First of all, there was no physical replica. Most of the third act takes place inside David's brain,
as evidenced by the overexposed look of the film. But even if there were, it's a long way from that to creating
a simulation of a personality.
If they can manipulate the boy's mind enough to create the illusion
of a mother for a day, why can't they also manipulate it to delete the memories of the day before? He could
live forever and have infinite first days, with no chance to suspect.
Stories about computers and artificial intelligence are boring, not even worth listening to. Stories about
the human condition can be entertaining, enlightening, perplexing, and so on. You shouldn't be too surprised,
I think.
Who said anything about computers? I was talking about minds, how they work, and our theories about them
and their consequences. If you don't find this subject fascinating that's fine; I certainly do. Also,
to find out how to deal with deep philosophical and scientific issues with no "human plight" angle in
narratively compelling manners, might I suggest Lem? You mentioned liking Solaris: what do you think
that's about?
He didn't love a shallow simulation of Monica. He could not have been happy forever with a simulation.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree - If the mechas are advanced enough to build an exact physical
replica of the mother from the boy's memories they must be advanced enough to build a mother's
psyche that *cannot* be distinguished from the real thing by the boy. He would indeed be happy
with the mechamother, because he cannot realize it is a fake. Same applies to the mother.
Remember that the object was to build a child. [..] For what is love, but the response that the feeling of love generates inside us?
Well that's the point: love is not tropism. If you have a mind that's condemned to eternal immaturity,
then it's not very meaningful to call it immature or even a mind; minds learn, evolve and mature. Love is
just a mental state, the same as hunger, pain, a lie, or a deduction.
But the question of whether or not David really could love is beside the point. [..] Without that, the whole story
kind of becomes meaningless.
Agreed, like I said it's just my personal peeve, this isn't uncommon in all sorts of stories. I just expected
a story about A.I. to deal with this stuff rather than be about the human condition - but I guess there is a
very long tradition of that in SF... using robots as a counterpoint to talk about us.
Listen to the what the Blue Fairy says. Listen to what the narrator says. Then watch the very last scene
carefully. The implication is so clear, it's impossible to imagine that it wasn't deliberate.
Alright, you've convinced me to give it a second viewing.
Why couldn't the deception last more than a day? They are extremely advanced mecha and as you
mention they are in posession of his memories and likely also know how he functions to the
last detail. Therefore, why can't they build him another mecha, a mother mecha, designed to
meet his expectations exactly, and to have complementary expectations. They would both be
happy, forever.
If the answer is that they can't because they are not powerful enough, then that's really convenient.
The futuristic mecha are just powerful enough to support your interpretation - not enough to build a
satisfying mother from the kids mind, but enough to build one to fool him for one day alone,
no DNA involved.
What bothered *me* most wasn't the ending, but the idea itself that you can
make things that are "programmed to love" or programmed to X where X is some intentionality.
If something is "programmed" to love, how can that feeling they have be called love or even be
called a feeling or a mental state? Since love is a mental state, it can only exist in minds, and an
important feature of minds is fluidity, and even a certain degree of control over it. Maybe
you can't choose who you love but you certainly can choose how you will react to that feeling
and that reaction will in turn affect the feeling. In my opinion the notion that you can make
minds that can love but cannot have a real reaction to their own love, is nonsensical; like
saying, let's draw a square, but without sides. Like I said, it was what bothered *me* about it,
it's actually quite common in SF to do this.
On the other hand, assuming you can actually build minds that are "doomed to love", then clearly
making such minds would be immoral; it would be like creating a flawed mind deliberately, like
consciously creating someone with a mental disease. Since the movie was (supposedly) about A.I. I
expected that issue to be dealt in it, but it's not. Instead, we get a tale about a boy and his love,
or, as you insightfully put it, about the human condition and its capacity for cruelty... All of which
I actually enjoyed. Yes, I liked the movie, heck, I even liked the ending in its plain, rosy interpretation...
but to me the movie is not really very good Sci Fi, just a very good story. Not that there's anything wrong
with that
I also enjoyed your interpretation but honestly, I think it's one of those retrofitting interpratations
we often engage in when we have to 'justify'... Nothing in the final scenes suggests that
they are going to kill the kid. The interpretation is indeed possible, i.e. not terribly contradictory
to anything in the movie but it would be a stretch to say that it actually stems from it (IMHO). OTOH
I've been known to try to rationalize the mystical elements in the matrix, myself:)
Re:What was the ending about - spoiler to follow
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 1
havent seen the movie, but ive read the book (several times, in fact) and if you end up wondering wether the protagonist (Kelvin) is a construction or not, then the movie must suck the big one. thats not even an issue here... hes NOT. thats not what its about.
Slashdot Mirror
If they can manipulate the boy's mind enough to create the illusion of a mother for a day, why can't they also manipulate it to delete the memories of the day before? He could live forever and have infinite first days, with no chance to suspect.
Stories about computers and artificial intelligence are boring, not even worth listening to. Stories about the human condition can be entertaining, enlightening, perplexing, and so on. You shouldn't be too surprised, I think.
Who said anything about computers? I was talking about minds, how they work, and our theories about them and their consequences. If you don't find this subject fascinating that's fine; I certainly do. Also, to find out how to deal with deep philosophical and scientific issues with no "human plight" angle in narratively compelling manners, might I suggest Lem? You mentioned liking Solaris: what do you think that's about?
I think we'll have to agree to disagree - If the mechas are advanced enough to build an exact physical replica of the mother from the boy's memories they must be advanced enough to build a mother's psyche that *cannot* be distinguished from the real thing by the boy. He would indeed be happy with the mechamother, because he cannot realize it is a fake. Same applies to the mother.
Remember that the object was to build a child. [..] For what is love, but the response that the feeling of love generates inside us?
Well that's the point: love is not tropism. If you have a mind that's condemned to eternal immaturity, then it's not very meaningful to call it immature or even a mind; minds learn, evolve and mature. Love is just a mental state, the same as hunger, pain, a lie, or a deduction.
But the question of whether or not David really could love is beside the point. [..] Without that, the whole story kind of becomes meaningless.
Agreed, like I said it's just my personal peeve, this isn't uncommon in all sorts of stories. I just expected a story about A.I. to deal with this stuff rather than be about the human condition - but I guess there is a very long tradition of that in SF... using robots as a counterpoint to talk about us.
Listen to the what the Blue Fairy says. Listen to what the narrator says. Then watch the very last scene carefully. The implication is so clear, it's impossible to imagine that it wasn't deliberate.
Alright, you've convinced me to give it a second viewing.
If the answer is that they can't because they are not powerful enough, then that's really convenient. The futuristic mecha are just powerful enough to support your interpretation - not enough to build a satisfying mother from the kids mind, but enough to build one to fool him for one day alone, no DNA involved.
What bothered *me* most wasn't the ending, but the idea itself that you can make things that are "programmed to love" or programmed to X where X is some intentionality. If something is "programmed" to love, how can that feeling they have be called love or even be called a feeling or a mental state? Since love is a mental state, it can only exist in minds, and an important feature of minds is fluidity, and even a certain degree of control over it. Maybe you can't choose who you love but you certainly can choose how you will react to that feeling and that reaction will in turn affect the feeling. In my opinion the notion that you can make minds that can love but cannot have a real reaction to their own love, is nonsensical; like saying, let's draw a square, but without sides. Like I said, it was what bothered *me* about it, it's actually quite common in SF to do this.
On the other hand, assuming you can actually build minds that are "doomed to love", then clearly making such minds would be immoral; it would be like creating a flawed mind deliberately, like consciously creating someone with a mental disease. Since the movie was (supposedly) about A.I. I expected that issue to be dealt in it, but it's not. Instead, we get a tale about a boy and his love, or, as you insightfully put it, about the human condition and its capacity for cruelty... All of which I actually enjoyed. Yes, I liked the movie, heck, I even liked the ending in its plain, rosy interpretation... but to me the movie is not really very good Sci Fi, just a very good story. Not that there's anything wrong with that
I also enjoyed your interpretation but honestly, I think it's one of those retrofitting interpratations we often engage in when we have to 'justify'... Nothing in the final scenes suggests that they are going to kill the kid. The interpretation is indeed possible, i.e. not terribly contradictory to anything in the movie but it would be a stretch to say that it actually stems from it (IMHO). OTOH I've been known to try to rationalize the mystical elements in the matrix, myself :)
havent seen the movie, but ive read the book (several times, in fact) and if you end up wondering wether the protagonist (Kelvin) is a construction or not, then the movie must suck the big one. thats not even an issue here... hes NOT. thats not what its about.