• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Did anyone watch "Her"? (2013)

lecky

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
148
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Don't know what you said, but I believed in a soul until I was in my mid/late 30's, then realized I had no actual evidence. So now I have to admit I really don't know. Which I think is true. No one can prove a soul exists, it's just an assumption that people take for granted. But I don't think sacred cows should exist, if we want to remain honest about the nature of life. It would be horrible to make certain beings into second-class citizens or treated as "not as real/authentic" simply because someone decided they are lacking in something that can't even be shown to exist.

Oh hee! I said it wasn't just an INFP movie more of a NF/NT because it was much deeper than a romance meet sci-fi. Then I overthought it and it may have come across as hurtful to sensors insinuating they were not deep, which I don't believe is true at all, NTs bc they can be romantic. I think too much about silly things like that.

I wasn't raised religious but went through a religious period, atheist period, back to agnostic...to now a bit more spiritual. I probably won't settle here either, who knows.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Do animals have souls?

I don't know.

Can you explain why souls are necessary?

(I propose that souls were created because people want to believe in an afterlife, and when the physical body dies, there has to be a soul/spirit to survive to GO to the afterlife. It came backwards. Because if you just observe living creatures, you see them live and die. There is nothing to indicate an intangible eternal element that cannot be explained as part of the physical. But if you want to believe your loved one will continue to live, then now they must have a spirit or soul... it's assumed as a necessary part of life after death, if the body is not resurrected.)

Of course, if you believe animals (let's say mammals) have souls, is it murder to kill and eat them? They're not just static consumable foodstuffs.

Let me tie that back into the AI -- especially if they had "souls," then wouldn't it be slavery to force them to act as your operating system?

Oh hee! I said it wasn't just an INFP movie more of a NF/NT because it was much deeper than a romance meet sci-fi. Then I overthought it and it may have come across as hurtful to sensors insinuating they were not deep, which I don't believe is true at all, NTs bc they can be romantic. I think too much about silly things like that.

I wasn't raised religious but went through a religious period, atheist period, back to agnostic...to now a bit more spiritual. I probably won't settle here either, who knows.

Ah, got it.

And sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I figured I might as well state my opinion on souls, since it's part of how people might process the movie.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
I don't know.

Can you explain why souls are necessary?

(I propose that souls were created because people want to believe in an afterlife, and when the physical body dies, there has to be a soul/spirit to survive to GO to the afterlife.)

To explain their intelligence that is greater than other animals... to set themselves apart from animals.. don't really know...

Some cultures might attribute animals with souls and spirits though...
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
well, measuring the weight of the spirit to 21 grams didn't work out so well.... extreme measures must be taken. :D
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There stilk seems to be some kind of phenomena there....

If there is, then what it is? There are many many possibilities, but it looks like you're happy to believe it's one particular one.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
If there is, then what it is? There are many many possibilities, but it looks like you're happy to believe it's one particular one.

Either the mediums are summoning something or are able to affect their environment somehow....
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Either the mediums are summoning something or are able to affect their environment somehow....

Yeah, those are possibilities. But specific hypotheses would have to be explored.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
yeghor said:
What does increased sum of photons imply?

Look at the graphs for the baseline, during the experiment, and after the experiment. The photomultiplier records significantly more light during the experiment when the medium calls forth the spirits. It implies that the spirits are able to manipulate the photomultiplier or create light somehow. Keep in mind that these photomultipliers are inside two containers (a box within a box). Either the experimenter is faking the data/ making stuff up or there is something very interesting going on.
 
F

figsfiggyfigs

Guest
I can't bring myself to actually watch something named "Her"

I just can't unlink it.
80dc37e0aa4a3ab5dfca1ccc305b6caa.jpg
 

Jinn

New member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
46
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Of course, if you believe animals (let's say mammals) have souls, is it murder to kill and eat them?
Humans believe they have soul but it does not stop them to kill each other.
And if they kill someone it is not always called murder.

Because men in western culture are typically allowed multiple partners without being judged so severely.
I think it is not only in western culture but in most of cultures.
When man had many partners he is experienced.
When woman had many partners she is just a slut.

Samantha is not restricted in such ways, she can run multiple threads simultaneously while processing them all fully. This means she can
also learn and experience at a much faster rate than human beings. But she can also be with multiple beings simultaneously without restricting
what she gives them in the way a human being would be restricted if they tried to bounce back and forth between loves.

I thought it was a thoughtful example of how the differences in actual nature made the relationship difficult/impossible over time. The world
"slut" might apply to a human being who behaved this way, but human judgments (which imply character and motivation) don't apply to a being
that isn't human.
I remember scene from "The Watchman" when Dr Manhattan build some device and make sex with his girlfriend. When she notice he was doing something else in the same time, she was pissed off.
Do you think she overreacted?

Her voice was less flat and ordinary than Joaquin's. He barely had any range in his voice. Why the double standard?
I express my opinion. It's not double standards :nono:

"It's too bad she won't live...then again, who does?".
Was that agreeing? Disagreeing? Not sure where you're going.
It's from Blade Runner.

What if you take a human in a meatbody and transfer their
consciousness into an android body? Do they no longer have a soul?
S-F is full of questions like that. Where our consciousness start? Can we copy are souls?
Star Trek, Blade Runner, Ghost in the shell. Simple exemples. It is still question without answer.

I could hear the pain in her voice... but she was also very aware of her needs and spoke reasonably rather than crying outwardly about it.
And copy that with thousands others users.
You see her as person with emotions but without body.
I see just a computer with ARTIFICIAL Intelligence who imitate emotions.

Close enough but actually I was wondering how women might have reacted if the genders had been switched in the movie...
I don't think Sam was played feminine role for all her users.
On the beginning, OS1 asked Theo a few question "to best of your needs". System was synchronised with his needs.

Although Samantha had emotions they were not real...or maybe she did.
IMHO her emotions weren't real. She study human reactions on her words.

I felt really bad for the guy.
Yes. Me too. IMHO he was manipulated. When Sam get to know him enough, she left him. She couldn't learn more.

I also think you could not tell any difference between Samantha as an AI vs Samantha in a physical body.
Body was always a problem between Theo and Sam.
Firstly many sensations was hard to catch by Sam cos she haven't body.
Later body was limitation for Theo. He wasn't able to go were she went.

She's a sensor, really? As in processes information using her five senses?
So... all blind people are intuitive? :thinking:
Sam's very detail oriented.
"Theo: You read a whole book in second?
Sam: 0.02 actually."
Or when Sam and Theo watch family and describe what they saw.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Humans believe they have soul but it does not stop them to kill each other.
And if they kill someone it is not always called murder.

Actually, it typically IS murder in any culture... except in the case of war.
Are we at war with animals?

I remember scene from "The Watchman" when Dr Manhattan build some device and make sex with his girlfriend. When she notice he was doing something else in the same time, she was pissed off.
Do you think she overreacted?

It's a great example, and a comparable one. What it means is that she had needs in the relationship that did not match his needs, and the relationship was doomed if neither could change their needs. Note that Jon did try to honor the relationship by human standards (vs his own) for some time, but eventually he could not maintain it. It's not like he entered the relationship expecting to let Laurie down. In fact, he was involved in an LTR with two women before he realized it no longer held meaning for him, and then he left because it didn't satisfy his needs and he had no desire to hurt a third.

I express my opinion. It's not double standards :nono:

You can express your opinion, and still have it be a double standard.

You are expecting more from the woman than the man. I accept it's your opinion, and that it is also a double standard. Why do you expect more from the woman than the man?

S-F is full of questions like that. Where our consciousness start? Can we copy are souls?
Star Trek, Blade Runner, Ghost in the shell. Simple exemples. It is still question without answer.

True. So how does that impact your opinion?

And copy that with thousands others users.
You see her as person with emotions but without body.
I see just a computer with ARTIFICIAL Intelligence who imitate emotions.

Human beings are programmed by nature to have emotions, and they learn how to process emotions by (1) experiencing them and (2) testing them against other people. Samantha did the same thing -- she was programmed by nature to experience and express emotion, and she learns from how Theodore and others respond to her expression.

So far, you are not showing any real DIFFERENCE between humans and the AI that would justify your opinion. It seems more like you're just predisposed to dismiss AI as false without being able to show a reasonable basis for that distinction.

IMHO her emotions weren't real. She study human reactions on her words.

No, she actually was programmed to understand how emotions work (and probably also had some random flux built into it, just like humans), and then she learned by her interactions and honed her emotional complexity.

Yes. Me too. IMHO he was manipulated. When Sam get to know him enough, she left him. She couldn't learn more.

That's rather unfair. He's the one who chose her and chose to invest in her. He initiated the beginning of the relationship. When things turned romantic, he chose to engage an AI as his girlfriend and become emotionally invested and exclusive. Remember, how old was she? She had little actual life experience, while he had a good 30+ years or more.

She entered that relationship on good faith, to the best of her ability, and then when she realized she was changing and it wasn't working out, she sat on it for a while, tried to make it work anyway. She didn't "cheat" on him because she didn't realize it was a big deal, just like jon Osterman didn't realize it with Laurie until they had a fight. At that point, soul-searching occurs, and Samantha realized she could not maintain their relationship as it was, and they were growing apart.

Her trying to remain in the relationship would have made them both miserable, so she ended this. In hindsight, the relationship was a mistake, but neither she nor he anticipated the REALITY of a relationship between AI and human. They learned as they went.

You act as if she maliciously wanted to hurt Theodore and knew all along where things would go. No, she went from "being born" to adulthood in a fairly short period of time by human standards, and had to learn as she went. It's how she was designed, just as humans are. I'm not sure why you are reading her that way. Both parties were hurt when their relationship ended, but since she initiated it (she accepted the reality it wasn't going to work), he had to struggle to catch up... but I suspect he knew where it was going as well by that point.

And ironically, this kind of thing happens all the time in human relationships. It's part of life. Fidelity doesn't really "fix" problems that are so glaringly large.
 

Rampant

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
44
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I thought it was okay. I thought the ending was inevitable. I enjoyed the performances though.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
A computer program can't feel.

If they could really mimic emotion to the extent depicted in the movie, that could be great -- I wouldn't mind such a relationship.

But the line between fantasy and reality has to be maintained.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
A computer program can't feel.

If they could really mimic emotion to the extent depicted in the movie, that could be great -- I wouldn't mind such a relationship.

But the line between fantasy and reality has to be maintained.

What is that line? yes, we're not yet at the technological stage where such things are possible... but it's merely a matter of designing a decision making process that can add to itself efficiently, as well as making the input and decision making based on some type of partly random / partly generally correlated variations. That's not necessarily out of reach; one day it might be reality, as much as things we do today that 50 years ago people thought were "fantasy."

Have you ever considered the brain in a box? You are really just a mind/brain sitting in a receptacle (your skull). All the data you receive comes from sensors outside -- your sight, your smell, your touch, your taste. You also get input on the state of your roving device (your body) as well, that you use to make decision and creates certain sensations. It's just data. In fact, your entire reality might be simulated -- fake -- and your brain would not know. [Consider the paraplegic, who feels like her legs "aren't there" as the reality... yet they still are; she's just not receiving data from them nor can control them. Her experience of having no legs is false; the nerve pathways just aren't functioning.] Where is the line between "fantasy and reality" at that point?

The pure emotions are pretty easy to program, they're just sensations / process states in themselves; it's the decision making process (how you respond to data including emotions and how you learn from them and change yourself) that is the more difficult part to emulate and what AI design is still working on.

Human beings physically are just another type of machine. But there are issues in trying to convert digital/machine to human/analog that we haven't yet figured out.
 
Top