From: Spike Jones (spike66@attglobal.net)
Date: Sat Jun 30 2001 - 18:05:54 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Spoileresque details:
>
> I disagree that it is a deathist movie. The big tragedy is that the
> android gets his meaning of life from loving somebody. He lives only for
> his love, making him fundamentally unable to be an independent being. He
> can't grow up, he can't live without his dreams of Rachel. The future
> belongs to the cynical gigolo androids :-)
Altho disappointing in many ways, A.I. has some redeeming qualities
I kinda see why Eliezer kinda liked it: in the end, when the humans were
gone and everything was a machine, it was, well... OK.
It was OK without the orgas. It helps us see that we *are* machines,
the mechas are machines, we are real, they are real. We are machines
with some fascinating flaws.
Regarding cynical gigolo androids, if such a thing ever came to pass,
you know we nerds would be trying to pass ourselves off as machines,
by learning that head trick.
Also, that final scene was well done methinks, because of the mechas
looking down thru that window creating the impression of ambiguity
between real and simulation. Spielberg slightly defocussed the camera
at Davids homecoming to emphasize that you really dont know
if this is the atom world or electron world. I got the impression that
David was in a sim for the last few minutes of the film.
Question: if all the ice on earth melted, how much would the seas rise?
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:23 MST