. If you really want to get technical, as I said, facts don't exist in reality. They are all, technically, imaginary pieces of information which are "just" synaptic connections in the brain. That's why it's so simple for someone to die: no synaptic activity = no life. I'm saying it's knowledge (in a human meaning context) and it's also "just" synaptic activity or what have you. Every human being has a unique "copy" of everything they know. Descriptions, in synaptic connection form, of how to describe what a box is or what the sun is or the colour pink or what a graph is. But, of course, it has to be built.. because knowledge, as we know, is subjective. AIs can create a definition of what the colour pink is but it would depend on the lens.. (*subjective*)
>secondly I would also like to bring up the concepts of transferable knowledge. You could consider that fiction is a form of knowledge, but is it transferable? Or do we consider each reaction to fiction unique to the individual?
All knowledge is subjective so to transfer a concept or knowledge isn't very easy.
http://ipowerproject.com/forum/topics/how-talking-happens-in-metaph...When you read a piece of text or you read a book about a fictional world, your brain is creating your own unique interpretation of that. Considering words are cheaper to create than a film, books are a lot more effective in creating a good original experience for our brains.. if you have imagination/creativity you can build a story-universe well just from words.
(do you have a more specific question maybe?)
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony D on
-
right. The empirical position on what memory is, "it is a simple connection of synapses." Here's a challenge, try and find one piece of empirical data to back up that memory is a connection of synapses (particularly because we're currently finding out it's way more complex then that.). I can tell you right now you're not going to find it, because we're barely scratching the surface of how memory works. So really, using a physical explanation for what memory and or knowledge is, is currently off the table. If empiricism can't find the evidence, we're forced to employ rationalism, which is what i'm currently inquiring about.
As a final note i would like to express this in a broader sense to everyone on this forum: When you debate science, you need references. You can't just randomly state something and expect someone to believe it. Honestly, this forum deals in science, so show the reader where you got your information. Obviously when your reasoning is bulletproof we can assume your right; but if you rely on factual statements, show your references.
Forum
random thoughts: some pros and cons on GMO foods
Started by n4t3 in Science & Physics. Last reply by Jesus Antonio Sibilla Tellez 1 hour ago. 2 Replies 0 Likes
Avoiding personal financial ruin
Started by Lore in I Power: Self-Development Activism. Last reply by Bart yesterday. 6 Replies 0 Likes
What's the difference between good and evil?
Started by Matt Watt in Off-Topic. Last reply by Matt Watt yesterday. 4 Replies 0 Likes
Latest Activity
Jesus Antonio Sibilla Tellez replied to n4t3's discussion random thoughts: some pros and cons on GMO foods
Lore replied to n4t3's discussion random thoughts: some pros and cons on GMO foods"I'm on the fence about GMOs, mostly because I don't know much about them. I am against Monsanto though and their practices. It just seems like a lot of people who are against GMOs go on some rant about how they are the devil and don't…"
Greg posted a blog postNazi War Criminals
László Csizsik-CsatáryToday I would like to write a little about the recent hunting for Nazi war criminals in the recent years. To give a little…See More
n4t3 posted a discussionsome opinion GMO foods
i was thinking about this recently, and i'd like to share some thoughts on GMO foods...GMOs have the potential to change the entire world---a proper implementation could destroy the concept of starvation on our planet and give everybody enough…See More
Bart replied to Lore's discussion Avoiding personal financial ruin"it might help to make some sort of thumb-rule for what money is actually worth. If you for a week or so calculate your expenses for per example food per average day, then you'll have a number that actually means something. if you spend, say 20…"
Matt Watt replied to Matt Watt's discussion What's the difference between good and evil?"Dualism of subject-object metaphysics is like a prison for the mind. The best way to tackle issues like morality and values is to start with the nature of thought.
I think this pretty much sums it up, great way of looking at it."
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Avoiding personal financial ruin"Increasing income is something I would like to do, but at this point in my financial life, I think that being more frugal should be my main focus. Both increasing income and cutting spending are my financial goals in the long run. I'm trying to…"
Benjamin Thomas D.G. replied to Matt Watt's discussion What's the difference between good and evil?"The difference between good and bad is the same for every human subject: there are bad feelings, there are good feelings. "
© 2013 Created by Reese Leysen.
