Suchergebnisse

The paper touches upon the problem of differentiating between virtual reality and original reality. The article makes a contribution to the modern ontology, as it discusses the problem of the status of virtual reality, which is formed by modern technical and mathematical means using cognitive technologies. The work is based on the concepts of E.Husserl and H.Putnam, as well as theories of psychophysiology and cognitive sciences. Arguments are provided for the following opposing statements: that it is possible to differentiate between them and that it is not. To specify the distinctive features of virtual reality, the latter is described as a system of perceived existing things and in comparison to other forms of such systems: subjective and objective, individual and social, natural and cultural, material and ideal, original and fictional, abstract and transcendental, evident and illusionary, true and false, erroneous and imitative, deceitful and mistaken, performative and simulating, conditional and unconditional ones. This part of the article qualifies virtual reality as illusion created via imitation. It is further revealed that the key distinctive feature of original reality, which is defined in the modern phenomenology as the maximal level of evidence, is applicable to virtual reality as well. The major argument in favor of the provable difference between virtual and original reality, which the contemporary analytic philosophy offers, can be confuted by means of a thought experiment based on the doubling of virtual reality. The final part of the article discusses psychological (experiment-based cognitive) arguments in favor of differentiating between virtual and original reality successfully: effect of presence and immersion. Both effects are typical of the reality types under comparison, as well as of experiencing these realities. The paper concludes that neither philosophy nor cognitive sciences can offer a compelling argument to differentiate between original reality and virtual reality.

Transgenic technologies have emerged as a powerful tool for crop improvement in terms of yield, quality, and quantity in many countries of the world. However, concerns also exist about the possible risks involved in transgenic crop cultivation. In this review, literature is analyzed to gauge the real intensity of the issues caused by environmental stresses in Pakistan. In addition, the research work on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) development and their performance is analyzed to serve as a guide for the scientists to help them select useful genes for crop transformation in Pakistan. The funding of GMOs research in Pakistan shows that it does not follow the global trend. We also present socio-economic impact of GM crops and political dimensions in the seed sector and the policies of the government. We envisage that this review provides guidelines for public and private sectors as well as the policy makers in Pakistan and in other countries that face similar environmental threats posed by the changing climate.

Modern agriculture provides the potential for sustainable feeding of the world's increasing population. Up to the present moment, genetically modified (GM) products have enabled increased yields and reduced pesticide usage. Nevertheless, GM products are controversial amongst policy makers, scientists and the consumers, regarding their possible environmental, ecological, and health risks. Scientific-and-political debates can even influence legislation and prospective risk assessment procedure. Currently, the scientifically-assessed direct hazardous impacts of GM food and feed on fauna and flora are conflicting; indeed, a review of literature available data provides some evidence of GM environmental and health risks. Although the consequences of gene flow and risks to biodiversity are debatable. Risks to the environment and ecosystems can exist, such as the evolution of weed herbicide resistance during GM cultivation. A matter of high importance is to provide precise knowledge and adequate current information to regulatory agencies, governments, policy makers, researchers, and commercial GMO-releasing companies to enable them to thoroughly investigate the possible risks.