Independence Day was weak in story

:) No problem.

First of all, I think it's a terrific movie. I really like it, a lot.
Certainly, but it has no bearing to the discussion. I could see why you'd like to qualify, though.

It is not just possible, but probable, that we will eventually clone human beings. But the idea that we might implant artificial memories? Ridiculous. The human brain is not a computer, nothing even remotely resembling one. Each of our conscious existences is built entirely upon the framework of a unique and extremely complex network of ever-changing synapses, and the entire process is effected, very heavily, by unique biological, and life-circumstantial factors. The thought that we could re-create that, artificially, is fucking stupid.
While I agree that implanting false memories in a biological unit is pretty far-fetched, I don't think the memories in Moon are artificial. They're 'real' memories from the 'real' Sam Bell. If a clone is duplicated (rather than being 'reborn') it should contain the memories of the original subject up until the cloning process, because otherwise memory isn't the result of physical processes and that's a huge philosophical and scientific quandary.

Nevertheless, a very cool movie. :D
I thought the CGI on the moon's surface was spectacular until I learned that it was done almost entirely with minis. Amazing work.
 
While I agree that implanting false memories in a biological unit is pretty far-fetched, I don't think the memories in Moon are artificial. They're 'real' memories from the 'real' Sam Bell. If a clone is duplicated (rather than being 'reborn') it should contain the memories of the original subject up until the cloning process, because otherwise memory isn't the result of physical processes and that's a huge philosophical and scientific quandary.

Great, then we're in agreement! I agree, creation of memories are definitely a physical process. So, as soon as somebody figures out how to Xerox-copy a fucking human-being, then "Moon" is totally realistic. Cloning is real science. "Duplication" of a living being is about as realistic as a nuclear-spider biting some dude, causing him to be able to climb sheer walls, and shoot webs out of his hands.
 
Great, then we're in agreement! I agree, creation of memories are definitely a physical process. So, as soon as somebody figures out how to Xerox-copy a fucking human-being, then "Moon" is totally realistic. Cloning is real science. "Duplication" of a living being is about as realistic as a nuclear-spider biting some dude, causing him to be able to climb sheer walls, and shoot webs out of his hands.
Cloning might be a real science, but we're still years away from being able to truly clone a human. Further down the road, it's not at all implausible to me that we'll be able to recreate the precise physical components of a human being. It's merely a matter of measurement and having the technology to construct one. Nanotechnology is going to be pretty close to a paradigm changer as microtechnology was. I don't think using 'current' science is a good metric for measuring whether or not sci-fi is realistic since there are always new revelations to uncover and new technologies to develop. I mean, there's no good way to convert Helium-3 (the substance the moon base mines) into usable energy at the moment, but it's a fairly plausible scenario that we will in the future.

EDIT: I agree that sci-fi doesn't have to 'make sense' as long as it tells a great story and stays consistent to its own logic.
 
Cloning might be a real science, but we're still years away from being able to truly clone a human. Further down the road, it's not at all implausible to me that we'll be able to recreate the precise physical components of a human being. It's merely a matter of measurement and having the technology to construct one. Nanotechnology is going to be pretty close to a paradigm changer as microtechnology was. I don't think using 'current' science is a good metric for measuring whether or not sci-fi is realistic since there are always new revelations to uncover and new technologies to develop. I mean, there's no good way to convert Helium-3 (the substance the moon base mines) into usable energy at the moment, but it's a fairly plausible scenario that we will in the future.

We're years away from cloning a human, but it's pretty F-ing inevitable. The only thing holding us back is legality and ethics.

As for your further-down-the-road analysis, I don't think you're fully grasping the complexity of an individual's biology. Or, perhaps you're misunderstanding how cloning works? You know cloning happens at conception, right? At that stage, we're talking about one single human cell. Seriously, this idea that you could "duplicate" a human being, one which has billions of cells, each of which has an ever-changing relationship with the others in it's body, has absolutely NO basis in science. This idea is purely make-believe. Search all you want, you will not find one reputable source of real science that would acknowledge this as anything other than whimsical fantasy.

That's the "fiction" part of Sci-Fi. You might personally think it's theoretically possible, at some point in the future, and there might be plenty of imaginative people who might agree with you. But not one of you has science on your side. It's fun to imagine these things. But it's pure fantasy.

Also, "current" science is the ONLY science. "Future" science is mere speculation and imagination. AKA -- Sci-Fi.

EDIT: I agree that sci-fi doesn't have to 'make sense' as long as it tells a great story and stays consistent to its own logic.

Now THAT is something we can agree upon. :)
 
As for your further-down-the-road analysis, I don't think you're fully grasping the complexity of an individual's biology. Or, perhaps you're misunderstanding how cloning works? You know cloning happens at conception, right? At that stage, we're talking about one single human cell. Seriously, this idea that you could "duplicate" a human being, one which has billions of cells, each of which has an ever-changing relationship with the others in it's body, has absolutely NO basis in science. This idea is purely make-believe. Search all you want, you will not find one reputable source of real science that would acknowledge this as anything other than whimsical fantasy.
Well, like I said, it's not cloning as we understand it, exactly. I understand cloning happens at conception for animals right now, but the etymology of the word comes from the agricultural aspect of regrowing an entire tree from a single clipping.

As far as future technology goes, I think you're severely lacking in imagination. Go back a hundred years ago and try to explain to them what an iPhone is. Our rate of technological growth is either going to have accelerating returns, or exist as a series of steep curves and plateaus (as viewed on a graph). I'm not trying to use this as a justification that anything is plausible, merely that extensions of current technology are likely.

We already have the ability to reproduce skin, and organs aren't too far behind. The brain/mind is still the biggest obstacle, but once we can figure out a way to recreate it virtually (which will happen soon) it's only a matter of time until we can figure out a way to recreate it biologically. That's really the only thing you'd have to reproduce in whole, as the rest of the body lacks memory and thus can be grown organically.


That's the "fiction" part of Sci-Fi. You might personally think it's theoretically possible, at some point in the future, and there might be plenty of imaginative people who might agree with you. But not one of you has science on your side. It's fun to imagine these things. But it's pure fantasy.
Interesting that you don't differentiate between science fiction and science fantasy.

By your logic, we can't clone humans regardless of ethical issues simply because the technology isn't there yet and we haven't done so. It doesn't matter that it seems overwhelming likely possible; because it hasn't been done yet (and there isn't a demonstrable method for doing so) it's fantasy. Obviously this is kind of an absurd point, but if you're going to take a speculative, absolutist view about future events, at least be consistent.

I'm not suggesting it's probable, or even likely (the smart money is on nuclear winter still, I feel), but I think it's a reasonable and plausible scenario. Contrast this with Star Wars, which is chock full of all kinds of fantasy stuff. For a less extreme example, contrast it with 2001, on which Kubrick spent a lot of time and effort researching. If you ignore the
aliens/extraterrestrial superintelligences and space baby
fantasy stuff and look at the spacecraft and moon walks, it's incredibly realistic (or scientific) in nature. The shuttlecraft used to get to the moon looks suspiciously like our old shuttles, and were designed with reentry in mind, which is why they have wings. The Jupiter craft whose name escapes me at the moment is very unaerodynamic and clearly meant only as a spacecraft. Would you consider it unrealistic based on the fact that it's very unlikely we'll ever be able to build some kind of orbital construction yard that will allow us to build ships that don't have to worry about reentry?

Also, "current" science is the ONLY science. "Future" science is mere speculation and imagination. AKA -- Sci-Fi.
Actually, there's no such thing as science. There is only the scientific method for formulating reproducible experiments based on empiricism, which is why I included it in quotation marks. Semantics, I suppose...

PS - What about Newtonian physics? ;)
 
Information Processing Theory and False Memories

:) But the idea that we might implant artificial memories? Ridiculous. The human brain is not a computer, nothing even remotely resembling one. Each of our conscious existences is built entirely upon the framework of a unique and extremely complex network of ever-changing synapses, and the entire process is effected, very heavily, by unique biological, and life-circumstantial factors. The thought that we could re-create that, artificially, is fucking stupid.

I'm not trying to step on any toes but there is a ton of research in the field of psychology that supports false memories. I can implant false memories into your memory fairly easily in a controlled environment. In this case, artificial memories are also false memories. They never happened but you truly think they happened. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus has done years and years of research into the topic and has published amazing articles into her research. She's consistently been able to effectively implant false memories into individuals 75% of the time. It's quite amazing.

If this interests anybody else, check out these research articles:

Loftus, E. (1997). Creating False Memories. Scientific American, 277, 70-75


Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory


One of the biggest theories in cognitive psychology is the Information Processing Theory. The human brain is like a computer. The brain's processes (i.e., short term memory, long term memory) goes through a variety of steps just like a computer does. Your brain encodes the information, stores the information, and allows you to retrieve the information when you need to.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to step on any toes but there is a ton of research in the field of psychology that supports false memories. I can implant false memories into your memory fairly easily in a controlled environment. In this case, artificial memories are also false memories. They never happened but you truly think they happened. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus has done years and years of research into the topic and has published amazing articles into her research. She's consistently been able to effectively implant false memories into individuals 75% of the time. It's quite amazing.

If this interests anybody else, check out these research articles:

Loftus, E. (1997). Creating False Memories. Scientific American, 277, 70-75


Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory
I think there's a major difference between implanting false memories and implanting a false identity (which for the purposes of this discussion we may think of as the collective interactivity of those memories). Certainly it's possible to implant false memories, and it's obviously possible to misremember things, but as far as recreating the entire, specific memories of an entire adult human non-organically? I think it's far more likely that some kind of mind uploading would be the preferred method.

Thanks for the links. I'll bookmark them for later. As someone obsessed with philosophy but with the understanding that it's largely composed of linguistic nonsense and necessarily related to mind, I'm fond of reading stuff like this.

One of the biggest theories in cognitive psychology is the Information Processing Theory. The human brain is like a computer. The brain's processes (i.e., short term memory, long term memory) goes through a variety of steps just like a computer does. Your brain encodes the information, stores the information, and allows you to retrieve the information when you need to.
I believe this is a linguistic issue fundamentally. We describe both a computer and the brain using similar terminology, which comes from the fact that they both process information. And while I agree that the concept of a computer is a great metaphor for our brain (particularly the hardware/software distinction), I think there are some important distinctions. Namely, that our brains exhibit elasticity (see: Silver Spring experiment) and are materially affected by neurochemical changes, whereas computer parts are rigid in their functionality.

Our bodies are vastly more complex than the computers of today. This won't always be the case, though. C'mon, seed AI...
 
Sorry I didn't know he mean't false identity when he said artificial memories. My bad!

:) I always love a good conversation. I haven't see many of this movies mentioned above so I'm very out of the loop.
 
S'cool, it's still topical and contributes to the conversation.

:) I always love a good conversation. I haven't see many of this movies mentioned above so I'm very out of the loop.
Me too. I often take a contrarian position to get some good mileage out of a discussion. You may consider me perpetually of the loyal opposition.

You should definitely check out Moon. Fantastic work. And it's directed by David Bowie's son!
 
At some point you just gotta accept that most blue collar pedestrian movie watchin' 400 DVD collectin' fools just don't hold as high a standard to these things.

Does sh!t get blown up? Yes/No?
If yes then it's gold.

:rolleyes:


I own 400+ DVDs, 400+ VHS and quite frankly - I do require that films have alot of stuff blowing up for me to REALLY enjoy the film. Specifically, I want to see stuff on screen that I can't afford to make happen as a filmmaker. I can make a film with two people talking at a diner, then talking in a park, then talking... you get my point. I want flipping cars (done practically) and REAL explosions and real car chases with real helicopters. I REALLY do like Michael Bay films, they are epic by scope... ID4 is one of my favorite action Sci-Fi films of all time... it's phenomenal! There are aliens and spaceship fights and explosions and what not... the more recent films of the same sort - "Transformers" were glorious in their scope. I can't shoot those films, that's why I watch them, buy them and love them!
 
knightly, I think we've come to each others' aide, on this subject, in other threads before. Yep, I'm with you. I can enjoy a cerebral, talky movie, but I can also enjoy shit blowin' up.

Wombat -- I have no doubt that technology will someday far surpass anything I can imagine. I do think that with some things, however, there is a plateau we will eventually reach. Specifically, with anything related to biology, I don't think we'll ever be able to truly "play God".

For example, I don't think we'll ever be able to rid ourselves of these pesky little viruses; that is a battle we just can't win. I don't care how advanced our medicine, even if we end up with tiny little smart nanobots coursing through our bloodstreams; we will never be able to adapt as quickly as viruses, themselves. On the subject of our conversation, I just think that the human brain is far too complex for us to ever be able to replicate.

I suppose we could debate this forever, so I'll leave it at that. It was a good conversation, though, and if you have a closing argument, I'll gladly read it. Cheers!

DeJager -- Wombat responded, on my behalf, exactly as I would've. Thanks for the interesting links, though. :)
 
You can rationalize anything if you really want to.

Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) discovers that the aliens are using earth satellites to coordinate their attack. That could mean that the aliens had to adapt their communications to a Terran computer language in order to use the satellites. Therefor, the virus that Levinson creates uses Terran computer codes that interrupt the communications system of Terran satellites. So all he is really doing is turning off human artifacts that have been co-opted by the enemy aliens.

"We suspend our disbelief and we are entertained."
 
knightly, I think we've come to each others' aide, on this subject, in other threads before. Yep, I'm with you. I can enjoy a cerebral, talky movie, but I can also enjoy shit blowin' up.
It's my lament that the two are considered mutually exclusive.

Wombat -- I have no doubt that technology will someday far surpass anything I can imagine. I do think that with some things, however, there is a plateau we will eventually reach. Specifically, with anything related to biology, I don't think we'll ever be able to truly "play God".

For example, I don't think we'll ever be able to rid ourselves of these pesky little viruses; that is a battle we just can't win. I don't care how advanced our medicine, even if we end up with tiny little smart nanobots coursing through our bloodstreams; we will never be able to adapt as quickly as viruses, themselves. On the subject of our conversation, I just think that the human brain is far too complex for us to ever be able to replicate.
If we agree that memory and functions of the brain can be explained wholly in material terms, then regardless of the complexity of the brain there will arrive a point in time where we have the technology to replicate it. The only way the brain couldn't be replicated is if there's a non-material component to it (the 'mind' isn't just a helpful metaphor after all!).

Don't get me wrong, I have my doubts that technology will develop that way, or that the brain can be explained on purely materialist levels, I'm merely suggesting that it's a plausible scenario and thus qualifies as 'realistic' sci-fi.

Also, nanobots are so 90's. It's all about femtobots now.

I suppose we could debate this forever, so I'll leave it at that. It was a good conversation, though, and if you have a closing argument, I'll gladly read it. Cheers!
Agreed. Conversing about a subject is the best way for me to learn and I have a habit of abusing that on the 'Net, so I struggle to reign myself in. I blame Socrates.

Party on, dudes.
 
Yeah there were some things that were hard to believe in Independence Day such as the "virus" they used. But isn't it also far fetched that Luke Skywalker can shoot two torpedos HORIZONTALLY and have them do an accurate dive into a small hole and make it all the way to the reactor of the Death Star in time to blow it up and save the rebel base?

Anyway, I love the music of Independence Day and the epic battles in it, so even with a so-so story it is still one of my favorite movies
 
Back
Top