The Value / Function of Science Fiction (A Starting Point of Ideas)

[Victoria "Stokastika"]

*"I can only know what I know, given I know what I cannot know."
*"You have to step outside the box to realize what is INSIDE the
box."
*"You have to go through a period of Have Not to appreciate what you
Have."
*"Stakeholders of Planet Earth. We no longer have TIME for
negotiation. We need a VISION."

*Dr. Milton Love (fisheries biologist at UCSB) stated that science
fiction answers the "What If" questions, for example "What if we had a
black hole in lunch box of a physicist? How would society be
different?" Talk about a Total Makeover of Alternative Reality.

*scientific practice in "Western Civilization" has gone from "very
generalist" to "highly specialized" reasoning. *Most scientists dig
into a research question that only involved the breaking and mapping
of a small sliver of Reality, so since their minds are focused on a
very small component of a complex web of systems, they have relatively
no capacity to design grand, swooping visions of the Future through
the aid of their specialist scientific practice. OVERALL, SCIENCE IS
ABOUT TAKING BABY STEPS, WITH POTENTIALLY LOSING SIGHT OF THE BIG
PICTURE. SCIENCE FICTION ALLOWS ONE TO TAKE GIANT LEAPS OF LOGIC AND
ENVISION-PAINT BROAD SWOOPING VISIONS OF THE UNKNOWN AND INTO THE
FUTURE, YET POTENTIALLY IN A PRACTICAL FORM. (As discussed with Chris,
Dr. Sweet's grad student, the problem of the environment is the
failure of the individual human to imagine worlds and realities
outside his or her own immediate needs and surroundings... but now
that Obama was voted in, I'm not so sure of that....).

*science fiction at the interface of scientific knowledge is muy
essential because (1) you are allowed to practice generalist,
integrative thinking through your writing, and (2) you are allowed to
allowed to conduct "thought experiments" that need to be conducted
(though in an absurdly unscientific context) but unfortunately Reality
and Tangibility provide you no data with (better worded: science
fiction allows one to systematically conduct a series of thought
experiments that science would not allow to pursue, simply because of
lack of availability of data, or the problem of the ethics and morals
of pursuing such experiments) (3) hence, you are "mentally stepping
outside the box" of physical reality (4) you are allowed to MANIPULATE
once static knowledge into novel combinations (e.g. stuff from biology
textbooks) such that it can allow the potential emergence of creative,
new points of view as well as new questions and new approaches to
asking questons in a given system of study). Works of science fiction
can alter the FUNDAMENTAL VALUES and TRAJECTORIES/AGENDAS/MISSIONS of
scientific practice. (Cross Generational Self-Fulfilling Prophecies:
Science Fiction stories influence the younger generations and dream of
creating such realities: e.g. Ms. Ann Camacho, my 9th grade English
teacher, said that science fiction in the end can lead to societies
creating a reality that was once originally designed (or predicted),
as in Fahrenheit 451. (5) How about a BETTER WAY of putting it,
science fiction gives you the ABILITY TO PLAY GOD IN YOUR MIND. "How
to Manipulate Humans. Well, God certainly hasn't been doing his job,
as of late. Why not a scientist?" (Science Fiction as Safe Space to
Dream and Play God). Play God, create utopias and understand why they
fail in science fiction worlds, and this is what the world should NOT
do. Walden 2, BF Skinner.

*For example, after the film The Day After Tomorrow came out, the
media--instead of reporting on the usual long-term climate change,
started to report on short-term and drastic climate change events. Did
this research exist before, but suddenly it became popularized? I'm
pissed that Hollywood is dictating the Scientific Agenda in terms of
What is Popular.

*(6, expanding 3a). Science Fiction is important in terms of human-
environmental relationships because humans have been largely divorced
and removed from the landscape, or the overall "ecosystem" to which we
evolved from, to which now we have survived, and are into ecosystem
manicuring and maintenance. So, science fiction gives one the capacity
to impose "unethical experiments" on human behavior and societies. As
Dr. Sam Sweet said, the most unexploited resource of Planet Earth is
human flesh. The way to impose ecological pressures on human flesh is
through the very large (Jurassic Park / Alien-like predator plots) or
the very small (Parasite-disease nanotech plots). We still have huge
Medicine Departments on campus but we don't have Ecosystem Military
Departments (such as to fight off giant megafauna that would be
attacking humans). ("Humans need to be put back in their places in the
relativity of things.")

*(7, expanding on 3a). Another reason why science fiction is
significant in terms of the human-environmental condition not only
involves the specialized-reductionist conduct of scientific (and
engineering) practice, but also addresses the ABSURDITY OF
INTERACTIONS OF STAKEHOLDERS OF PLANET EARTH. At one point, in one of
the first intensive meetings with Tariel, I told him, "I can no longer
be a conflict-resolution negotiation person. Negotiation and
compromise of value systems have gotten us no where. Global meetings
have led to a simultaneous, conflicting collision of value systems,
language systems, and cognitive maps of Reality and what to do to
Reshape Reality. Compromising (Negotiation and consensus of) the views
of 6 billion people is close to moot. We need DIRECTION. We need a
VISION." So, if it were a slogan or bumper sticker, it would say, "We
don't need NEGOTIATION. We need a VISION." An integrated, coordinated
vision, and I think that requires a lot of "thinking outside the box"
reasoning. Extract the pure components from the chaos and rebuild
utopia. Rebuild the gaps between science and decision-making-
management.

I think my friend, Tristan Oliver, mentioned that this world needs an
extreme makeover with the aid of a "benevolent dictator with a
vision." I second that. Or maybe, we can contract some aliens to
conduct some experiments on how to optimally manage Planet Earth? See?
When we think outside the box of Reality, we have some blank slate
space in our minds. We're getting somewhere.

*One of my first quotes above addresses the world's need for an
"outside the box" experience.

*and how "I met this astronaut from NASA (Dr. Millie Hughes-Fulford)
who went into space and had the opportunity to view the Earth from
above. Through the practice of physically stepping outside the box
(same with the 12 astronauts of Apollo 13), she made this "silly" yet
"profound" epiphany looking upon the planet from the window of her
spaceship, "The Earth is alive and glowing." And beautiful. So Terra,
said DUH, just please go home and do something about it! It is as if
humans NEED a simple physical outside-the-box experience just to fully
realize the barebone, basal values of existence and the point of
living on Planet Earth. To re-understand and clarify their place in
the universe.

*values of science fiction, as discussed with Katia and Hector, is
that it doesn't have to account for science or reality. So, the value
of science fiction takes form of a "gradient between feasible and non-
feasible reality." Many intellectuals become upset when stories are
TOO MUCH ENTANGLED WITH REALITY, for example, The Day After Tomorow
was in part a disservice to society for understanding climate change
in Reality, and the movie 300 pissed off a whole slough of historians
revolved around Persia.

**it seems like scientific discoveries, upon first invention, have
properties of science fiction stories, because it is only rendered
true to one individual, but the rest of society has no clue or does
not accept its existence. Man, do I feel it. Milton Love says it's
dangerous to be intelligent and have new ideas, simply because the
system places you in a box, and most of society can't even tell that
you are a "genius," simply because they themselves have no prognosis
or diagnosis capabilities. "Genius. Takes one to know one." So, when
Dolf Seilacher and Shelly Lowenkopf indirectly referred to Terra as a
"left-handed genius," it meant the world to me and inspired me. But I
was just sad that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily know it.
And? I picked up something in Dr. Sweet's class. I think there are
three possible lines of "having brains:" (1) you can be a walking
dictionary/encyclopedia of fragmented fun facts (like my friend Andy)
(2) you can be an improvisational problem-solver (like my friend
Lauri), and (3) you can be "perceptive" and wise (too much
information, not enough wisdom), and so, I wish and hope and dream to
be "perceptive," like Dr. Sweet. Profoundly perceptive. Being
perceptive allows one to be a PROBLEM-SOLVER in addition to having
additional capacity to store additional amounts of information).

*There are some vague forms of classifying styles of science fiction,
which can be generic of all forms of narrative writing. There are
certain forms of science fiction that are (1) character driven,
literary driven, emotional driven (Ursula Leguin, most notable science
fiction writer of our day) (2) plot driven, A happens, then B happens,
then C happens, which also explores cool machines and teckie ideas
(Michael Chrichton passed on, cancer? My gosh, his writing is not
graceful, largely mechanical). Hollywood has to spice up the emotions
in their screenplay adaptations of his writings). (3) Setting-driven,
Extreme Technological Makeover Driven. Extreme Science Makeover Driven
(which I thought "Red Mars" attempted to do, but was not happy with
the attempt).

Then there are certain movies that have the ability to balance all
three notions, like the film Event Horizon, TO SOME DEGREE (I thought
the characters could be more likeable and less robotic, or even "evil-
natured," but was facinated by the notion of human self-mutilation
when stuck in the Even Horizon, graphic awe-inspiring in a brutal way,
even "I am Legend" still trips me out to this day). Event Horizon had
a brilliant premise: the method to travel from point A to point B is
not to travel a line or path of least distance and obstacles, but the
goal is to bend spacetime such that point A and B meet at an Event
Horizon (Event Horizon is also something to describe a halo around
black holes to which a particle has reached a close enough distance to
the hole such that there is no escape, sucks).

What about 2001 Space Odyssey? I will have to rewatch that film and re-
read the book. *Sigh.*

So, I guess in terms of my own state of mind and style, I intend my
science fiction to be inspired by a Perceptive Concept, but then
otherwise literary and character-driven. I want people to grativate
and magnetize toward the character who experience and attempt to
interpret a new landscape--that even perhaps they designed but never
fully manifested its consequences.

So, given that circumstance, I started to realize that I am
Biologically and Ecologically Creative, but I am not Technologically
Creative. I am not Technologically Creative (my testifying to the
notion that I still don't know how to change the oil in my car, Kyle
knows that). I still don't know how to create a machine that optimizes
energy use and has the capacity to reduce my own workload for some
intended purpose. Like traveling. Cars. Just even creating an engine.
I'm a bit stumped. I don't have physics equations jumping out in my
head or even chemical reactions jumping out at me. Sigh. See? I am not
technologically creative.

I can invent a technological system in my head, as some form of
adaptive extension of my own body. I understand the underlying logic
and biological motives of inventing new technologies (enhancing
individual and collective survival and reproduction), but I am just
frustrated because when I look at or invent a new a machine, I have no
protocol of proofing system in my head that demonstrates how the
machine works or whether the machine could physically exist. I have no
physical forces or chemical equations jumping out of my head.

It's the same thing I am trying to do and go through in terms of
designing some Fictitious Organism at some Fictitious Scale and ask
whether it is feasible for this Organism to Exist? Well, at least on
Planet Earth or some other potential Earth-like planet. There is
apparently a professor at Cal State Northridge who Invents Fictitious
Planetary Systems and goes through a Physics Proofing System to
determine whether such planetary systems could feasibly exist, given
that our localized physics-description of Reality applied to the
entire galactic universe.

Is there such thing as Allometric and Geometric Scaling in Technology?

So, I am staring at this computer, and I ask, how does this computer
work? What are it's parts? Since it is an invention of the human mind,
shouldn't it reflect something about its inventor? There is a
motherboard, like the center for Integration and Coordination of
Parts, there is short-term processing and long-term storage. THE
OPERATION OF A COMPUTER SHOULD MIRROR THE FUNCTION OF THE HUMAN MIND.
WE CREATE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY THAT SHOULD ULTIMATELY MIRROR OUR
SELVES AND THE WAY HOW WE THINK. WE BUILT SOCIETY AROUND INDIVIDUAL
AND COLLECTIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF HUMAN NEEDS AND THE HUMAN MIND. So,
technically I could project my biological knowledge onto the structure
and function of machines, in general. All machines centered around
Human Purpose. Like what that MIT Roboticist was discussing in Fast,
Cheap, and Out of Control film by Errol Morris. I see.... Hmmm.

Reasoning with Technology from a Biologist's Point of view is an
Interesting Endeavor.

I said sorry to Kyle and Lisa for making them put up with me last
night with all my questions in terms of "What Does it All Mean to be
an Engineer?" "What do you learn for Four Years as an Engineer?" Kyle
said no worries. It was all a good mental exercise. I am unable to
perceive, unless I am ready to perceive. And amidst my sleep-deprived
stupor of last night, I was ready to perceive.... Kyle said you
basically have to train your mind to see it. See and understand and
build the operations of machines. So, I just have to dump my head of
all these old ideas and then I can intellectually splurge on the New
Ones, Map my knowledge on Technological Reality.

So, science fiction and engineering/technology had been bugging the
shxt out of me for two reasons: (1) Dr. Sam Sweet (Perceptual
Evolutionary Vertebrate Morphologist) has been interacting with an
engineer (maybe that engineer who is drawing parallels in biological
and computer systems) and (2) I am surrounded by engineers--my
housemates, fellow Brennies--it's kind of intimidating, actually, to
have no fxcking clue in how they think. I think I just need to retake
some physics and chemistry. It will all become conceptually alive in
my brain again. *Sigh.* That will be the day!

*Both Dr. Milton Love and I truly love science fiction and it's kind
of like a narrative escape from reality, as well as a narrative escape
from the terseness and unemotional, unflowery narrrative of scientific
writing. People who write scientific articles write as if they have no
emotional center in their brains. Milton emphasize that you were
punished if you used verbose, flowery language. Like Darwin would have
been creamed if he tried to submit papers to modern science journals.
TALK ABOUT AN EVOLUTION OF SCIENTIFIC CONVENTION! How come Dr. Josh
Schimel and Milton Love don't interact, since they are both interested
in Narrative Writing in Science. Josh Schimel was even interested in
creating a Science Communications Course through the Environmental
Studies Department. Woohoo! I'll be the TA, dxmmit!

*Some Basic References:
*Very Funny National Lampoon Flow Chart Science Fiction (Katia has a
copy)
*Tariel read a magazine article in Discover that discusses the Shifts
of Function/Values of Science Fiction over time. Perhaps, at first it
had a pragmatic, visionary function to society, but then science
fiction was reduced to a low-down "Marketing Genre" teamed up with
"Fantasy," and the economizing and popularizing of Science Fiction
through Hollywood has reduced the body of literature into "instant
gratification entertainment value, appealing to
the primal emotional Reptilian needs of our brains." Go Hollywood!

*Sketch Evolution of Science Fiction: man versus himself, man versus
man, man versus machine, man versus society, and man versus the
environment....
**Shifting Relationships Between Man Versus Machine, Man in Space...

First, you have a film exploring relationships with Robots, like
Artificial Intelligence and Bicentennial Man.

Second, you have a film that shows that robots are starting to become
nuissances and are taking over, having unpredictable consequences and
taking a life of their own. But, it turns out there are mad
scientists, like a roboticist at MIT who thinks that silicon-based
systems will have superior qualities and will have the ability to
survive and replicate beyond the existence of humans. Fast, Cheap, and
Out of Control. Robots evolve very fast in terms of methods of natural
selection, mutations. They can do self-run experiments of mutations at
speed-of-light rates, and any mutation that works, they can implement
it within their own operations, bam like that.

Third, you have robots literally taking over and replicating
themselves. Like the Terminator Series.

Fourth, the relationship between robots and humans goes from War to
Parasitism, like in the Matrix.

Fifth, robots exist in mutualism, as humans attempt to escape their
trashed-up Planet (potential restoration for a later day), like Wall-
e.

Sixth, after robots exist in mutualism, they then start to both work
together and expand in space and time, then only to encounter other
aliens, like in Star Wars.

Seventh, you get a very cool situation like in Star Trek, which is
essentially the Penultimate of Existence.
I am missing a lot of details here, but this is a great starting
point.

The most recent science fiction movie I watched was Iron Man, which
was a superb fusion between technology-science ideas and character
development, at least between the Military CEO and his mistress.