Early Reviews - Terminator Salvation at 14% on Rotton Tomatoes

[Tom Lowe]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_salvation/

Seven reviews in so far and only one positive. I was getting psyched up to see this at a midnight show but now... maybe a matinee?

[Roberto Lequeux]

This would ruin my summer... I hope it is a statistical fluke and it turns around.

I guess X-Men isn't great either... @!#%!!!

Going to see "Star Trek" tonight.

[Craig Ryan]

Wolverine was what I expected, I liked Star Trek, and I'm betting Terminator Salvation will in no way live up its hype like most movies nowadays. Honestly if studios just toned down the marketing campaigns, most people would be more impressed by the final product. It's better to have low expectations and be impressed than the reverse.

I actually like going to matinees now anyways. Cheaper, and you get the whole day to think about the film.

[Tom Lowe]

Well sadly, most of these types of films are designed for one thing and one thing only -- to rake in cash. They are conceived and designed by the marketing departments at the studios, and the story is nothing but an afterthought. They just hire some nerd in LA or NY to write it.

Just look at Pirates of the Caribbean. A bunch of marketing execs dreamed up that money-making scam, based off of a boat ride at an amusement park. The script was only an afterthought that needed to be farmed out to a series of hack writers. "What's the story?" "I don't know.. just make something up."

The sad part is that the sheep lined up and dutifully withdrew crisp 20-dollar bills from their wallets, which eventually made it back to the studio marketing executives who dreamed the whole scam up... and who laughed all the way to the bank.

[Charles Angus]

I've got 10 bucks says Pirates of the Caribbean is way better than the new Terminator... I really just can't see McG offering up anything you might mistake for quality.

[Roberto B]

Well sadly, most of these types of films are designed for one thing and one thing only -- to rake in cash. They are conceived and designed by the marketing departments at the studios, and the story is nothing but an afterthought. They just hire some nerd in LA or NY to write it.

Just look at Pirates of the Caribbean. A bunch of marketing execs dreamed up that money-making scam, based off of a boat ride at an amusement park. The script was only an afterthought that needed to be farmed out to a series of hack writers. "What's the story?" "I don't know.. just make something up."

The sad part is that the sheep lined up and dutifully withdrew crisp 20-dollar bills from their wallets, which eventually made it back to the studio marketing executives who dreamed the whole scam up... and who laughed all the way to the bank.the more you post the better you go.

[Vince K]

Never saw Wolverine yet, but Start Trek is awesome. The way they create the back story is brilliant, the acting is very good, and they use the exact star logs from the original series ( from what I've read...I'm no trekkie by any means)....but I thought that was pretty cool.

Terminator will hopefully go terminal, and should be Terminated.

:anti-old:

..I wonder what laughing all the way to the bank feels like?

...ahhhhh...to dream:)

[jonnycom]

Just saw it tonight at Archlight hollywood..... Little bummed out. Not as good as Trek but several million times better then all of the Pirates combined.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Wait... am I alone in liking the first Pirates of the Carribean?

[Joseph Ward]

Wait... am I alone in liking the first Pirates of the Carribean?

Yeah, the first one was good.

[Danish P.V.]

Wait... am I alone in liking the first Pirates of the Carribean?

I think both 1 & 2 were quite ok movies.

[Tom Lowe]

BTW, I saw the Pirates movies, too. They were entertaining to some extent. But my point was that these types of films are designed exclusively to extract money from wallets. In order to do that, the marketing execs know full well that they have to invest in the best visual FX, action set pieces, and good-looking Hollywood stars that money can buy. And in the case of Pirates, this investment and scheme worked perfectly, from a profitability standpoint.

Terminator 4 is following that formula. The one positive thing that the reviewers are saying is that the FX are superb. No surprise there. But the story sounds like an afterthought. "John Conner and his army battle robots in the future." I mean, this sounds like the most simplistic sequel/prequel idea that they could have come up with. The original Terminator concept was kind of inspired -- a robot sent back in time to kill the mother of its enemy.

What might have been really awesome for T4 would be to come up with an inspired twist on the basic story -- maybe that thanks to events in earlier movies, the future has changed dramatically and humans have stayed one step ahead of the machines, harnessing and racing to keep technological pace with a fledgling "rebellion" of machines that are the equivalent of an AI al Qaeda. Or maybe AI has led to a stunning new technology that allows for multiple realities, ala Feynman's sum over histories. Maybe the machines have become morally superior to humans and the audience sympathizes with the machines to win? Or perhaps the machines were whipped and have fled to the moon to set up new factories..... LOL. I dunno... something different! Something to make the picture worthwhile for a talented director to reboot.

One little test of the theory that the director is the key to this kind of franchise reboot is Robocop. Aronofsky, who is probably one of the most talented guys we have, is set to direct a reboot of the 80s classic. This will be a serious test of Aronofsky's talent. He must have something up his sleeve if he agreed to do it.

[Vince K]

What might have been really awesome for T4 would be to come up with an inspired twist on the basic story -- maybe that thanks to events in earlier movies, the future has changed dramatically and humans have stayed one step ahead of the machines, harnessing and racing to keep technological pace with a fledgling "rebellion" of machines that are the equivalent of an AI al Qaeda. Or maybe AI has led to a stunning new technology that allows for multiple realities, ala Feynman's sum over histories. Maybe the machines have become morally superior to humans and the audience sympathizes with the machines to win? Or perhaps the machines were whipped and have fled to the moon to set up new factories..... LOL. I dunno... something different! Something to make the picture worthwhile for a talented director to reboot.

Now THOSE are some good ideas for a sequel!!!
...sounds like someone has a writing itch? :)
I have no doubt....write it Tom, and they will come! :)

Just goes to prove that it's not hard (with some personal god given talent of course) to come up with plausible ideas for a story other than the crap that hits the screen. Turning it into a script that works is another thing, but at least theres some sort of respectable foundation to start with.

I have no real desire to see the T4 movie but I will go to see what all the hoopla is regarding the special effects. That interests me more than it's story - or lack of one.

[Eren Ozkural]

I won't go into it here due to potential spoiler territory but have you heard of the original ending to Terminator: Salvation that leaked online a couple of months ago, Tom? Now that was a daring step which would have greatly benefitted the movie and the mythology of the previous films to boot. LINK (http://io9.com/5246360/mcg-spills-the-extra+dark-terminator-ending-you-wont-see) with MAJOR spoilers. (BTW, I'm referring to the ending of "intermediary darkness" not the even more retarded ending they may have shot for the DVD).

[Danish P.V.]

Now THOSE are some good ideas for a sequel!!!
...sounds like someone has a writing itch? :)
I have no doubt....write it Tom, and they will come! :)

Just goes to prove that it's not hard (with some personal god given talent of course) to come up with plausible ideas for a story other than the crap that hits the screen. Turning it into a script that works is another thing, but at least theres some sort of respectable foundation to start with.

I have no real desire to see the T4 movie but I will go to see what all the hoopla is regarding the special effects. That interests me more than it's story - or lack of one.

The ideas are kinda cool. But what studio exec`s want are copies with enhanced visual effects shit, not altering the "essence". It`s forlorn as trying to sell a new coca cola with the taste of bananas, might be a fresh and unique idea, but the hordes just want the old coke in a newly designed can at best.

[Tom Lowe]

...sounds like someone has a writing itch? :)


Heh, you got me! I actually have begun writing a script that I will finish this summer that is very, very ambitious along these same lines. It's a political/military/espionage intrigue story that deals with AI. I have been interested in these topics for years, after reading the ideas of Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil, and many of my fellow Singularitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism). I just need a couple weeks sitting beside a picturesque creek in the High Sierras with a cooler full of beer, a bag of weed, a blank yellow pad, and a pen. :sifone: :thumbsup:

It's interesting to note that James Cameron has moved way beyond the simple story of T4 and is literally reaching for the stars with Avatar. It will be interesting to see if he has come up with an idea that is inspired.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I was under the impression this one was more than just an action flick but instead explored the trans humanist conflicts of software vs soul.

That in a us vs them war it's never actually clear where the dividing line actually is.

[Eren Ozkural]

Gavin, the original ending that I linked to delves directly into what you're talking about and see the previous films from a slightly different perspective.

[Vince K]

The ideas are kinda cool. But what studio exec`s want are copies with enhanced visual effects shit, not altering the "essence". It`s forlorn as trying to sell a new coca cola with the taste of bananas, might be a fresh and unique idea, but the hordes just want the old coke in a newly designed can at best.

THIS is bananas.....

http://www.zimbio.com/Coca-Cola/articles/74/oddly+enough+bacon+flavored+diet+coke

But you make a good point.

[Tom Lowe]

I don't know the plot of T4 at all. Perhaps you are right. I've been avoiding all spoilers.

In terms of human vs transhuman intelligence, the reality is that any intelligence spawned by humans will only be an extension -- good or bad -- of our own consciousness and intelligence. The only thing that will prevent greater-than-human intelligence is some type of cataclysm, plague, or massive nuclear annihilation.

The reality is that some day machines will replace biology, or that machine intelligence will help to create enhanced biology that can keep pace. This to me is not a good or bad thing, just reality.

LOL, BTW, this is why this forum is so awesome. It only takes 10 posts before we are off onto an interesting tangent!

[Vince K]

The reality is that some day machines will replace biology, or that machine intelligence will help to create enhanced biology that can keep pace. This to me is not a good or bad thing, just reality.

LOL, BTW, this is why this forum is so awesome. It only takes 10 posts before we are off onto an interesting tangent!

This may be a pretty simple example, but hits close just the same.
My father recently had a section of his aorta replaced with a cloth tube, and 5 days later a pace maker was put in.

If it were not for this technology, he would not be with us right now.

As simple as that is, and although it happens ALL the time, it's a precursor to what is about to come. We cannot get away from the fact that machines are a part of us, and technology will only allow the intelligence of machines to continue to advance. How far we allow that to get?
I just saw this the other day:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=2291

"....and she can experess anger". Say what?

Now lets get crazy!

Plot: Stem cell researcher builds a robot.....GO! :rofl:

[Craig Ryan]

I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Heh, you got me! I actually have begun writing a script that I will finish this summer that is very, very ambitious along these same lines.
Crap. The race is on. That's my dream project too. :D

[A. Clint Litton]

Haven't seen it yet, but don't think I'll be able to avoid its allure enough to forgo the theatrical run.

To avoid disappointment, I plan on meditating on how completely shite T3 was prior to entering the theater.

The less you expect, the more you'll be pleased...as much as I hate to say that, because it doesn't help us in getting anything better out of the present-day machine, but I don't think the suits are listening to anyone's pleas for substance.

[Andrew Walker]

I saw T4 about 6 months ago and I didn't like it then and I'm almost sure I won't like it now. The effects are kind of cool but the story suffers so much from the writers painting themselves into a corner...or at least that's how I saw the way it ended.

McG shouldn't be allowed to direct.

Tom's idea sounded way more interesting.

[Coco B]

I don't know the plot of T4 at all. Perhaps you are right. I've been avoiding all spoilers.

In terms of human vs transhuman intelligence, the reality is that any intelligence spawned by humans will only be an extension -- good or bad -- of our own consciousness and intelligence. The only thing that will prevent greater-than-human intelligence is some type of cataclysm, plague, or massive nuclear annihilation.

The reality is that some day machines will replace biology, or that machine intelligence will help to create enhanced biology that can keep pace. This to me is not a good or bad thing, just reality.

LOL, BTW, this is why this forum is so awesome. It only takes 10 posts before we are off onto an interesting tangent!


It might be your reality. But is it The Reality? Does your son's toy replace your son?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If your son's toy is more intelligent than your son it's an insult to call it a toy.

There is some debate now whether or not we have an accurate estimation of the processing power of the brain. So it might be an additional 50 years before we actually hit the capacity of the human brain.

But it's beside the point. If progress continues at the current rate then it's inevitable before the raw processing power of a computer is dramatically greater than the human mind.

At that point you can start to brute force problems which currently require 'intelligent software'. It's estimated that something like 60% I believe of our brain is devoted to image processing. Our brains are predominantly GPUs. Only a very very small part of them is devoted to higher conceptual bits. For the 'ideal human' our anatomy is actually very poorly engineered. We aren't very well designed for logical and thoughtful complex problems.

We can't create software right now that comes close to the human mind just like 20 years ago we couldn't create 3D Renders which looked photorealistic. Even with a super computer we simply couldn't work quickly enough to create efficient software. It's kind of a strange catch 22 of development. In order to develop efficient software and systems you need computers fast enough to run the software in a brute force manner.

We need faster computers to create better AI. But when we do have faster computers we can try millions of more ideas even faster. And as soon as we can create an AI smart enough to work on AI problems then it becomes trivial to do something humans can't do: throw the entire computing grid at the problem.

Once computers start designing faster computers then you've reached a tipping point where their own advancements accellerate their own advancements...

Human beings are fundamentally the same hardware for the last 100k+ years. Our software gets minor tweaks based on culture and environment but by and large you could dress up a human from 50k years ago and put him in school at a young age with no one the wiser. Once you start dealing with computer systems though you get into the territory where you can start to engineer behavior.

If I don't like for whatever reason that I waste time on REDUser I could change my desire subroutines to desire working on my personal projects instead. If you want to quit smoking it's simple you just change the software.

When it comes to law and order you start to get into sticky territory. Is it legal to forbid people from killing other people. Put a small chip in your brain. Monitor everything you're doing and if the intent is to kill and mame have it stop you and wait for the authorities. Seeing as you are incapable of killing and aren't really a threat to anyone there is no reason to actually imprison you, but maybe you lose some rights. Maybe we decide that society needs to add a little bit more careful, a little more restrictive violence inhibition.

And that's ignoring the potentials for sharing. If you think we chat a lot online and through cellphones. Imagine if REDUser wasn't a place you visited it was just part of who you were? You will read every post on REDUser but posts will be far more intimate and far more informative. Since you can absorb knowledge at 2x the rate every 18 months you'll also share far more and learn far more.

What would have taken years before to read will now be hours. You can be you... just hardware accellerated for the first time in the history of the world. And getting faster.

Your child's toy is smarter than your child if he hasn't been augmented. Your child's toy will be gentler, wiser and better informed than your child and in every recognizeable way your child's toy will be superior to your child. Does he replace him? Maybe. Maybe instead of having a child you nurture a fresh piece of software and tailor design him as you think best. Maybe the concept of children will seem kind of silly since you know he'll just be disadvantaged his entire development and augmented anyway so why start with bad hardware that needs upgrading?

I doubt that enhanced biology will keep pace. I think the children born over the next 50 years will be the last. I think my generation will be the generation that either is one of the last to die or else one of the first to be backed up to software and run on emulation. But I don't think we'll be the people who invent the technology to imortalize ourselves. I think it'll be our children and their digital children which design the hardware since we'll be too stupid.

One of the largest impediments to 'backing up' people is experimentation. Millions of people would need to be killed in the tests. That's unacceptable. So we're going to have to have a working simulated analog which can be saved. Tested. Reset. Which means our digital offspring come before our salvation.

[J. P. Sendall]

The holy grail of all this is a little difficult to conceive but look at it like this.

I have an individual point of view which is contructed out of memory. That memory shapes my thought process and in essence creates a sense of self. The self then becomes the defining entity that differentiates between an 'I' inside and everything else. For a couple of thousand years meditation was supposed to break that barrier down, dissolve the 'I' inside. With no interpreting 'I', it is supposed 'truth' or perhaps a better term, 'reality' became self evident regardless of interpretation. Morals have no place in that scenario and a lot of people when confronted by it become more than a little scared. But if there is no self through which to view, then time, distance and any form of measurement becomes meaningless. The whole becomes one, and the one the whole. Sounds cliched I know but it's kinda true.

But now we have AI. So perhaps with AI we are playing the same game, creating a point of view that will eventually have a sense of self and we are back with the same problem. Nothing has changed. Self equals desire equals conflict and that comes with it. The machines fight for survival like every other creature out there. That's got to be natural in its structure, internal and external, the good and the bad and so on.

Where my real interest lies (in fiction) is where the 'I' and the 'not I' becomes grey, intangible. This is why Phillip K. Dick is so popular, people recognise the unknown and fascinating territory of 'not being myself'. He plays with that a great deal between taking a lot of speed. Science may be able to push those barriers. So for instance through bio engineering can we create a human brain that has intelligence but somehow refuses to operate in the loop of the self? Voila, we have a genetically created Buddha! Or do we have something else?

[J. P. Sendall]

Also have a look at the holographic universe theory by Bohm and Pribram. That may open unknown doors in real hard science.

[J. P. Sendall]

If I don't like for whatever reason that I waste time on REDUser I could change my desire subroutines to desire working on my personal projects instead. If you want to quit smoking it's simple you just change the software.



Unfortunately (or fortunately) the brain doesn't really work like that. It's not truly compartmentalised. You cannot locate specific memories in specific cells (again look at Pribram). Reprogramming means changing the whole brain. So to change your time spent on REDUser might mean just deciding not to. If however you try to use method it implies you are using memories to construct that method and since memories are the old brain you are stuck in the same loop. It has been suggested that repetitive behaviour actually thickens cells connections within the brain and only trauma and personal crisis can break them down, insight too. In meditation insight is called direct perception but it's debatable what exactly that is and is often disputed whether it is possible at all. You can only discover it for yourself.

Mind you, still looking forward to T4

[Jonathan Stevenson]

It's gone from 14% to 35%... maybe it's not THAT horrible after all.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

All that AI techno-bullcrap is pretty groundless.

Intelligence and Consciousness are two different things.

The capability to think doesn't make you self-aware or conscious. And vice versa - you can be perfectly self-aware and conscious without actually thinking. (Feels pretty good, BTW :))

The intellect is just one faculty or a tool of the human mind. “Intelligence” is not a term, identical to “Consciousness” or "Self-Awareness".

We actually don't even understand how our own, "natural" consciousness “works” and what it actually is. How could we even speak about building an artificial one?!

Ridiculous.

And Artificial Intelligence was invented with computers, something more - computers are artificial intelligence.

But Consciousness or Self-Awareness are something else.

--
Just my 2 crazy neurons.

[Vince K]

.... you can be perfectly self-aware and conscious without actually thinking. (Feels pretty good, BTW :))


That's how I felt after reading the last posts from Gavin and maguffin...
I gotta read more. :embarassed:

[Steven Caesare]

All that AI techno-bullcrap is pretty groundless.

Intelligence and Consciousness are two different things.

The capability to think doesn't make you self-aware or conscious. And vice versa - you can be perfectly self-aware and conscious without actually thinking. (Feels pretty good, BTW :))

The intellect is just one faculty or a tool of the human mind. “Intelligence” is not a term, identical to “Consciousness” or "Self-Awareness".

We actually don't even understand how our own, "natural" consciousness “works” and what it actually is. How could we even speak about building an artificial one?!

Ridiculous.

And Artificial Intelligence was invented with computers, something more - computers are artificial intelligence.

But Consciousness or Self-Awareness are something else.

--
Just my 2 crazy neurons.

Tell that to Skynet!!

[Alan Skinner]

All that AI techno-bullcrap is pretty groundless.

Intelligence and Consciousness are two different things.

The capability to think doesn't make you self-aware or conscious. And vice versa - you can be perfectly self-aware and conscious without actually thinking. (Feels pretty good, BTW :))

The intellect is just one faculty or a tool of the human mind. “Intelligence” is not a term, identical to “Consciousness” or "Self-Awareness".

We actually don't even understand how our own, "natural" consciousness “works” and what it actually is. How could we even speak about building an artificial one?!

Ridiculous.

And Artificial Intelligence was invented with computers, something more - computers are artificial intelligence.

But Consciousness or Self-Awareness are something else.

--
Just my 2 crazy neurons.


Studies of the human brain have yet to find what would be called the "seat of conciousness" Many investigators in this area consider the "self" or "awareness" to just be a result of the many "sub-routines" that make up our stream of thought. All of the small programs that make our heart beat, our lungs pull air in and out and the instinctual reactive portions coming from deep down in the lizard portions (Amygdalae) as well as the higher intellectual parts of our brain (Prefrontal lobe, etc).

So, it may only be a matter of creating a "mechanical computational device" (computer) that has as many or more "sub-routines" running that are linked together to create what we consider so special about ourselves "self-awareness"!

And then the games begin....... Will it have morality and what flavor? Many humans do not share the same morality as other humans. No reason why a machine will share our virtues or our faults. They would have their own based on their experiences.

So, it seems that it may be possible that we will, even accidently, create an intelligence of some type that thinks differently than it was originally programmed, especially when you consider that we are now creating "self-learning" robotic systems.

SkyNet is not that far-fetched and yes, I have read a lot of science fiction but I read as much science fact! :)

[Tom Lowe]

All that AI techno-bullcrap is pretty groundless.

....

Ridiculous.



I see that we have a lot of work to do before recruiting you into our Transhumanist cult. :reddevil:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Studies of the human brain have yet to find what would be called the "seat of conciousness" Many investigators in this area consider the "self" or "awareness" to just be a result of the many "sub-routines" that make up our stream of thought. All of the small programs that make our heart beat, our lungs pull air in and out and the instinctual reactive portions coming from deep down in the lizard portions (Amygdalae) as well as the higher intellectual parts of our brain (Prefrontal lobe, etc).


That's just hipotheses.

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

... Ergo... my mind... is... gone... :sifone:

[Alan Skinner]

I see that we have a lot of work to do before recruiting you into our Transhumanist cult. :reddevil:

You WILL be assimilated! :couch:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I see that we have a lot of work to do before recruiting you into our Transhumanist cult. :reddevil:


Hahah.

Yeah, I'm an incorrigible spiritualist. :hippie:

[Tom Lowe]

Resistance is FUTILE, Rado!

[Alan Skinner]

That's just hipotheses.

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

... Ergo... my mind... is... gone... :sifone:

Hmmmm, so far this thread has covered all of the bases. From a Scifi movie to conjecture to fantastic deviations from reality.

Thought I was still on topic with my Hippo-pothesis! :)

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Resistance is FUTILE, Rado!


Nevaaaa! :sifone:

[Alan Skinner]

That's just hipotheses.

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

... Ergo... my mind... is... gone... :sifone:

I think,........... therefore I am.
I think not,.............. "POOF!" :head_explode:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

While I'm with you on most of your comments regarding true consciousness or self-awareness, I don't believe it's entirely beyond the realm of human science.

I think it may be possible to create a truly intelligent system that could ultimately achieve consciousness through it's own development. Consciousness or self-awareness is something that will probably never be something that is hard-coded into a design. It must emerge under natural progression of an intelligent being. For now, that is beyond what our current technology allows. But I don't think it's that far off.

As for "artificial intelligence", key word being "artificial", I think that's a term that doesn't fit what many current developments are capable of. Some of the latest learning systems are truly capable of learning on their own and deriving intelligent and rational decisions based on facts and experiences. To call something of this nature "artificial" doesn't seem right. It's not artificially intelligent, but rather man-made intelligence or synthesized intelligence in a way. But yes, nowhere near self-aware or conscious.

[J. P. Sendall]

That's just hipotheses.

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

... Ergo... my mind... is... gone... :sifone:

So that field is closed to us? You may be right but I'm not so sure. The mind is not observable as a thing perhaps but it is observable as a process. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Is thought a wave in particle (cell) form? It may have to eventually come down to that as a scientific study, thought as energy beyond the molecular but operating within it. Hold on...message coming through...yes...got it.

The wave (as thought) creates another wave (as image) of self based upon experience (past waves) which then go on to create more thoughts. Perhaps it's not that consciousness exists or not, or is a process or not. The real question is what happens when it stops?



you can be perfectly self-aware and conscious without actually thinking.

Well I'm afraid it takes thought to say that so really you haven't stopped thinking at all. You cannot truthfully say anything exists outside of thought, that self awareness exists, that there is consciousness outside of thought since it is thought that takes up that point of view, you see. These are the subtle tricks that thought plays in trying to convince itself it exists and is valid in the 'real' world. I mean if thought began to entertain the idea that it doesn't really exist insanity is a very real outcome. All the buffers it has built up suddenly collapse and the insignifcance of self becomes terrifyingly real.

Even as I write this I feel the pit in my stomach opening up.

[Coco B]

I was knocked UNconscious once (ok, twice:cool:).

And I really didn't remember anything.

It ain't easy without consciousness.:beer:

[PaulClements]

I just need a couple weeks sitting beside a picturesque creek in the High Sierras with a cooler full of beer, a bag of weed, a blank yellow pad, and a pen.
Hi Tom,
I have a script or ten I need to write, any room on that Creek?
Paul

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Many things exist which aren't directly identifiable. Where is the "Go" in a motor? The reason you can't find it is because you're searching for the result not the process.

It's my belief that you can't create an even slightly intelligent application without consciousness. It's not an optional component that you can run on top of an autonomoton. It's the process by which intelligence emerges.

Most 'higher life forms' on earth are conscious and sentient. Any animal which doesn't live completely *IN* the moment has to have consciousness.

If you have software which understands three things simultaneously while having a learning subroutine running on top which can combine all three you probably will be conscious:
1) The way the world was.
2) The way the world is.
3) The way the world probably will be.

I don't see how you could possibly have even a marginally intelligent bot that wouldn't be conscious and vice versa.

A program which can open a new kind of door knob for instance I would consider conscious.

How can you learn if you don't reflect on past mistakes? Identify them as mistakes and develop improved methods? #3 is the tricky one. All of "human intelligence" is just the ability to predict outcomes accurately based on #1 and 2.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

http://www.fineperiod.com/little_prince.jpg

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Again. If we want comparably intelligent computers they're going to have to be able to think abstractly/imagine/dream. A computer which can't imagine a possible future isn't very intelligent. IF we want to co-exist with them they'll have to be compassionate. There's nothing magical about the brain. It's a chemical computer. Just like there is nothing magical about the heart. It's a biological pump. Or anything magical about the stomach. Anything that exists in this universe can be recreated and or simulated. It's all physics. Unless of course someone is suggesting that part of you is thinking in a universe outside of physics?

That would be an incredibly dubious claim to make since choice/personality/behavior is so easily manipulated through physical means. I have a good friend of the family who has electrodes all throughout his brain and a computer to control them. The computer can change his personality and mood in a matter of seconds depending on the programming. Tumors and drugs are well understood to change people's interests, personalities and thinking.

With sufficiently advanced technology we could skip the programming step and just create a virtual 1:1 molecular simulation of an existing human brain. It would be as brainy as any other brain... just in a virtual world instead of ours. They've already started this with worms and mice. By next year we may have a mouse's visual cortex running in emulation.

Also most complaints about computers can also be made about humans. I know someone who claims (and I believe him) that he doesn't feel any emotions except for degrees of "good" and "bad". That's the extent of his emotional range.

I've met tons of people who are completely incapable of thinking in the abstract.

If you take a careful look at child development you would easily see that millions of 'humans' lack all of the abilities we hold up as being uniquely human. Either we would need to define children as "not yet human" or we would need to recognize computers with comparable levels of sophistication as say a 6 year old as also worthy of human rights.

End computer bigotry! :D

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It's all physics.

No, it's not. :)

And, BTW, what does *physics* mean?


I have a good friend of the family who has electrodes all throughout his brain and a computer to control them. The computer can change his personality and mood in a matter of seconds depending on the programming.


Come again?

:crying:

[Alan Skinner]

No, it's not. :)

And, BTW, what does *physics* mean?



Come again?

:crying:

Read Michael Crichtons' "Terminal Man": Guy has a real bad problem with rage. They place electrodes in his brain and a small computer to control it. Unfortunately, the computer has to keep upping the power after each episode resulting in worse rage attacks than ever. Even bigger problem: the guy is an explosives expert.................. :head_explode:

I think Mr. Crichton would be comfortable next to that river with Tom and a big four finger bag....... :sifone:

[Coco B]

If you take a careful look at child development you would easily see that millions of 'humans' lack all of the abilities we hold up as being uniquely human.

Humans are alive.

"A virtual 1:1 molecular simulation of an existing human brain" is not.

Just a little tiny difference. :cool:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Humans are alive.

..

Just a little tiny difference. :cool:

:thumbsup:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Humans are alive.

"A virtual 1:1 molecular simulation of an existing human brain" is not.

Yes, but would that simulated brain know any different?

[Tom Lowe]

The real fireworks will begin once a computer can begin to redesign and improve itself, making itself ever more intelligent. This creates a positive feedback cycle that will take place at lightning speed. Beyond that point you reach an "event horizon" -- about which no human can speculate. It would be like a hamster trying to speculate about radio telescopes. To say that any of us know whether these intelligences will have a "soul" or whatever is impossible for us to say now. This would be like 14-Century dog claiming that powered flight is impossible. How on earth would HE know?

[Vince K]

The real fireworks will begin once a computer can begin to redesign and improve itself, making itself ever more intelligent. This creates a positive feedback cycle that will take place at lightning speed. Beyond that point you reach an "event horizon" -- about which no human can speculate. It would be like a hamster trying to speculate about radio telescopes. To say that any of us know whether these intelligences will have a "soul" or whatever is impossible for us to say now. This would be like 14-Century dog claiming that powered flight is impossible. How on earth would HE know?

It seems we're not that far off.....

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/30/shape-shifting-robot-can-reassemble-after-crashing-apart/

http://www.break.com/index/chair-can-fix-itself.html

very interesting indeed....

[Tom Lowe]

IBM is prepping a super-computer to appear on the TV show Jeopardy.

http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/

:thumbsup:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I dread the day when RED cameras [also famous for their modularity] become self-aware and start shooting everything in sight... :cool:

[Coco B]

Yes, but would that simulated brain know any different?

Yes, but would it's ignorance make it alive? :)

Brain input from the body is needed from both chemical and nervous pathways for the production of self-consciousness.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

No, it's not. :)
And, BTW, what does *physics* mean?


It means our brains think, feel and dream by means of a biological computer (our brain). What substance: silicon or amino acids is beside the point. There are already billions of living computers walking the earth. They just use a different manufacturing process than humanity has harnessed and controlled.


Humans are alive.

"A virtual 1:1 molecular simulation of an existing human brain" is not.

Just a little tiny difference. :cool:

We don't even have a definition of life. It's thinking like that, that will bring on one of the greatest genocides ever committed on this planet. It was once thought that blacks, jews, neighboring tribes and women were also subhuman. Some even suggesting that they had no souls nor were human.

It's that kind of attitude that continues to lead to the abuse of other primates because they haven't been supposedly sanctioned by God as worthy of rights despite exhibiting incredibly sophisticated and comparable intellect to small children.

A definition of life is largely impossible. Any definition we attempt to pin down is full of contradictions. It's an arbitrary definition. It doesn't actually really have a cut off point either. You can say that a human is obviously more independent and autonomous than a rock. That as an identified entity it would be more 'lifelike' than a rock.

Similarly humanity is not a binary experience. Some humans are 'more human' than others. Someone in a vegetative state with no brain activity is awarded human rights. A Dog is not. The Dog is "More human" than a vegetative human. Someone with developmental disorders and the intelligence of a 1 year old will never be as intellectually or emotionally sophisticated or advanced as a chimpanzee and yet we award the human rights but not the chimpanzee. It's a rational position to take. It's too dangerous to create a loophole in the legal system where humans can be deemed 'inhuman' but I think it's also a challenge to evaluate all life on a consistent set of rules and not based on their DNA, Chemical composition or other arbitrary and largely irrelevant details.

The reason I say everything is physics is because there has never been any proof or even suggestion of evidence that any thinking or deciding happens outside of our brains. On the contrary all of the evidence we collect on the human brain points strongly to all thinking being present inside of the chemical hardware running in our skull.


Yes, but would it's ignorance make it alive? :)

Brain input from the body is needed from both chemical and nervous pathways for the production of self-consciousness.

And yet people have cochlear implants. Blind people have had sight restored by neural implants. Both of these senses have been replaced by silicon implants. Quadrapalegics feel nothing below their neck. Creating a simulated skin and eyes and ears as part of the "brain on a chip" experiment wouldn't be challenging at all if we had the technology to simulate every atom in the brain.


We're all squishy robots.

[Coco B]

We don't even have a definition of life. It's thinking like that, that will bring on one of the greatest genocides ever committed on this planet.

hahaha

And who said a rock is not alive?!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Nobody.

A silicon based lifeform might look exactly like a rock. It might be 'eat' plutonium and have no need to move.

Its reproductive life cycle might be centuries or millenia. And that's just a rock. I would say someone has already written 'living' software. We just haven't been willing to recognize it. Not saying it was sentient. But I would say that we've already created a new form of life.

That's why we have to be so open and flexible in definitions of life. Even a rock can be misleading.

[bobaandy]

Gavin, normally I would ask to see some sources cited, but I'm kinda still trying to comprehend it all and what this means for the future.

Squishy robots indeed.

[Alan Skinner]

Read: "Bicentennial Man". Or, just go see the movie with Robin Williams. Not badly done........

Asimov=way ahead of his time again........ Really miss that guy!.......sigh.........

[Alan Skinner]

It means our brains think, feel and dream by means of a biological computer (our brain). What substance: silicon or amino acids is beside the point. There are already billions of living computers walking the earth. They just use a different manufacturing process than humanity has harnessed and controlled.



We don't even have a definition of life. It's thinking like that, that will bring on one of the greatest genocides ever committed on this planet. It was once thought that blacks, jews, neighboring tribes and women were also subhuman. Some even suggesting that they had no souls nor were human.

It's that kind of attitude that continues to lead to the abuse of other primates because they haven't been supposedly sanctioned by God as worthy of rights despite exhibiting incredibly sophisticated and comparable intellect to small children.

A definition of life is largely impossible. Any definition we attempt to pin down is full of contradictions. It's an arbitrary definition. It doesn't actually really have a cut off point either. You can say that a human is obviously more independent and autonomous than a rock. That as an identified entity it would be more 'lifelike' than a rock.

Similarly humanity is not a binary experience. Some humans are 'more human' than others. Someone in a vegetative state with no brain activity is awarded human rights. A Dog is not. The Dog is "More human" than a vegetative human. Someone with developmental disorders and the intelligence of a 1 year old will never be as intellectually or emotionally sophisticated or advanced as a chimpanzee and yet we award the human rights but not the chimpanzee. It's a rational position to take. It's too dangerous to create a loophole in the legal system where humans can be deemed 'inhuman' but I think it's also a challenge to evaluate all life on a consistent set of rules and not based on their DNA, Chemical composition or other arbitrary and largely irrelevant details.

The reason I say everything is physics is because there has never been any proof or even suggestion of evidence that any thinking or deciding happens outside of our brains. On the contrary all of the evidence we collect on the human brain points strongly to all thinking being present inside of the chemical hardware running in our skull.



And yet people have cochlear implants. Blind people have had sight restored by neural implants. Both of these senses have been replaced by silicon implants. Quadrapalegics feel nothing below their neck. Creating a simulated skin and eyes and ears as part of the "brain on a chip" experiment wouldn't be challenging at all if we had the technology to simulate every atom in the brain.


We're all squishy robots.

Wow! Gavin! Deep stuff. Well laid out. Thanks! Like it.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It means our brains think, feel and dream by means of a biological computer (our brain). What substance: silicon or amino acids is beside the point. There are already billions of living computers walking the earth. They just use a different manufacturing process than humanity has harnessed and controlled.

I failed to find any proof here, just statements. :sifone:

[Coco B]

It's not that you failed, somebody else did.

[Tom Lowe]

This has turned into a religious debate masquerading as a technical one. :yikes:

[J. P. Sendall]

Does life equal consciousness? That's an unanswered question I think.

Famous thought experiment. Lets say every person was given the responsibility of looking after one brain cell (some might joke there are some already doing that with their own). Ok, this cell is housed in an environment that keeps it alive. Your responsibility is to feed in and feed out signals that you receive from the internet from all the other cell holders. You get signal in, feed it to the brain cell and then feed out the responding signals to other cells. So basically you have a brain that has been broken down and is essentially still operating normally. Distance between cells, even direct contact, no longer dictates the definition of alive and conscious. Now here comes the fun bit. If instead of a cell you only had on paper a set of functions dictating exactly how the cell might react to signals. Signals are received in paper form in the post by letter and you write and send out letters according to those set of functions specific to your paper 'cell'. Is this mass of communication alive? It can function and operate in the same way as any human brain.

It's just a thought experiment folks so don't post in saying how it wouldn't work as the point is to change your view of consciousness as not being so easily tied down to location or other dubious parameters.

[J. P. Sendall]

Throw into the mix quantum mechanics and things become stranger still since there might be something called non locality

[David Collard]

I enjoyed it but it was not as good as I had hoped. The sound effects of the giant robots sounded just like the ones from the recent "War of the Worlds". Still very effective.

There's a nasty rumor going around that Jim Jannard is somehow linked to the real SKYNET. I don't think those little red eyes have anything in common with Red. So we should all just relax and ignore the unsavory gossip.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Good god that was a terrible movie... and I liked transformers.

It was just so.... bad... and insultingly bad at that. I don't mind bad without ambition but they worked hard to make bad.

And the ending monologue wanted me to shove a T1000 silver spike through Jon Conner's head. I would have cheered for skynet but it was almost dumber than humanity. It's a marvel neither party managed to accidentally kill themselves over the course of the last 9 years.

I could write a master's thesis on what's wrong with that movie. By the half way point I was almost too busy rewriting every scene in my head as it went to even bother caring anymore.

It's been a long time since I've seen a movie where every single shot was a plot hole wraped in terrible dialogue.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Omg... :)

[Jay A. Kelley]

Terminator was cool.. Only dud for me this summer so far was Angels and Demons...

Wolverine was not to hot either.

Looking forward to seeing UP today!

Jay

[Tom Lowe]

Gavin, I read a report somewhere which said that in the original script, John Conner was barely seen until the very end. He was the Michael Ironsides character, essentially. Apparently, the producers wanted Bale to play the robot Marcus (not surprising, given Bale's many robotic performances). But Bale insisted on playing John Conner. The writers (particularly Nolan) were then forced to graft Conner's character onto the existing plot, trying to find stuff for him to do.

[Alan Skinner]

It has been along time since I sat in a movie with my arms crossed wanting to leave. This one did that. Seriously had me twisting in my chair. I went with a buddy who seemed to be enjoying it so I watched the whole thing. Wished I had left (or been killed by a robot) before that last scene............

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Terminator sucked. I felt violated. I'd call it a disappointment, but it really wasn't -- it was about what I expected. Some of the FX work was pretty cool, but nothing that really made me go "wow!" and nothing revolutionary for the time as we saw with T2. The cringe-inducing dialoge and half-assed story just fell flat. There are so many cool directions that they could have taken this film, but chose not to...

I'll take the kids to see UP, that should be pretty good -- or at least Pixar has yet to let me down. I don't know if I'll waste my time on Transformers -- it's probably going to suck too and I wasn't a big fan of the first one, it was just OK.

I keep preaching it, but I don't think there's a producer or director in Hollywood that would know a good Sci-Fi script if it sat on their face and wiggled. Or maybe there is, but I think Hollywood is afraid that good Sci-Fi won't put enough butts into those theatre seats, it's much better to rape and pillage an existing franchise or take an over-used concept and beat it to a bloody pulp.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Thanks for the reviews!! I just saved $40!!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It was like Anti-SciFi. The whole interesting part for terminator for me has always been the duality between machine and man. Is a terminator alive? Can we grow beyond our programming? It was very philisophical and open. The Sarah Conner Chronicles was a fucking brilliant investigation of the ideas of Terminator. This was a slap in the face.

"The reason humans will prevail is not because of technology but because of the power of the human heart." It made me want to gag. Marcus <spoiler> giving up his heart? Really? He doesn't deserve to live? The only thing that made Marcus "human" was that he had a biological heart? I guess Our 'souls' reside in our cardiac muscles. It was a movie about what makes us human and they pretty much said "If you don't have a brain and a heart you aren't a human." Which was also pretty confusing considering the number of people with artificial hearts.

And that's just thematic stuff.

Oh the plot... me oh my the plot. <spoilers> So the story is that they have this device which will supposedly deactivate a skynet headquarters. And Jon Conner is going to lead an attack and blow up skynet's headquarters. (Well as they point out in the end not the only or really anything more than just another base.) Meanwhile... Skynet has figured out that they just need to kill kyle reese to kill Jon Conner. So they create Marcus to be an 'infiltrator' but instead of being a lethal infiltrator... he mission is to find people and become their friends. And then hope they get captured by skynet. Instead of... you know... just killing them on the spot.

They even succeed. Which was a miracle in accidentally just 'bumping into" the two people on earth they need to find and getting both of them "into the trap" and then again instead of killing them. Lock them in a room for god knows what reasons instead of fulfilling their plan.

Greatest evil plan ever.

I always stay for the credits. Even for like Deathrace 2000 (which was a much much better movie). This was the first movie in years that I just walked out on before it had even finished fading to black.

[I Bloom]

The director goes by McG. What did you expect?

I still kind of liked it. Any post apocalyptic movie gets my money no matter how bad.

IBloom

[Joe G.]

"We actually don't even understand how our own, "natural" consciousness “works” and what it actually is. How could we even speak about building an artificial one?!"

Well, it is a future story. The fundamental basis is that the machines have begun "building" and "designing" themselves. Once they reach that point, all bets are off.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I was expecting a stupid action movie and really looking forward to it. I enjoyed Charlie's Angels 2. I liked XXX. I love post apocalyptic.

What I can't stand are characters with the IQs of an earthworm with down's syndrome.

and the constant preaching on things I completely disagree with. "What makes us human is that we bury our dead. Skynet doesn't." Really? Really? That's what makes us human the fact that we bury our dead? I guess that rules out thousands of tribal cultures. At every step their definition of human seemed to be what makes someone culturally American. And they never. NEVER. acknowledged that even Marcus was human. Even though he had a brain and heart they still treated him like a disposable microwave.

Too much synthetic bigotry. Preaching compassion while viewing sentient feeling creatures all around them as a toaster oven loses all moral credibility in my books.

The moral foundation for the film was built on bigotry and intolerance. The plot foundation was less sturdy than most SciFi original films. The characters, writing, acting and direction was on par with a JrHi school play. All of the good cinematography and camera direction is in the trailer. In fact I would recommend just watching the trailer. You get a pretty cool little short film that makes more sense than the movie.

-----

Also it should be noted that I got to see it for free. So all of this ranting is based on a free screening. And I had no other plans for the evening. So I didn't even have anything else to do at the time.