Reality?

[Bke]

Oh but you misunderstand, it is an essential to the entire argument. If there was a perfect reality, such as the earlier versions of the matrix, and people accepted it then the story and the concepts and mechanics of those issues change radically, and as such what we learn shall also change. They explore different themes.

Granted the matrix is perhaps not the best example but I chose it because of the topic and because /everyone/ knows it. I'm speaking in general about sci-fi as a whole. To quote partly B. Blanchard "A philosophy that ignores science will probably build castles in the sky..."

In addition, I'm not too sure if I should be offended by the suggestion to read up on philosophy, when my first degree was based on it, but it may just be that what I'm trying to say isn't making sense. So no matter. But basically I would reply with Poppers falsificationism saying that since the film in question, the matrix, goes so far out of deductive knowledge, any predictions and postulates it makes will be even more easy to falsify when it's premise is based on a highly subjective opinion about man and his needs.

[Grimnebulin]

I didn't suggest you do some reading because I was trying to be snarky or insulting, I suggested it because what you wrote indicated a misunderstanding of some fairly basic aspects of of Philosophy. And I wasn't the only person who made that deduction. If I was way off base, I apologise, but since I'm not talking to you face to face, all I have to go on is what you wrote.

That said, I'm at a loss as to what it is you're now trying to say. I'm indeed familiar with Brand Blanshard, who was very much concerned with basing philosophy on a framework of reason, that the point is not to obscure or obfuscate to appear profound. Let's forget the Matrix for the moment; you took issue with the application of philosophy through the medium of science fiction. Defend that position.

I understand that you prefer your philosophy to be functional; to be building castles on the beach and not in the sky. But the point is that no single concept can function in a vacuum. We cannot build an understanding of our existence based solely upon empiricism, just as science cannot operate without ethical constraints. Science fiction may well deal more with the implausible than with the provable, but that certainly does not dilute its value.

Lastly, and again I'm not trying insult you here, but I don't see how falsificationism is relevant to this discussion other than allowing you to prove that you understand what it means. The purpose of Popper's proposed amendments to the positivist view was to whittle away bad scientific theories. So how exactly does this apply to the medium of science fiction? Popper speaks out against pseudo-science, not sci-fi.

[Legion]

The human mind takes 4 days to adapt to changes.

Reality is what you make of it.
Every human in this world lives in their own version of the matrix.
It's what you choose and account for from external events or actions "cause and effect" and your own perceptions based on that..

There for we all are the architect of our own reality

[Spindleshanks]

no

[Legion]

no

[Bke]

Sorry for my massive delay in clearing up what I am trying to say, but life has been lifey and stuff. Also, I apologies for the garbled mess of my last post.

To better explain my issue with sci-fi I would first like to explain part my understanding of it. Sci-fi is an assumption about a potential reality that we may experience, the premise of which is either based on or is a reasonable extrapolation of our current world understanding and technology in it.

So with that in mind you can see why I take issue with sci-fi that attempts to extrapolate beyond that constraint of reasonable. Granted this constraint is more felt than defined, but it makes the difference between star trek and, say, fringe (I know the latter takes liberties as well but it's the contrast I'm trying to emphasize).

Now, the value of star trek to us, philosophically, is arguably less than that provided from fringe. While star trek does explore philosophical issues it only provides a surrogate reality to our own world, so that we don't have to say that X is wrong with our world and risk ****ing someone off. Fringe, though, provides an exploration of potential problems we may encounter as a result of our scientific progression. And as such I take issue with sci-fi that attempts to deal with major problems we may encounter, and then just skims over some important details, and makes wild assumptions, for the sake of the story.

So how does this relate to perception of reality and the value of sci-fi in exploring it? Well going back to the matrix, a critical factor in events is the assumption that people have free will. The Architect goes so far out of his way to explain this, that mans ability to choose renders his "equation" unbalanced and imperfect, that most people I know ask me to fast forward through the conversation for the sake of their attention. And Neo even uses it to explain his reasons for fighting on, and living. "Because I choose to" he says.

Meanwhile we're not even sure free will exists. Experiments conducted at virgina tech in 1999, using a sort of Ouija board suggest that free will may not actually exist and that we can easily throw a blanket of doubt over the issue.

So how then, with something creating such a flaw in the internal logic of the work, can we use films like the matrix to explore our perceptions of reality?

So with oversights like this present in sci-fi how can we use a film or book to peer into potential problems or scenarios we may encounter when a large portion of the premise is just assumed for no good reason? Mind, it’s not as though I don’t understand the use of sci-fi or its value, but its value is reduced in my mind when half the extrapolation turns more into something “fantastical”, losing part of the statement along the way.

Any who this is now bloated with a study on half of my original post. As I say we as gamers probably have a decent idea of how perceptions of reality can be warped so utterly and yet still enjoy and be satisfied by the artificial world just as much and even more than the real world.

[Grimnebulin]

Thanks for the reply, I've enjoyed the discussion and have appreciated the spirit within which it's been conducted.

I do understand your point completely, I guess I just disagree with your position that a posited idea is rendered less meaningful if the framework it's based upon is not a reasonable extrapolation. One of the greatest contributions science fiction has made to the realm of philosophy is that of Artificial Intelligence. Not only has it driven scientific development, but it has also allowed us to question our own natures and our own sense of identity. To use your Star Trek example, the fact that the character of Data resided within a universe that does stretch what is currently understood about the universe we live in, certainly doesn't mean that the philosophical questions the character raises are somehow less relevant or valid.

Science and philosophy are more closely linked than most people realise. Both deal with reaching beyond our limitations, of what is known and what is thought to be possible. Science fiction is about melding the two together, not only to encourage us to push the envelope, but to prepare us for the consequences that may result.

[Bke]

Well, as an aside, we must rember that there is no great difference between science and philosophy. Each feed off the other, and indeed certain definitions of science hold it as an extention of philosophy. My own specialty is in the philosophy of science, hence my feelings about this subject.

I completely agree that sci-fi is useful in advancing sciences, in fact one of my hobbies is looking at unexplained bits in sci-fi and figuring how it would be possible to bring them about. Like the nervous system interfaces in the matrix, or the nature of the Geth in Mass effect before they were explained somewhat. So understand that it's not the explorative issues iI'm worried about as such.

What I'm concerend with is potential problems that arise and how we deal with them. Agian, with the matrix, the machienes are the bad guys (providing we ignore the animatrix for the sake of this example). The way the machienes are vilified in the movie makes me worry that people will be too cautious with artificial intelligence when we do create it, thus hindering our progress, when in fact the situation in the matrix is so far outside reasonable extrapolation and so specific that the odds of such a universe comming about is abusurdely small. However people don't think of the film in a critical, factual manner. This creates negative propoganda about our own progress based on something that isn't even real.

Yes it is good to be wary (see Az, I have learneded) of potential reprocussions, it is also improtant not to sacrifce realism for the story because then, as I have stated, you end up with something that isn't a look at a potential future but rather a future fantasy that people give more philosophical weight than is due.

However I think I'm now overstating my point of veiw, so unless something else comes up I shall leave it here. Thanks for the discussion

Edit: I reailse I forget to mention that the above is the second problem I have with sci-fi resulting from fallacies

[Grimnebulin]

The way the machienes are vilified in the movie makes me worry that people will be too cautious with artificial intelligence when we do create it, thus hindering our progress, when in fact the situation in the matrix is so far outside reasonable extrapolation and so specific that the odds of such a universe comming about is abusurdely small. However people don't think of the film in a critical, factual manner. This creates negative propoganda about our own progress based on something that isn't even real.

Ah, I see what you are getting at. See? It sometimes does help to reiterate in various ways until the thick skull of the recipient (mine in this case) can finally be breached. And mine can be obtusely thick at times ;)

I suppose it's a double-edged sword, since it's unlikely that many would have even considered a matrix-like outcome for humanity, and regardless of realism, it's the kind of concept that should be considered (obviously not to the degree of the matrix, but the manner in which we approach the discussion of AI). We want people to be informed, but mis-information can be extremely harmful.

That said, we cannot place a limitation on the realm of storytelling, which is what the Matrix is first and foremost. The ideal would be to foster a limitless boundary on imaginative storytelling within a framework that provides people with a solid understanding of science. The important thing to look at, is what else does the narrative provide? Again, with the Matrix it's not purely a philosophical debate on the nature and implications of AI, but it's also about resilience in the face of impending doom and the nature of sacrifice.

I can empathise with a fear of negative propaganda, but this is why discourse exists. Even when the science is sound, people will convey concepts in a manner that suits their own agenda; propaganda is never something we'll be able to escape. But the solution is not to impose limitations; it's to encourage discussion, learning, the propagation of knowledge. People give philosophical weight to the Lord of the Rings, should we be wary because people might start questioning the practice of magic?

[reeviint]

This was a simple choice to me - there was no way I'd let the guy stay under the spell. His happiness is simulated, not true, and therefore I found it a much more morally correct choice to free him and face reality than leave him be where he was.