What do you consider to be Science Fiction? 6 6

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:22 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I think if you made the concession that The Force is a real religious and mental thing (and at the time of the original trilogy - had not been "scienced" with the whole midichlorian garbage), the show could be construed as a religious tale. But, you'd still have to explain the reasoning behind space travel and aliens, which plants it square into the scifi realm. I'm on the side of SW being sci-fi.

Very interesting as I'd never thought of it that way.

When I try to explain my personal beliefs, I actually explain them to people using "The Force" in Star Wars as the parallel. This REALLY gives people a great frame of reference without me having to resort to religion and having them either shut down or get their backs up, which people do as soon as you reference a religion (I'm not religious BTW but have deep roots in it).

I view the universe as a unified thing, with everything (and everyone) tied together through energy and vibration. Everything would have to be related, because science actually supports that everything came from one 'thing'. Everything is a descendant of the 1st moment the universe started. 

And so, using "The Force" or "being spiritual" is basically an aligning with this universal energy. The harder you work at understanding and aligning yourself with it, the more you actually align yourself with it and the more you are able to work "with it" rather than against it the faster you move forward. That's the oversimplified explanation. 

Dtrangely, it's only recently that I've thought of explaining it this way using The Force as a parallel - maybe the last 8 or 10 years?

I actually don't have a problem with the Midi-Chlorian thing. Just replace "dark matter" with Midi-Chlorian and you have a very similar parallel to real life. 

That Dark Matter is obviously doing something. We just don't fully know what, yet. 

I actually believe there is no contradiction between true science and true spirituality or "true religion". 

And THAT definitely puts Star Wars square into Sci Fi for me by both my standards and everyone else's objective standards.

[VintageComics]

On 11/29/2023 at 5:14 PM, CAHokie said:

Good grief! People used to give RMA a hard time for walls of text but this is a whole new level. 

I wonder who has the longest worded post in the history of the boards? 

[CAHokie]

On 11/29/2023 at 5:32 PM, VintageComics said:

I wonder who has the longest worded post in the history of the boards? 

I don’t know,  but I am not for sure that is a record I would aspire to have. 

[namisgr]

On 11/29/2023 at 4:48 PM, ganni said:

Is it science fiction to think encasing a paper material  with printed ink with acidic properties in a hard plastic material have a higher quality of  preserve material? Regardless of any type of environment?

That's just pure fiction.  

[CGC Mike]

On 11/29/2023 at 3:45 PM, VintageComics said:

I think if they had Forumite of the Year awards for most words typed, I'd be the GOAT. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/29/2023 at 8:41 PM, CGC Mike said:

I hate you.

May as well cut to the chase and call it a Dynasty. 

And...thank you?

[Sauce Dog]

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

It's time for people to focus on actual MESSAGES rather than MESSENGERS. The world would be a different place if everyone did that. 

For sure. But also Yes, and also no. The message is important, but it certainly does matter who is the messenger in many cases. I am not weighing medical advice from my unemployed stoner uncle as much as I would an actual doctor in that field. The problem is really many are not taught things like media literacy, or knowing how to think about claims or how to verify them rationally.

 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

What if the answers to everything are found in that dark matter that we have yet to understand? What if there is knowledge in there that answers stuff about life and death?

Then the time to believe in those answers is when they are shown to exist, not a moment sooner. Nobody is saying we shouldn't be investigating the things we know little about


 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

Philosophy and religion (or spirituality, because I consider religion and spirituality two very different and opposing things) have FOR AGES answered questions or filled in blanks that science couldn't. And many of those answers have withstood the test of time. Ancient works that most people are ready to dispose of have guided civilization for millenia establishing principles that we have used for foundations of a functioning society, they've been used to fill in gaps found in historical records, they've even often understood scientific principles before scientists understood them. 

Just because science wasn't answer something doesn't mean the answers provided by philosophy or religion were correct, in fact every falsifiable answer that was once explained by those were investigated by science not a single one, ever, bore out to its original explanation (lighting coming from the gods, or miasma for example). The first kid to put his hand up to give an answer in class isn't by default correct, even if nobody else offers up an explanation. There are plenty of ancient works that did put forward ideas, but I'm fine ascribing those to human ingenuity - not something else. Also I would normally push back on the 'understanding scientific principals before scientists' as that is a super common topic that comes up in my religious discussions (especially from Islamic apologetics), but this ain't the venue for that and better done IRL.

 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

Philosophy and religion / spirituality get a bad wrap because of the bad actors, much like there are bad actors in science, but they're not just all disposable trash. They have been invaluable for millenia and MANY scientists choose to believe in them even today. 

Sure, there are bad actors everyone in every profession - but something being useful doesn't make it true, nor does being usual for a long time doesn't make it any more true. The last bit of your comment there sounds like an appeal to authority, lots of smart people believe in odd things. Something isn't true because scientists believe it, especially so if it isn't even in their field. Also, one cannot 'choose' to believe in something ;)

 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

To me personally, they've been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have literally bet my life on it.

Most people don't even know if they can believe a television commercial, yet I absolutely know what I believe, why I believe it and how I came to believe it. There is ABSOLUTELY something "out there", and so I speak from that experience. 

I don't deny you believe it, that was ever in question. 
I'm not sure what the 'they've been proven' is referring to exactly? What? Who?
What do you mean 'something out there'? I agree, of course there is...even going something as simple as the Drake equation shows there is something 'out there'...but if you mean that is beyond the natural then that's another ball game, and that has certainly never been even shown to be a candidate explanation, let alone proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.


 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

Humanity has severe limitations and yet people keep acting like it doesn't. 

No argument there  I'm a shining example of limitations, I think I'll collect them all! 

 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

In Ancient Hebrew the concept of "forever" did not exist. They were incapable of understanding it. They used the word "olam" which quite literally meant "to the horizon" because they couldn't see beyond it. 

Okay, sorry this is my area now...this is an incomplete view at best, but that is me being charitable. They were not incapable of understanding it - that is so dismissive, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the measurement system they employed, as how they would describe distance and direction would also be used to describe time. They did have a concept for eternity / forever (in fact it predated them)...most of my expertise deals with the context of that as 'eternal law', however the word has many uses that are dependant on the context - it can mean a literal 'to the horizon' but it also means the entire 'world', all of 'existence', ones entire 'lifetime' (both before and after it depending on prefix), or 'eternity'. This plays a huge factor in ANE studies and parsing biblical scripture, so much so I cannot get into without blowing up the entire message board   (unless of course your ancient Hebrew is better than mine, which is very much possible as I'm rusty and only needed to take it for my scriptural certifications!)

 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

We now have math that works showing us infinity but still can't really comprehend it. If infinity exists, everything MUST be possible though, right?

The limitation is humanity. Humanity is finite and the ONLY way you can do infinite things is you'd have to pass human limitations.

Sure, back your mind up digitally. This is actually happening in real time, but you're no longer human then, right?

So my contention is that humans will never be able to revert death, because death is the human limitation and human limitations can't undo human limitations. You need something non-human, which is where the metaphysical steps in. 

Nope. Infinity does not mean everything is possible...sorry, infinite monkeys won't produce Shakespeare. I think this might be a confusion on what the concept of many-worlds entails. 

We are not human because we have limitations, nor are we human because we eventually die. Humanity is a collective concept, it isn't some specific biological set of things that we have to adhere to. If we shed a limitation that isn't making us non-human, it is simply changing how we define being human. That is sci-fi to me, exploring how humans can change themselves or be changed. Showing us possible paths of humanity that all stem from our current selves, which includes removing human limitations and questioning what it means to be 'human'. Some of my favourite classic books on what humanity becomes (and still regarded as being 'human' regardless of limitations being removed) include 'Forever War' by Haldeman, and 'Childhoods End' by Clarke, but I think humanity merging with the machine in 'The Last Question' by Asimov would also fit the bill. 

I personally feel/see/sense-vibrations that there isn't any need for something non-human to address our limitations, that destiny is in our own hands.

 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

My ex was a math genius at her job. She works in insurance and manages 8 and 9 figure accounts as a consultant. 

She often, very quickly comes to conclusions or answers without needing to do all the calculations everyone else needs to do. She shows her work to cover her butt but also to make sure everyone else understands it. The extra, long-form work is often unnecessary for her, it's for everyone else. 

Her peers need to do the long form work to get to the conclusions that she gets to innately. How does she do it? Magic?

It's a gift and after living with her for a decade, I just came to trust it implicitly. 

Some people just have those abilities to be able to see or understand things innately. They're often derided. There have been many times when people in her industry tried to tear her down for being good at what she does but they can't show that she's done anything wrong. It's all just personal with them. 

This is that "ring of truth I was speaking about. I believe people who have an awareness of how things work, and don't let their egos get in the way sense when something is or can be true or correct. I feel it. Others feel it. Not everyone does, and that's fine. But I think the root of it is ego. You can't learn something new when your ego is standing in the way.

 

I'm jealous as I'm terrible at math. Absolutely a wreck in it and yet I need to still do it daily!

Nothing metaphysical or otherworldly about this - no magic. Some people are better at things than others..that's just life, like comparing the processor speed of a computer released in 1990 to one today, there will be differences between people - which do you think can cycle calculations faster? 

You trust her because of the evidence and reasonable expectations/history that have been verified over time - she has shown her work, shown to be qualified, shown to be reliable in such calculations. You don't just trust in her answers because she simply told you she was always right and you took her word for it. 

This isn't some sense or awareness of how things work - she studied the math and knows it well, she can show it, reproduce it, and anyone else can follow along and repeat her calculations. If someone claims they have a 'truth', then they need to back it up - nobody should be expected to simply accept at face value someones ability to 'understand' something. Saying you simply 'feel it' doesn't help anyone else, nor does it help show what you are feeling is at all correct.

 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:59 PM, VintageComics said:

I still, currently categorize Sci Fi as what is humanly "possible" and that's why I genuinely don't consider Frankenstein Sci Fi.

 

I actually do agree that Sci-Fi helps show us what might be possible for humanity, both the good and bad...the difference it seems is we both have different ideas what is 'possible'; nothing about death or the removal of our human limitations jump out at me as anything more than problems that could be answered. They might never be answered, but they certainly feel like they could be.

As for you showing your work, I would love it but...DON'T!  
Let's just get drinks sometime and chat about it so we don't eat up all of the boards database space
 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Sauce Dog

[Bookery]

On 11/29/2023 at 5:32 PM, VintageComics said:

I wonder who has the longest worded post in the history of the boards? 

I think it was that time I posted the full text of Finnegan's Wake here on the boards.  I don't know what I was thinking of.  

[VintageComics]

On 11/29/2023 at 9:55 PM, Sauce Dog said:

<snip>
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you PULEESE edit out this huge space at the bottom of your post?

It's driving me crazy.

I'll have a read and reply when I can as there's a lot to unpack but I love convo like this. Thanks for taking the time. 

[CAHokie]

On 11/30/2023 at 9:58 AM, VintageComics said:

Can you PULEESE edit out this huge space at the bottom of your post?

It's driving me crazy.

I'll have a read and reply when I can as there's a lot to unpack but I love convo like this. Thanks for taking the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I still took up less space than one of your messages that had a simple yes or no answer! 

[Bookery]

A side point I find interesting... the old pulpsters and a lot of the classic science-fiction writers absolutely abhorred the term "sci-fi" (detractors pronounced it "skiffy" to show their displeasure).  One of them went so far as to claim it made him physically ill every time he saw it.  They preferred the use of "SF" if an abbreviation was needed.  Some others acknowledged the term had use, but said it bespoke to a specific sub-genre.  They saw space opera and the kind of swashbuckling adventure story set on other worlds to be "sci-fi"... such as Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, John Carter, and Star Wars.  But PDK, Clarke, Ellison, Pohl, Herbert, etc., wrote science-fiction.  

[VintageComics]

On 11/30/2023 at 10:02 AM, Bookery said:

One of them went so far as to claim it made him physically ill every time he saw it

Tell that snowflake he needs some proactive exposure.

On 11/30/2023 at 10:02 AM, Bookery said:

A side point I find interesting... the old pulpsters and a lot of the classic science-fiction writers absolutely abhorred the term "sci-fi" (detractors pronounced it "skiffy" to show their displeasure).  One of them went so far as to claim it made him physically ill every time he saw it.  They preferred the use of "SF" if an abbreviation was needed.  Some others acknowledged the term had use, but said it bespoke to a specific sub-genre.  They saw space opera and the kind of swashbuckling adventure story set on other worlds to be "sci-fi"... such as Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, John Carter, and Star Wars.  But PDK, Clarke, Ellison, Pohl, Herbert, etc., wrote science-fiction.  

You see that in every type of organization once it grows to a certain mass. 

I experienced that in the church, where even within a tiny little church of say, 50 people, you had people arguing and bickering over irrelevant minutia which would make outsiders think they were nuts.

I see that cult of old pulpsters in much the same way. They start to get very protective of their perceived "territory" and it becomes counterproductive to the greater cause. It actually happens in every field and it's just driven by ego rather than moving the discussion forward. 

Edited to say: Dude, you need to POST MORE OFTEN. Every post of yours in this thread says more than 10 other posts combined. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by VintageComics

[Sauce Dog]

On 11/30/2023 at 9:58 AM, VintageComics said:

Can you PULEESE edit out this huge space at the bottom of your post?

It's driving me crazy.

I'll have a read and reply when I can as there's a lot to unpack but I love convo like this. Thanks for taking the time. 

For you, anything! I've edited my original comment to remove the 


















 

[VintageComics]

On 12/1/2023 at 2:30 PM, Sauce Dog said:

 

Mods notified. 

Also, Tupenny notified. Where is that bugger?

[Prince Namor]

I don't think it matters that Frankenstein wasn't referred to as 'science-fiction' when it was first released. It COULDN'T be, because there was no such term at the time.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea wasn't Sci-Fi when it first was released either because again, there was no such term at the time.

H.G. Wells was hugely influenced by both of these, so it just makes sense that they could be BOTH be regarded as early examples of sci-fi.

Reanimating life through the scientific achievements of man, IS sci-fi.

Even if it was written by a woman.

 

What was Wells earliest work referred to as? It also came out before the term science-fiction was first used (around 1929)...

[Grendel72]

I belive the term used then was " scientific romance" . The precursor to the term "science fiction". Coined by C.H Hinton who had a series of books. Probably Wells was influenced by him. 

[Prince Namor]

It's strange how much push back there is on Mary Shelly getting that credit. People don't seem to have a problem applying it to Jules Verne. 

Reanimating life through the scientific achievements of man, IS science fiction.

Is it something people do knowingly? Or is it an ingrained bias?

Why is it so difficult to see the creative work of a woman as... equal to a man?

Even now, if you look at these three movies, only one is seen as a failure - despite similar budgets and actually better numbers...

 

The Marvels

Budget: $220 million
Opening U.S. weekend: $46 million
Global to date (3 weeks): $187 million
Box Office Narrative: Flop

Killers of the Flower Moon

Budget: $200 million
Opening U.S. weekend: $23 million
Global to date (6 weeks): $151 million
Box Office Narrative: Moderately Positive

Napoleon

Budget: $200 million
Opening U.S. weekend (+Thanksgiving): $32 million
Global to date (1 week): $79 million
Box Office Narrative: Triumphant

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Cat]

Who came up with the term 'science fiction'? Was it Forrest Ackerman? 

[Bookery]

On 12/1/2023 at 11:01 PM, Prince Namor said:

It's strange how much push back there is on Mary Shelly getting that credit. People don't seem to have a problem applying it to Jules Verne. 

Is it something people do knowingly? Or is it an ingrained bias?

Why is it so difficult to see the creative work of a woman as... equal to a man?

Whoa!  I think you're reading a lot into something that I don't think is there.  First off, as I said, I believe the consensus, at least among creators of science-fiction, IS that Frankenstein in the first sf novel.  So I'm not sure who it is you're attacking here.  And for those that want to move that qualification up to the latter 19th century, I think it has more to do with the gothic romance traditions of Frankenstein than the gender of the writer.  As I stated earlier, this has been amplified by the movies, which is where the vast majority of people have their concept of the material.  Verne and Wells are more technically-oriented Victorian authors, and have a drier less poetic approach to the material.  The early writers of Amazing Stories were probably more inspired by Verne and Wells in their styles, and so a link was established.  The traditions of Shelley and Poe inspired a different direction, taken up by the likes of Gaston Leroux, Ambrose Bierce, Bram Stoker, etc.  I think if you were to poll the writing community you would find that Shelley ranks higher in the literary hierarchy than Wells and especially Verne, who is seen more of as an adventure writer in line with H. Rider Haggard and others.  So I'm not sure where you're seeing the bias.

[Mr Sneeze]

On 12/2/2023 at 8:56 AM, Amazeron said:

The whole point of the book is a cautionary tale about the lengths we’ll go for science. We are willing to destroy things to create.

I would take issue here in that Victor has to live with what he has created in that his over reaching pride or hubris created something that will haunt him for what time is left of his life. Shelley added the Promethean sub-title did she not - and there is undeniable horror in that fate - and I would add Icarus as well. We see a modern take in the recent Oppenheimer movie. There is no denying the science in either we can see both chained to that stone and the horror it entails.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 8:56 AM, Amazeron said:

In addition, you can’t expect the first book in a genre to incorporate EVERYTHING relating to science fiction. That’s like saying The Phantom isn’t the first superhero because he doesn’t have powers or a dead girlfriend. If Mary was a man this argument wouldn’t exist. It is simply history being altered in which a woman can’t win. In fact, one of the earliest novels in history (regarded by many as the first strictly fictional novel) was The Tale of Genji, written by a woman, Murasaki Shikibu.

I didn't realize this was about men vs women or giving a woman credit for the first SF novel. Shelley wins, hands down. Frankenstein is easily SF but you yourself know this only limits the potential of the text. The great thing about this book are the endless ways you can interpret it.

Putting constraints on Frankenstein to win a beauty/urinating contest is a disservice to the brilliant book that it is.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Mr Sneeze
correction