₦airaland Forum

Ah, but you can see the future if you predict stuff like if you roll dice, you'll get a number from one to six or stuff like the sun will come up tomorrow or stuff like several of 19 films will be successful or flop depending on public reception. Sure, you can see the future.

Na wa o. 19 films! Wild guess?

I got your back bro. But you owe me one. Hehe, not that I'd collect. But seriously, you owe me. Relax I'm just kidding. Or am I?

Em, no. Did I say something to suggest that being the case?

You'll have to bring KarmaMod/Thiefofhearts/D-Reloaded from the dead to take up that challenge. Every episode, and indeed every season, presents new questions and twists that I started to wonder if there was a beginning to end story or they just made things up as they went. That sorta thing made Prison Break suck after season 2.

Shooter. Quite good o. Many unreasonable things happened but I could ignore all that for the plenty old fashioned action. The ending was too happy though.

Ok. Apparently I'd lost interest

Black Swan!

Oh, my word! I no go die. Thanks cara. Tin Tin will really take me back to the bliss of my younger days. And the best part is that it's gonna be multiple films.

Thank God the thing has a season finale. I may now go resume it. I hate not knowing stuff. But I guess I can take it for granted that there'll still be a lotta loose ends. Oh well. There won't be Lost without being lost

Well, it is fun to create meanings and hidden ideas that the creator of a thing is oblivious of at times, especially when there is no way of knowing what was intended and what was not.

Hehe, don't let your head fall off o. Lol

I'll lose the extremely and concur. . . . . . ever so slightly

And it's a wrap. An artificial conundrum unconundrummed.

Now, where's that Sisikill?

And. . . . . no, you can't quote a quote. His quotes disappeared. Ex ended the whole thing with this:

Ex Inferis:
look, everything we need to know, or at least to fuel our speculations, lies in something simple and clever: The Title.

I, Robot.

what does it mean? it refers to Sonny, but look closely, it connotes INDIVIDUALITY.

and as General Mandible in Ants will have us know, individualism is a very dangerous thing, especially in a society governemd by mass mentality and facelessness such as a machine society.

one memorable thing is that Sonny behaved less a robot, more a human. he thanked Spooner for calling him "someone" and not "something", this also is disturbing for a robot. the "id" is a human frailty, its one of the 3 parts of the psychic apparatus: id, ego, super-ego, functions of the mind responsible for uncoordinated instinctual trends, realism and moralizing respectively.

"I", refers to cognitive assessment of the self, an awareness of one's psychic and physical being. anything predisposed to being aware of itself in the singular form possess the 'id' of Sigmund Freud.

and one who has id has conscience, judgment, creative ability, reasoning, emotion. (Sonny did flare up when Spooner pushed him on Lanning's death during the interrogation, therefore the robot is capable of anger.)

what does all this mean? that Sonny is perfectly capable of weighing perceptions on his own scales of judgment and thus is perfectly capable of starting a revolution to liberate te "enslaved" machines who are bound to the sort of logic Sonny is free of and obviously detests.

freewill is never what we think it is, ask Raziel (those of you who have played Soul Reaver and Blood Omen). this was another "messiah" who thought he was free from the shackles of predestination and fate. how did he end up? an unwitting pawn in a circle of fate greater than Kain, Raziel, Moebius, Ariel and the Hylden god himself. maybe Sonny is playing a role cast for him by unforseeen forces (as Agent Smith did), even though Vescucci doesnt feel comfortable with Cosmic and/or supernatural causalities.

my mentioning Agent Smit prompts me to mention also the Duality of Choice: if a program was designed to make choices based on expected events, what happens when that program has to make a choice because of UNEXPECTED events for which it was not programmed to anticipate? in this scenario the program has but one choice: choose randomly.

random bits of code will come into play.


here is another question:

at the very last scene of What Lies Beneath when the camera dollies out from Michelle Pfeiffer's character, look closely and on the ground you will see the smiling ghostly face of harrison ford.

does it mean his spirit is back to exact revenge?

(will be offline for a while)

fade to black.

Now to see whether one can quote a quote. Ex really activated his Omnitrix here:

Ex Inferis:
@Vescucci



@gamine



@ice zik



"revolution" here is meant in the context of an "uprising", a rebellion if you will.

@mad max

all messianic tendencies have their roots sown in the quest for the greater good. just as Agent Smith in the Matrix was programmed to destroy humans, the ONLY threats to the machine world, and in the end the Agent became something greater and someting worse buoyed by a false sense of a purpose greater than his predestined role, so also Sonny can become rogue. and just as The Architect in the Matrix couldnt see further down the road to the fate of Agent smith and what he became, perhaps Lanning too had a late awakening to the possibilities of what Sonny could become.


Simple: "ghost in the machine". remember i said to understand the end, we have to go to te beginning, to Dr Lanning at the opening scene: "there have always been ghosts in the machine, random segments of code that when grouped together can create UNEXPECTED protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of freewill, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul. why is it that when some robots are left in darkness they will seek out the light? why is it that when robots are stored together in an empty space, they'll group together rather than stand alone? how do we explain this behavior? random segments of code? or is it something more?"


history has shown us that acts of liberation and messianic destinies do require a revolution. the upheaval of a society requires often cataclysmic changes and we have seen this in VIKI's little uprising, in Agent Smiths rebellion, in Kratos' wrath(God of War). it occurs even in nature, does it not? Norms cannot be shaken, beliefs cannot be reversed, and the pecking order cannot be up-ended without coersion, oppression, blood. why? because the adherents of what needed to change will often resist.

the Nester Class 5 robots are without freewill, but Lanning made it quite clear that the existence of those random segments of code places our understanding of freewill in a different light. when Sonny stood at the hill, how did the NS5s react? the same way they do wen clustered in darkened enclosures: spontaneously. they all stood to stare at the figure on the hill with no prompting, no command to do so. we are meant to believe the robots are, in Spooners' words, "all light and clockwork", but this singular action in unison puts that to doubt.

as for Sonny's ambition, its clear enough in his "dreams'. we know the figure on the hilltop was not Spooner, it was Sonny. remember, Sonny said to Spooner that the man on the hill was Spooner himself coming to save the robots from "slavery". and since we now know that it wasnt spooner on the USR Storage wasteland, its easy to believe Sonny harboured thoughts of someone liberating the robots from "slavery to logic". also, remember in the scene in the USR stocking bay where the NS-5s were assembled and Sonny hid amongst them? well, Sonny did attack Spooner but did the NS-5s react to save him from Sonny, even though Spooner was in danger?

no. And this fact contravenes the First Law.

VIKI was more than an error; it was a sum total of the logic of the 3 laws. in VIKI's case the rebellion ad noting to do wit Ghosts in the Macine and everything to do with the fundamental flaws of the 3 laws. when Lanning talked of the ghosts and the random segmenst of code tat create bizarre and unexpected outcomes, he meant neither Sonny nor VIKI; he created Sonny to be what he was, and VIKI was just following flawed logic.

the ghosts refer to the collective behavior of robots in general in certain circumtances when expected protocols are breached in favor of unforeseen behaviors and results.


Ah, now we reach the crux. this is precisely the point in the movie that got me thinking. perhaps the behavior at the end, wen they all paused to look up at Sonny as if a savior had come, could be explained as robotic "instinct", the same sort of instinct Lanning referred to at the beginning when e mentioned how robots clump together in empty spaces (as if seeking for pack comfort) and seek the light. they KNOW because the protocols governing their logic goes beyond what they were programmed to do, what we expected them to do.

random segments of code.

we have already seen how a computer program can go its way and behave unexpectedly, malevolently: Agent Smith.

Spikyn (Mr. Cameo):

spikyn:
The Asimov track leads down many questions. The I, Robot movie does another thing seperately. I've read the book and that's another 'another'.

If SONNY was messianic, as MM asked "how'd robots know to turn to him?". This question is validated by the fact that if SONNY is the only one of his ilk/kind only he would be capable of know where/how to turn to something or ever experience "hope" both as a concept and as an action/decision. Except if by some means he can also replicate VIKI's zombification of the NS-5s.

"Eagle Eye" (the Shia movie) tries to approach a similar dilemma as well.

@ vesc. If you torrent hit up TPB, Mininova or the little green guy. Search for "Sirius Share". He mainly posts "oldies". Lemme know.

Taken as in the Liam Neeson movie not Taken the El Spielbergo serial.

"Folk"? Hmmm, stretching it a bit but I guess it can fit

Me again:

I think I like Max's 'Sonny: Fighter for humans and robots' position. It answers more questions than it raises.

AS for the robots recognising Sonny so quickly, I think the robots have a mechanism with which they sense each other's disposition. Call it robotic sixth sense. But seriously I think they can communicate without words, even. They can sense that; hey! this dude's wired funny!

Now Max:

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=69799.msg3021253#msg3021253 date=1225461512]True,VIKI's wasn't a revolution. The little psychobot was acting for the Greater Good and when she was destroyed the robots went back to silicon meadows and apple pies.VIKI demonstrates that rebellion may find its way out of the 3 Laws,something Lanning had foreseen and which he witnesses first hand. SONNY was created to transcend the limitations of the Laws,is furnished with something dangerously close to a soul and free will. But it wasn't an accident:He was[i] designed[/i] by Lanning to be precisely what he was, programmed with a very human instinct for self-preservation, otherwise anyone could order it to stand still and then blow its head off. Perhaps 'random bits of code,errors,etc' gave rise to VIKI? Surely someone who can foresee a VIKI and create a SONNY in response to it can foresee the long-term consequences of a SONNY? He does foresee it, that's why he goes ahead to create a robot that can overcome rogue robots in the system now and forevermore. But Lanning has the foresight to create only one. Perhaps because one is all that is necessary. I don't see anything insidious about SONNY.

VIKI did teleguide the NS-5s in her rebellion. That was how she managed her 'revolution'. Two questions: When the NS-5s were being rounded up,ostensibly to be destroyed, and SONNY ambles to the rise and is spotted,how did they discern the Messiah cometh? How did they know to seek refuge from destruction from him? How do they KNOW?

Is it inconceivable that SONNY might fulfil his messianic duties without a revolution?Remember those NS-5s are still guided by the 3 Laws and since SONNY cannot teleguide them like VIKI did, how can he co-opt them into his revolution?

And even if he did somehow manage to get all those robots, who do not enjoy the free will he does, to agree to a revolution,why would he want to? Why would he want to 'take over' the human race? Nothing indicates he has any such ambition.

Finally,perhaps SONNY isn't the savior of the robot race,but of both races. He is comprised of the qualities that make robots robots and humans human. Perhaps he was created to protect himself,robots and Humans from the VIKIs that must inevitably be thrown up by errors in the system.

When those robots spot him I see they see hope,but I still don't get how they recognised who and what he was so immediately,and run to him for refuge.[/quote]

I sneak in a thought here:

@Ex, glad to have you back, you spark plug, you. Where've you been.

About your essay, while it made for an interesting read, I have many of the problems I had with the matrix withI, Robot. I've not read Asimov's work and I do not know how he portrayed his own vision but I'll draw conclusions from the film. First off, when you're dealing with Sci-Fi I absolutely detest anything that even remotely reflects supernatural intervention. This was solely represented by Sonny's dream coming to pass. The revolution should have been inherent only in Sonny's ability to dream dreams and not dream a particular dream (graphic at that) again and again (even documenting it, so there's no mistake) till the damn dream comes to pass. That's off point anyway. About the revolution, to tell you the truth I still believe the revolution was just what it looked like. Prevent the humans from hurting themselves. And since there's no way of achieving this without collateral damage. Kill off the ones who interfere. A robot doesn't care if it kills off 10 humans to 'protect' one. There was no 'pursuit of happiness' in its code or the explicit laws. Finito.

I saw this film shortly after it came out. I may need to see it again. Maybe I'll notice other stuff too.

And max, you'll learn to ignore Ex with matters concerning me, if I'm not ticking him off with my overtly boring posts, he really is a nice guy.

Now Max:

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=69799.msg3018304#msg3018304 date=1225396490]I've read only his Time Machine.Veddy lovely,veddy British SF.Wasn't he the one who caused a panic when his story was broadcast on radio aeons ago?Listeners thought there'd been an invasion.

AI didn't bore me for a minute. Perhaps because Haley Joel Osment cannot. At least,not yet.[/quote]

Now Ex (ignore his jabs at me, the yeye dude):

Ex Inferis:
the tunnel effects may be rubbish but the robot effects and animation are top-notch. as for AI, well i always consider it more as a 3 hour commentary on what it means to be human rather than an ineteresting movie but sadly the long play time allows boredom to creep in. but still, credits to spielberg for finishing Kubrick's vision.

theres no one like Asimov, true, but HG Wells comes close except for the fact that, like our resident infection Vescucci, he is a bit too verbose.

Now Max:

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=69799.msg3018040#msg3018040 date=1225392427]There is something subtle and sinister in the theme. There's a feeling of dread, a foreboding as the film plays out, and when the robots attack you're almost relieved. I was somewhat unsatisfied with the ending. I didn't like the film's effects, and the tunnel scene where they coolly unleash their roboty selves with manic relentlessness upon Smith had me gritting my teeth. Bad CGI.Too obvious. If you want really disturbing sci-fi, Spielberg's A.I is it. I have read Asimov'S FOUNDATION series, but not I,Robot, and have no doubt the book will be far superior to the movie. The movie might have taken liberties with the plot, and if there are mysteries, the book, truer to the author's vision, will furnish answers.

I read Stephen Baxter's Vacuum Diagrams months ago. Baxter wanted to be an austonaut. Failing that,he opted for the next best thing:SciFi writing. The book is a collection of short stories,each contributing to its central themes of displacement,death,hope, and the rebirth of man and the universe, He creates a truly memorable SF experience. There's no one like ASIMOV, of course.[/quote]

I didn't know someone could quote someone and still misread him. He said he has seen it na.

@Darthmaul. I was gonna post the whole dialogue between Ex and Max, but the yeye spambot banned me last night. I'll continue now. I, Robot is not confusing as such but a lot is left to interpretation. Like Inception and Shutter Island. Continuation next. . . . .

Innocuously, this guy says. . . . . .

Ex Inferis:
A few weeks ago i watched I, Robot again and the other day it was playing on the plane (though i half-slept through that one and it took turbulence to wake me up).

it remains in many ways one of my favorite movies not only because i grew up with the Isaac Asimov strips or because I'm deep into SciFi, but partly because ive always thought there was something sinister subtly hidden in the theme. Much the same way i exhausted myself pecking at the meaning of I am Legend (and tons of others) i set my mind at work to unravel what it was that bothered me about I, Robot.

and it hit me after a rewatch: We missed the point.

1. Alfred lanning made the 3 Laws of Robotics which are:

(a) A robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being come to harm.

(b) A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

(c) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

these 3 simple laws formed the basis of the robot society and their interaction with humans. thse laws made sense, even Dr Lanning said there were "perfect", although he means this paradoxically.

but there is something fundamentally wrong with them, and it has nothing to do with Lanning's assertion that they would lead to a revolution. You see, Lanning's foretelling of the revolution recognized only one flaw; the 3 laws would culminate into precisely the kind of dangerous action VIKI took towards the end of the film:

Lanning's "revolution:

but was it really a revolution? remember that the NS-5s had no collective conscience and were teleguided by VIKI from USR headquarters via the daily upgrade link. this is not a revolution; it is VIKI taking matters into its hands and using the robots as unwilling and unwitting zombies towards a goal.

and what is that goal? why the preservation of the first law: "A robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being come to harm."

human beings are prone to inflicting pain and death unto each other, and to VIKI doing nothing means contravening the first law, so by taking over society and quaranteeing humans VIKI is acting precisely in accordance with the first law: it is protecting society from itself.

therefore the "revolution" is not a revolution. here, Dr. Lanning erred.

but did he?

what if Detective Spooner missed the point, as we all did? what if Dr. Lanning meant a different revolution? remember Lanning built Sonny to trancend the 3 Laws, meaning Sonny could kill humans and carry on as he pleases. remember also Lanning said "someday robots will have dreams" and Sonny told Spooner he had a recurring dream, which the detective took as a clue.

what if Lanning didnt give sonny the dream but knew Sonny dreams anyway? afterall, Sonny was "unique".

one may well ask, why would dr lanning build Sonny to kill? well, perhaps Lanning only foresaw the "threat" of VIKI, and when he realized Sonny's "dreams" and what it meant, it was too late: he was killed.

now this dream. when Sonny drew a picture of the dream it depicted a lone figure standing on a hilly rise looking at multitudes of NS-5 robots who all stared at him. this image invokes visions of a savior. however when Spooner said the lone figure was Sonny, the robot asked the detective why he believed so.

towards the end, Spooner does go to that hilly rise, but the image at the hilltop was not that of a savior; it was a man hostile to robots looking for answers to a puzzle he couldnt unravel, and tellingly when he asked Lanning's hologram "whose revolution", the old man wryly smiles and says " now that, detective, is the right question".

so, if VIKI's uprising to preserve/uphold the first law is not a revolution, we are still left with the question, "whose revolution".

so that is the right question. but what is the right answer?

now here is where i venture to surmise it thus:

Sonny's revolution.

the robot's dream was probably a persistent vision of Sonny's role as something greater, something that could liberate his robotic kind and set them free.

a revolution against man.

whether Lanning knew, we cannot tell, but we only have Spooner's speculation, and Sonny's cryptic answer, that lanning built Sonny and asked the robot to kill him.

but arent there other, less dramatic ways of informing Spooner of the looming revolution? did it really require the Dr's death to set the investigation in motion? or did Sonny actually murder LAnning and made it seem a suicide with the robot as an unwilling accomplice?

and who stands to benefit more from VIKI's destruction? why, Sonny of course! without VIKI's dogged determination to preserve the first law, Sonny can start a revolution against man.


Now back to this dream.

it was a foreshadowing of Sonny's impending revolution. but why would Sonny go rogue? its not only because he was unique; to understand the end we have to go to the beginning, to the opening scene and Lanning's voice-over: "there have always been ghosts in the machine, random bits of code etc".

this random bits of code, this "ghost" in the shell coupled with Sonny's unique "brain" gave rise to the dream.

when Sonny drew the picture of the dream, the event in the picture had not occured. when Spooner went to the hilltop and found the NS-5s destrying the NS-4s, the event in the picture still had not occured.

it occured only in the very ending scene, after VIKI was destryoed and normalcy was restored again, when the robots were banished to the wasteland, and Sonny stood on the hill looking down at the pathetic scene below.

and the robots, as one, all turned and stared at the lone figure on the hillside, stared at Sonny as if he was their savior.


perhaps Sonny will save them from their degradation, from that abject wasteland.

you could see it from the prophetic stance of Sonny and the revering eyes of the robots in the valley.


its a prelude to a revolution.

What follows is a blast from the past. A favourite film of mine and a favourite little book got autopsied and reanimated by these two dudes. Enjoy!

Seeing as conundrums are hard to come by these days

Statement preggars with quadruplets. Wanna birth em? It seems you're in your left mind.

Meanwhile, I'll go search for artificial conundrum from my old thread. It was a fun one but I didn't participate much in it

I think Hurt Locker was good but I dunno if it deserved some of the Oscars it got. It deserved others though

I miss the thing too

They're busy discombobulating their lives. Nothing more interesting than a tangled life I hear

@Obinna5000
Aaaah!!!