BaalChatzaf Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) The Moreno Valley high school has decided that frog dissections should be virtual. No more cutting dead frog flesh. No formaldehyde squirting the dissector in the eye etc. etc. etc. I consider this to be an epistemological and metaphysical abomination. It has turn matters on their head by substituting the word for the thing and the picture for the subject. It makes reality a human artifact. Boo! Hiss!Ba'al Chatzaf Edited June 3, 2011 by BaalChatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The Moreno Valley high school has decided that frog dissections should be virtual. No more cutting dead frog flesh. No formaldehyde squirting the dissector in the eye etc. etc. etc. I consider this to be an epistemological and metaphysical abomination. It has turn matters on their head by substituting the word for the thing and the picture for the subject. I makes reality a human artifact. Boo! Hiss!Ba'al ChatzafBob:Move over Count Korzybski, "...the map has finally become the territory."Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) The Moreno Valley high school has decided that frog dissections should be virtual. No more cutting dead frog flesh. No formaldehyde squirting the dissector in the eye etc. etc. etc. I consider this to be an epistemological and metaphysical abomination. It has turn matters on their head by substituting the word for the thing and the picture for the subject. It makes reality a human artifact. Boo! Hiss!Ba'al ChatzafOne may as well regard it as an ethical progress. Fewer frogs will have to die, and the students' learning process will not be impaired.As for 'reality is made a human artifact' argument: reality is everything there is. Whether you sip a cup of coffee, hammer away at your keyboard to communicate in cyberspace, or virtually dissect a frog - it makes no difference. "Existence exists", in Objectivist lingo.[edited for correction of typo] Edited June 4, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) One may as well regard it as an ethical progress. Fewer fogs will have to die, and the students' learning process will not be impaired.As for 'reality is made a human artifact' argument: reality is everything there is. Whether you sip a cup of coffee, hammer away at your keyboard to communicate in cyberspace, or virtually dissect a frog - it makes no difference. "Existence exists", in Objectivist lingo.More objectivist lingo: A is A. And a virtual frog simulated by a computer is not a real frog.It does not smell dead. It does not stink of formaldahyde. It does not feel rough to the touch and there is no resistance of the frog's hide to the blade.Ba'al Chatzaf Edited June 3, 2011 by BaalChatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backlighting Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Broiled frog legs taste like chicken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiodekadent Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 More objectivist lingo: A is A. And a virtual frog simulated by a computer is not a real frog.Your statement is only correct if by "real frog" you mean physical/biological frog.A simu-frog is a real thing. Its just not the same thing as a physical/biological frog.Can we learn about something without having the real thing in front of us?I'd say we can. Otherwise, we'd never be able to study any abstractions or phenomena which can only be understood abstractly (i.e. "the economy"). That said, I don't personally have any moral objection to (biological) frog dissection whatsoever, so I admit this "replacing biological frogs with simu-frogs" thing does reek a little of "let's try not to offend the vegetarians, vegans and PETA-people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"TS Eliot 1934Xray is right, with: "reality is everything that exists".Ba'al is right, with: you have to touch it, see it, experience it, to really know it.Adam is right (by implication) with the frog cartoon, that 'virtual' sex - whatever that is - will never equal the 'real thing'.This is an endlessly absorbing subject, involving the comprehension of reality, and some overlap of Existence and Consciousness, I think. 'Somebody', a human being, is disseminating data into cyberspace; how much is being edited or controlled, and why - so, how much can we trust it?It is entirely uncontradictory that one can appreciate and enjoy all that technology provides; and simultaneously feel sad at the loss of 'real' reality, in the face of the cyber version.Is the sheer mass of gratuitous information alienating us from true existence? From knowledge and wisdom?Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 4, 2011 Author Share Posted June 4, 2011 Broiled frog legs taste like chicken!Virtual frog's legs do not taste like anything.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 4, 2011 Author Share Posted June 4, 2011 A simu-frog is a real thing. Its just not the same thing as a physical/biological frog.Indeed it is. But what is isn't is a frog.You cannot make frog's legs from a simu-frog. They just won't cook up right. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 This could actually be a really good discussion of general semantics.Where is BalSimon?Clearly, the virtual frog and the formaldehyde in the eye frog are two (2) distinctly different real "things." One is an actual frog and one is a representation of an actual frog.Similarly, there is the real territory of the land, mountain and streams and the map of the same territory which is a representation of the land, mountain and streams.Both exist, but one is "real" in a different manner than the "real" representation of it.Wisdom and knowledge are in knowing the difference, why they are different and what both mean in relation to our own ontological place in the "big picture."Tony, I am not sure that I was making a statement about virtual sex by posting the two lesbian frogs cartoon, but there again is the realization that a representation can elicit a different response than the poster of a piece of "art" or cartoon, intended.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) This could actually be a really good discussion of general semantics.Where is BalSimon?And where is poster "General Semanticist"? I really miss Thomas. Edited June 4, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 This could actually be a really good discussion of general semantics.Where is BalSimon?And where is poster General Semanticist? I really miss Thomas.Yes, and Dragonfly, but not Phil lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) This could actually be a really good discussion of general semantics.Where is BalSimon?And where is poster General Semanticist? I really miss Thomas.Yes, and Dragonfly, but not Phil lol!Dragonfly's departure from OL is a huge loss indeed. I was DF's fascinating posts which got me interested in some scientific topics I had never 'dared' to make myself familiar with because physics was not my forte. But I finally got so curious that I took the plunge. As a total layperson of course, but for me it made a huge difference: a door had been opened to a 'room' I never thought I would enter. Thank you, Dragonfly. Edited June 4, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) It is entirely uncontradictory that one can appreciate and enjoy all that technology provides; and simultaneously feel sad at the loss of 'real' reality, in the face of the cyber version.It is uncontradictory in that it points out the complexity of the issue.Does the Objectivst "Contradictions do not exist" sufficiently take into account such complex issues? Is the sheer mass of gratuitous information alienating us from true existence? From knowledge and wisdom?What is "true" existence? It is true that we exist. That's the denotation. Whereas the "true" in your post refers to a value judgement: "True" existence is ... What would you put in where the dots are? Edited June 4, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 It is entirely uncontradictory that one can appreciate and enjoy all that technology provides; and simultaneously feel sad at the loss of 'real' reality, in the face of the cyber version.It is uncontradictory in that it points out the complexity of the issue.Does the Objectivst "Contradictions do not exist" sufficiently take into account such complex issues? Is the sheer mass of gratuitous information alienating us from true existence? From knowledge and wisdom?What would you put in where the dots are?Nothing. it stands alone as a truth. "True" existence is. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Tony, I am not sure that I was making a statement about virtual sex by posting the two lesbian frogs cartoon, but there again is the realization that a representation can elicit a different response than the poster of a piece of "art" or cartoon, intended.AdamAdam,You got me. I was being sly there - although I couldn't be certain of your intent with the cartoon. It could have been a comment on virtual sex, and I thought it was too good to miss out on.I'm sorry, but not very sorry. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Tony, I am not sure that I was making a statement about virtual sex by posting the two lesbian frogs cartoon, but there again is the realization that a representation can elicit a different response than the poster of a piece of "art" or cartoon, intended.AdamAdam,You got me. I was being sly there - although I couldn't be certain of your intent with the cartoon. It could have been a comment on virtual sex, and I thought it was too good to miss out on.I'm sorry, but not very sorry. TonyTony:No sweat. I was quite amused by the perspective.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now