Wall-E - Pixar's next film (after Ratatouille)
-
magicalwands
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:24 am
- Location: Gusteau's Restaurant
-
littlefuzzy
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1700
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:36 pm
My mom and I went to Wall·E on the 12th (free tickets from Best Buy w/ Enchanted and Wall·E Soundtrack.)
I absolutely LOVED this movie! Certainly the best movie I've seen all year, and one of the top... 100? movies I've seen in my lifetime.
It's hard to put one over the other, they are each good in different ways, but I would almost say it is my favorite Pixar film, a spot previously held by The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Actually, most of the rest are probably all in a bunch right at the top: A Bug's Life, Toy Story 1/2, and Monsters Inc.
Cars, while still better than CG films from other studios, would be ranked a bit lower than the ones I've mentioned, while Finding Nemo is my least favorite Pixar film, for a couple of reasons. A. I find Ellen very annoying, although her character was tolerable, or even slightly enjoyable at times. B. The story seemed to be a very cliche "lost kid" tale, and there were several films out at the same time with the same theme: The Wild, Madagascar, and so on.
========
One thing that really REALLY irks me are people over at IMDB, who feel it is their duty to give this film a "1" (out of 10,) just so it won't be ranked higher than Casablanca, or The Godfather, or Fight Club, etc., etc....
One guy posted "I felt the film was worth a "7", but it was ranked a "9" (on average,) so I gave it a "1."
If you thought the film was worth a "7", then GIVE IT A "7"!
I absolutely LOVED this movie! Certainly the best movie I've seen all year, and one of the top... 100? movies I've seen in my lifetime.
It's hard to put one over the other, they are each good in different ways, but I would almost say it is my favorite Pixar film, a spot previously held by The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Actually, most of the rest are probably all in a bunch right at the top: A Bug's Life, Toy Story 1/2, and Monsters Inc.
Cars, while still better than CG films from other studios, would be ranked a bit lower than the ones I've mentioned, while Finding Nemo is my least favorite Pixar film, for a couple of reasons. A. I find Ellen very annoying, although her character was tolerable, or even slightly enjoyable at times. B. The story seemed to be a very cliche "lost kid" tale, and there were several films out at the same time with the same theme: The Wild, Madagascar, and so on.
========
One thing that really REALLY irks me are people over at IMDB, who feel it is their duty to give this film a "1" (out of 10,) just so it won't be ranked higher than Casablanca, or The Godfather, or Fight Club, etc., etc....
One guy posted "I felt the film was worth a "7", but it was ranked a "9" (on average,) so I gave it a "1."
If you thought the film was worth a "7", then GIVE IT A "7"!
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14013
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Pixar's Wall-E
I wanted to pose a question to TM2-Megatron with my own magical made-up scenario for debating.
So, in the future, there are all these robots made that act so much like people, that real people like TM2-Megatron start giving these fake people, these robots, rights the same as those of humans. Almost everyone in the world wants to own these robots, as they are useful as babysitters, maids, butlers, chefs, and in some cases companions and prostitues. So many are made for the large demand. Some people say the robots are taking over the jobs that belong to them, because they are people and the robots are not. What is a person becomes a question. Since many people want these robots, and many are made, we start getting over-populated. The robots need energy, and they are such big things they take up a lot. Many robots have gone back to their makers to demand that they be made more human-like, and since enough people think they should have this right, they have been made able to consume and perhaps "taste" food. And with the over-population the world is running out of space, energy, food, and water.
Now the government or people high up and in charge are realizing that people or robot people need to die in order to make life livable for the most people possible. In fact, people are starting to die, or become very weak, with starvation. People are getting cramped into small spaces. Things get closer together and there's less room to move. I know, this doesn't sound very feasible, but it's for the sake of the question, I mean, you were the one bringing up stuff that hasn't happened yet, but "could" happen.
So, there's two big options. The one is to just let everything play out. It is survival of the fittest. People are getting kicked out of the small spaces because there's no room, into open air (which there still isn't much of, there's so many buildings!) where they have no shelter. Some people just kill other people they feel are unworthy, like felons (thought of that after The Dark Night!), or anyone who isn't their friend or family and is in their way. But other than that, people patiently wait to see if they can survive, and if other people die, they move into their shelter and eat their food. People just hope other people die before them. But the robot people are going to live far longer than humans. Yep, those robots wanted to be more like people in positive ways, but decided not to be like people in mortality. Also, the robots are stronger and more agile, and easily stop, fight, or kill anyone in their way.
The other option is to let the people high up and in charge choose who should die. Well, actually, they can't really choose to make the humans die. There's a big button, actually, that is connected to every human-like robot made in existence. I know, I know, not very feasible, but this is a what if. If they push it, all of the robot people cease working, "turn off", or "die". Then the people of the world will turn those robots into buildings, more shelter, or something. Yup, the robots are made out of recyclable materials, though they mimic human material very well.
So...what would you do, TM2-Megatron? And if you had to choose one of the options, which would you choose? In this case, choosing neither is acceptable as long as you provide an alternative choice, but I would like to know out of the two options which you would choose if you absolutely had to.
So, in the future, there are all these robots made that act so much like people, that real people like TM2-Megatron start giving these fake people, these robots, rights the same as those of humans. Almost everyone in the world wants to own these robots, as they are useful as babysitters, maids, butlers, chefs, and in some cases companions and prostitues. So many are made for the large demand. Some people say the robots are taking over the jobs that belong to them, because they are people and the robots are not. What is a person becomes a question. Since many people want these robots, and many are made, we start getting over-populated. The robots need energy, and they are such big things they take up a lot. Many robots have gone back to their makers to demand that they be made more human-like, and since enough people think they should have this right, they have been made able to consume and perhaps "taste" food. And with the over-population the world is running out of space, energy, food, and water.
Now the government or people high up and in charge are realizing that people or robot people need to die in order to make life livable for the most people possible. In fact, people are starting to die, or become very weak, with starvation. People are getting cramped into small spaces. Things get closer together and there's less room to move. I know, this doesn't sound very feasible, but it's for the sake of the question, I mean, you were the one bringing up stuff that hasn't happened yet, but "could" happen.
So, there's two big options. The one is to just let everything play out. It is survival of the fittest. People are getting kicked out of the small spaces because there's no room, into open air (which there still isn't much of, there's so many buildings!) where they have no shelter. Some people just kill other people they feel are unworthy, like felons (thought of that after The Dark Night!), or anyone who isn't their friend or family and is in their way. But other than that, people patiently wait to see if they can survive, and if other people die, they move into their shelter and eat their food. People just hope other people die before them. But the robot people are going to live far longer than humans. Yep, those robots wanted to be more like people in positive ways, but decided not to be like people in mortality. Also, the robots are stronger and more agile, and easily stop, fight, or kill anyone in their way.
The other option is to let the people high up and in charge choose who should die. Well, actually, they can't really choose to make the humans die. There's a big button, actually, that is connected to every human-like robot made in existence. I know, I know, not very feasible, but this is a what if. If they push it, all of the robot people cease working, "turn off", or "die". Then the people of the world will turn those robots into buildings, more shelter, or something. Yup, the robots are made out of recyclable materials, though they mimic human material very well.
So...what would you do, TM2-Megatron? And if you had to choose one of the options, which would you choose? In this case, choosing neither is acceptable as long as you provide an alternative choice, but I would like to know out of the two options which you would choose if you absolutely had to.
-
TM2-Megatron
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:51 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pixar's Wall-E
To be fair, I didn't really make up entire fake histories as you just did... I only proposed 2 or 3 different types of "artificial", yet intelligent, types of life and asked how you'd compare their emotions and thoughts to ours. What you're asking is entirely different. Also, you never did answer my question regarding those different types of "people".
First off, you can't say the robots in your scenario are being given rights, yet people can own them at the same time. You either have slavery, or you don't. Individuals with rights can't be owned. Also, robots owned by humans aren't exactly in a position to go back to their makers to "demand" anything. You're also assuming they'd be dependant on humans for this, which I seriously doubt. Like any society of intelligent beings, robots with AI would likely learn to modify themselves, as we do to a smaller extent. I also doubt that energy would be as valuable, or scarce, a resource in a future world willing to build so many robots in the first place. Two or three dozen well-placed, sufficiently large fusion generators throughout the world would power the entire planet, in concert (as necessary) with solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power. Perhaps in addition to a handful of solar-panel arrays in a relatively close orbit of Sol, beaming energy back by microwave power transmission (something NASA has already conceived).
The issue you pose is simply one of overpopulation... this could occur with a population entirely made up of humans, a human/robot mix, or an entirely robot population (though it would be more difficult to reach a critical mass in this case). And it's likely a problem our descendants are going to have to face on day; robots or no robots.
What your question really comes down to is whether I value human life over other forms of intelligent life, simply becase humans are "humans" in some kind of ludicrous theological sense. And the answer to that is no, I certainly don't. In real life, the kind of options you're posing would never be considered by our society... not as it exists now, anyway. I've no doubt Nazi Germany may've been willing to entertain the two choices you posed, but our society wouldn't. I'm not only talking about machines with self-awareness, of course. I'd also refuse to place humans above any non-terrestrial beings. In our short history, there's already been more than enough nationalism and ethnocentrism in play... I feel no need to help transport it to the 21st-century. This includes Xenophobia and any kind of human-centric ideals, though of course no scenario has yet arisen that would create these attitudes in anyone.
Would I shut off the robots? If they were unthinking automatons and their deactivation would save human lives; of course. If on the other hand, they were intelligent beings with thoughts, emotions, and ideas all their own; I wouldn't be any more willing to shut them down than I'd be to organize mass executions of humans, or aliens for that matter. In the event of a planetary emergency of that scale, it would need to be discussed and solved by representatives of every nation/society of Earth (assuming a planetary government hadn't come into effect by the time of your proposed future). This would include representatives from the machine segment of society.
In the event of any crisis of overpopulation, there's really only one option for a civilized society: find, or create, new space to live. Whether this involves cultivating and colonizing the oceans (which would give us considerably more space), colonizing the Moon and terraforming Mars, or building a Dyson Sphere (very unlikely, given that engineering projects on a stellar scale are still millenia away). Letting people die, fight amongst themselves for dominance, or outright murdering people is never an option.
Just a point of interest: humans are made out of recyclable material, as well. We're just recycled into different end products.
First off, you can't say the robots in your scenario are being given rights, yet people can own them at the same time. You either have slavery, or you don't. Individuals with rights can't be owned. Also, robots owned by humans aren't exactly in a position to go back to their makers to "demand" anything. You're also assuming they'd be dependant on humans for this, which I seriously doubt. Like any society of intelligent beings, robots with AI would likely learn to modify themselves, as we do to a smaller extent. I also doubt that energy would be as valuable, or scarce, a resource in a future world willing to build so many robots in the first place. Two or three dozen well-placed, sufficiently large fusion generators throughout the world would power the entire planet, in concert (as necessary) with solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power. Perhaps in addition to a handful of solar-panel arrays in a relatively close orbit of Sol, beaming energy back by microwave power transmission (something NASA has already conceived).
The issue you pose is simply one of overpopulation... this could occur with a population entirely made up of humans, a human/robot mix, or an entirely robot population (though it would be more difficult to reach a critical mass in this case). And it's likely a problem our descendants are going to have to face on day; robots or no robots.
What your question really comes down to is whether I value human life over other forms of intelligent life, simply becase humans are "humans" in some kind of ludicrous theological sense. And the answer to that is no, I certainly don't. In real life, the kind of options you're posing would never be considered by our society... not as it exists now, anyway. I've no doubt Nazi Germany may've been willing to entertain the two choices you posed, but our society wouldn't. I'm not only talking about machines with self-awareness, of course. I'd also refuse to place humans above any non-terrestrial beings. In our short history, there's already been more than enough nationalism and ethnocentrism in play... I feel no need to help transport it to the 21st-century. This includes Xenophobia and any kind of human-centric ideals, though of course no scenario has yet arisen that would create these attitudes in anyone.
Would I shut off the robots? If they were unthinking automatons and their deactivation would save human lives; of course. If on the other hand, they were intelligent beings with thoughts, emotions, and ideas all their own; I wouldn't be any more willing to shut them down than I'd be to organize mass executions of humans, or aliens for that matter. In the event of a planetary emergency of that scale, it would need to be discussed and solved by representatives of every nation/society of Earth (assuming a planetary government hadn't come into effect by the time of your proposed future). This would include representatives from the machine segment of society.
In the event of any crisis of overpopulation, there's really only one option for a civilized society: find, or create, new space to live. Whether this involves cultivating and colonizing the oceans (which would give us considerably more space), colonizing the Moon and terraforming Mars, or building a Dyson Sphere (very unlikely, given that engineering projects on a stellar scale are still millenia away). Letting people die, fight amongst themselves for dominance, or outright murdering people is never an option.
Just a point of interest: humans are made out of recyclable material, as well. We're just recycled into different end products.
-
Dash
I have a question about the year when the story of WALL•E takes place.
Everywhere, you can read that it's in 2105 the humans left the Earth in the Axiom while the WALL•E were meant to clean the planet. In 2110, "Mister President" decided it wasn't possible to live on the Earth anymore and declared Directive A113 (which means the humans'll live in the Axiom forever).
In the movie, the captain of the Axiom says it's the 700th anniversary of the day the humans left the Earth. It takes place logically in 2805. Everywhere on the net, in the book WALL•E: The Intergalactic Guide, it's said the story takes place in 2805.
Everywhere except... on the Soundtrack! Indeed, the second track is called "2815 A.D." It would be very surprising to see such an enormous mistake in the name of a track on a Pixar Soundtrack. Does anyone know why "2815 A.D." is called so?[/i]
Everywhere, you can read that it's in 2105 the humans left the Earth in the Axiom while the WALL•E were meant to clean the planet. In 2110, "Mister President" decided it wasn't possible to live on the Earth anymore and declared Directive A113 (which means the humans'll live in the Axiom forever).
In the movie, the captain of the Axiom says it's the 700th anniversary of the day the humans left the Earth. It takes place logically in 2805. Everywhere on the net, in the book WALL•E: The Intergalactic Guide, it's said the story takes place in 2805.
Everywhere except... on the Soundtrack! Indeed, the second track is called "2815 A.D." It would be very surprising to see such an enormous mistake in the name of a track on a Pixar Soundtrack. Does anyone know why "2815 A.D." is called so?[/i]
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14013
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Sorry I got to this so late.
I probably should have said that the humans "hire" the robots, but the idea was that the robots were intended to be bought since they were made by people and are not people, but then people said they should have the same rights as people, so buying to work in their homes became hiring to do jobs.
Also, I remember you previously saying robots would be to humans was we are to God. Well, no that's not the right idea. The idea is that God is perfect. Human’s aren’t. God puts his/her soul into us, in a way we could never put ourselves into machines. We have something we couldn’t put into robots.
If I talked to an artificially intelligent robot, and liked their personality or what have you, I would think it was neat but rather go find the person who made the robot and I would assume gave the robot what it had that was so human, and experience their real personality and thoughts.
The only way I would accept these machines is the only way I can accept Wall-E’s robots falling in the same love humans have (which may or may not even be the case, or even thought of by Pixar), the idea that even though made by humans without the ability to give a soul (well, to a machine, we give souls procreation), but it seemed to have one, then by a miracle it acquired a soul.
If DNA-ripped creatures worked, and seemed very soulful, filled with intelligence and personality that feels real and human, than I would start thinking the soul may be in DNA or, that with people trying to change nature, God mercifully let souls come into these unnaturally made beings of natural materials.
Thank God they haven’t scientifically proven or “found” the soul yet. What if they figure out a way to extract the soul?
As for the intelligent silicon, and the other stuff, I'd probably treat it like I treat and think of animals. I'm not a vegetarian, but I think they can feel love.
EDIT:If you have been reading this TM2-Megatron/Disney Duster discussion, there is hope for you who believe we are more than what TM2-Megatron has been saying. Look for the bold, blue edit in one of my posts in this thread, on page 18.
I probably should have said that the humans "hire" the robots, but the idea was that the robots were intended to be bought since they were made by people and are not people, but then people said they should have the same rights as people, so buying to work in their homes became hiring to do jobs.
Also, I remember you previously saying robots would be to humans was we are to God. Well, no that's not the right idea. The idea is that God is perfect. Human’s aren’t. God puts his/her soul into us, in a way we could never put ourselves into machines. We have something we couldn’t put into robots.
If I talked to an artificially intelligent robot, and liked their personality or what have you, I would think it was neat but rather go find the person who made the robot and I would assume gave the robot what it had that was so human, and experience their real personality and thoughts.
The only way I would accept these machines is the only way I can accept Wall-E’s robots falling in the same love humans have (which may or may not even be the case, or even thought of by Pixar), the idea that even though made by humans without the ability to give a soul (well, to a machine, we give souls procreation), but it seemed to have one, then by a miracle it acquired a soul.
If DNA-ripped creatures worked, and seemed very soulful, filled with intelligence and personality that feels real and human, than I would start thinking the soul may be in DNA or, that with people trying to change nature, God mercifully let souls come into these unnaturally made beings of natural materials.
Thank God they haven’t scientifically proven or “found” the soul yet. What if they figure out a way to extract the soul?
As for the intelligent silicon, and the other stuff, I'd probably treat it like I treat and think of animals. I'm not a vegetarian, but I think they can feel love.
EDIT:If you have been reading this TM2-Megatron/Disney Duster discussion, there is hope for you who believe we are more than what TM2-Megatron has been saying. Look for the bold, blue edit in one of my posts in this thread, on page 18.
Last edited by Disney Duster on Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
TM2-Megatron
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:51 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
What I said was that if God used the same logic you were e earlier in the thread, he'd look at humans no different than you look at hypothetical machines with intelligence.Disney Duster wrote:Also, I remember you previously saying robots would be to humans was we are to God. Well, no that's not the right idea. The idea is that God is perfect. Human’s aren’t. God puts his/her soul into us, in a way we could never put ourselves into machines. We have something we couldn’t put into robots.
I've always wondered why God needs to be perfect anyway. Humans have created things that are more perfect, accurate, or efficient than we ourselves manage to be. Why couldn't God's creation of the Universe been a similar deal?
You can't just "give" someone a personality in the act of creating, or building, them. Personalities develop over time as our neural nets (a term used for biological as well as technological iterations) become more complex based on each of our individual experiences, etc. Human infants have no personality, the way you define it. They're as blank a slate as a new, unformatted hard drive with only a bit of firmware (instincts, etc.) to tell it how to run once it's turned on. Humans are very comparable to machines; we're just electrochemical as opposed to robotic/electrical.Disney Duster wrote:If I talked to an artificially intelligent robot, and liked their personality or what have you, I would think it was neat but rather go find the person who made the robot and I would assume gave the robot what it had that was so human, and experience their real personality and thoughts.
Just as in a human, a robot with AI would have to grow and learn, and develop a distinct personality over time. Facts can be programmed; personality can't. It would by no means be the personality of the person that programmed, or built it.
The impasse we seem to hit is that you regard life as value only if it has what you think of as a "soul", or was hypothetically created by some mystical being able to bequeath souls to the masses. I don't hold to this idea. If you can't prove something exists, why use it as a basis for judging the value of life?Disney Duster wrote:The only way I would accept these machines is the only way I can accept Wall-E’s robots falling in the same love humans have (which may or may not even be the case, or even thought of by Pixar), the idea that even though made by humans without the ability to give a soul (well, to a machine, we give souls procreation), but it seemed to have one, then by a miracle it acquired a soul.
All materials are "natural". If a material can physically exist in the Universe, then it's a natural material. I suppose by that you mean materials that you're accustomed to as components in living things.Disney Duster wrote:If DNA-ripped creatures worked, and seemed very soulful, filled with intelligence and personality that feels real and human, than I would start thinking the soul may be in DNA or, that with people trying to change nature, God mercifully let souls come into these unnaturally made beings of natural materials.
lol, that's the convenient thing about most religions; it's intentionally made difficult or impossible to quantify anything they claim. I wouldn't worry about it, though. If, in your view, God is perfect, then why would he make souls "extractable" in the first place? As I said, the closest thing to souls I "believe in" is that maybe the energies present in our brains play some part in our sentience, and personality. If so, though, it's just another quirk of biological life as far as I'm concerned.Disney Duster wrote:Thank God they haven’t scientifically proven or “found” the soul yet. What if they figure out a way to extract the soul?
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14013
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Pixar's Wall-E
Okay, just getting back to this.
Yea, the whole perfect thing is hard to grasp...but I wouldn't want to be better than the being that made and controls everything. That's just not safe.
As for everything you said on personality, I believe otherwise, especially with what I've heard mothers say about their new babies. Hey, I'm going to go more with my own experiences and what many others have said, not just you on the internet.
As for proving all I think exists, just us existing and what I have felt and experienced is proof. It's proof for you too, but you really like your robot stories and from the sound of it, have had so many bad things happen to you you don't believe in hope and happiness beyond this world. And I'm not talking aliens and other galaxies.
"All materials are natural". I mean natural for what it is being made. As in, styrofoam is not the natural materials for a dog. Glass is not the natural matierial for a flower.
Quirks of biological life? You actually reduce things like that to the term "quirks"? Gotcha.
EDIT:If you have been reading this TM2-Megatron/Disney Duster discussion, there is hope for you who believe we are more than what TM2-Megatron has been saying. Look for the bold, blue edit in one of my posts in this thread, on page 18.
Yea, and what I said was my response to that and why that isn't correct. Just re-read it if you must.TM2-Megatron wrote:What I said was that if God used the same logic you were e earlier in the thread, he'd look at humans no different than you look at hypothetical machines with intelligence.
Yea, the whole perfect thing is hard to grasp...but I wouldn't want to be better than the being that made and controls everything. That's just not safe.
As for everything you said on personality, I believe otherwise, especially with what I've heard mothers say about their new babies. Hey, I'm going to go more with my own experiences and what many others have said, not just you on the internet.
As for proving all I think exists, just us existing and what I have felt and experienced is proof. It's proof for you too, but you really like your robot stories and from the sound of it, have had so many bad things happen to you you don't believe in hope and happiness beyond this world. And I'm not talking aliens and other galaxies.
"All materials are natural". I mean natural for what it is being made. As in, styrofoam is not the natural materials for a dog. Glass is not the natural matierial for a flower.
Quirks of biological life? You actually reduce things like that to the term "quirks"? Gotcha.
EDIT:If you have been reading this TM2-Megatron/Disney Duster discussion, there is hope for you who believe we are more than what TM2-Megatron has been saying. Look for the bold, blue edit in one of my posts in this thread, on page 18.
Last edited by Disney Duster on Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
TM2-Megatron
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:51 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pixar's Wall-E
I wasn't aware that the hypothetical God "controls" anything at all. He certainly doesn't control humans, that whole pesky free will thing and all. And the natural world kind of takes care of itself thanks to (surprise, surprise) all those convenient universal constants and laws of physics that we were able to discover thanks to science, and scientific methods of proof. The universe doesn't need a caretaker, unless some hyper-advanced species decides to take on the job and try to cultivate the wilderness, as it were.Disney Duster wrote:Yea, the whole perfect thing is hard to grasp...but I wouldn't want to be better than the being that made and controls everything. That's just not safe.
lol, so you believe an individual's personality is built-in from day 1... that experiences mean nothing? Based on whatever limited experiences and direct knowledge you referred to, and the incredibly sentimental and (understandably) optimistic claims mothers make about their newborn children? Everyone's baby is always gifted in some way, in their parents' estimation. That's almost a universal constant in itself. And it's certainly not something one should be making any kind of determination based on. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a medical professional, or cognitive specialist that would agree with your notions. Innate biological factors and genetic predisposations can have an effect on an individual's personality as it forms, but experiences are, first and foremost, the building blocks of a mind.Disney Duster wrote:As for everything you said on personality, I believe otherwise, especially with what I've heard mothers say about their new babies. Hey, I'm going to go more with my own experiences and what many others have said, not just you on the internet.
Proof by what standard, or method? Your existence, as perceived by you, proves nothing more than the fact that you (probably) exist, relative to rest of us. It certainly isn't proof that god exists; and I can't understand why you think it is (unless you're god, lol). If that's your idea of stringent proofs, then it's fortunate you aren't involved in the sciences.Disney Duster wrote:As for proving all I think exists, just us existing and what I have felt and experienced is proof.
Have we already arrived at the "petty attacks due to lack of debating skill and/or rational arguments" portion of this debate? Jeez, I could've sworn it wasn't due for another page or two, lol.Disney Duster wrote:It's proof for you too, but you really like your robot stories and from the sound of it, have had so many bad things happen to you you don't believe in hope and happiness beyond this world. And I'm not talking aliens and other galaxies.
I don't recall saying anywhere that any "bad" things have happened to me. And if I were at all concerned with your opinion, which I'm not, I'd take issue with your condescending pronouncements.
If, for you, the only source of hope or happiness beyond the events of your life lie in religion, and with a god and afterlife that may or may not exist, then I feel sorry for you. I have plenty of hope and happiness in my life, thanks. And I manage it without needing to believe that I'll be rewarded after I kick it.
The choices aren't limited to God or "aliens and other galaxies", as you so condescendingly put it. If god does exist, I imagine he/she/it would be pretty insulted at your dismissive attitude regarding the grandeur of the Universe in which you live. Why the obsession over the afterlife... won't you spend enough time there after you die to ponder how great it will be while you're still alive? The universe around us is enough to inspire awe, whether god exists or not. In my case, I choose to believe the latter.
Yes, and the "natural" material for a given thing varies by said thing. Metal and plastic is quite a natural material for a robot to be made from... whether it's self-aware, or just a welding arm on an auto manufacturer's assembly line. You're trying to apply the material label of "flesh and blood" as being natural for all living things; particularly things with intelligence. I can't even begin to describe how much is wrong with this idea, alone.Disney Duster wrote:"All materials are natural". I mean natural for what it is being made. As in, styrofoam is not the natural materials for a dog. Glass is not the natural matierial for a flower.
Yes, a quirk. All complex systems have quirks, to use a non-scientific term. Self-awareness was a very lucky quirk of our brains indeed, as they became increasingly complex over millions of years of evolution. You think they only way something can be "special" is if it was a gift from the divine? To paraphrase a well-known author, it's quite apparent to me that there's a great deal more to the Universe than is dreamt of in your somewhat small-minded philosophies.Disney Duster wrote:Quirks of biological life? You actually reduce things like that to the term "quirks"? Gotcha.
-
BelleGirl
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
- Location: The Netherlands, The Hague
Oh really, how can you say that? I think ALL the characters in Ratatouille are interesting, from Remy (I love him!) to the despicable Skinner!Disney's Divinity wrote:^
Well, I have to admit, the culinary critic was easily the most interesting character/part of the film. The rest was so uninteresting.
As for Wall-E, I've just seen the movie last wednesday and I tremendously enjoyed it. Wall-E had such an E.T.-like charm. My only complaint is that the final battle lasted a bit to long.
I also loved how at the end credits they showed how the poeple brought new life again to earth, fitlered through a jouney through the history of art.
That's a fresh change from the 'bloopers' they used to show at the end of every Pixar film.
Without having seen other animated features yet this year, I'm quite sure Wall-E deserves the oscar for best animated feature.
UK Blu-ray scheduled for Nov 24th
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... tedisne-21
And if anyone's interested, you can download the game demo on XBoxLive now. It looks absolutely fantastic, but the game appears to be a slightly above average platformer. But it looks fantastic!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... tedisne-21
And if anyone's interested, you can download the game demo on XBoxLive now. It looks absolutely fantastic, but the game appears to be a slightly above average platformer. But it looks fantastic!
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
-
jrboy
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:38 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge Gender: Monster
- Contact:
Flanger-Hanger wrote:Wall-E to come to Blu-ray and DVD November 18th:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1665
-
potterrules93
- Special Edition
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:47 pm
- Location: Ohio
-
magicalwands
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:24 am
- Location: Gusteau's Restaurant
-
PeterPanfan
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:43 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
jrboy
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:38 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge Gender: Monster
- Contact:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1665PeterPanfan wrote:I REALLY love that cover! Ryan, I think it will be a two disc DVD. Let's hope they surprise us with a lot of bonus features, like Sleeping Beauty!
WALL-E Gets Blu-ray Date
Posted August 15, 2008 02:27 PM by Josh Dreuth
Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment has announced that they will bring the Pixar animated film 'WALL-E' to Blu-ray on November 18th, day-and-date with the DVD release. Little is know about this release except that it will be a two-disc set with BD-Live interactivity and a digital copy of the film via, what Disney is calling, "Disney File".
No word on what Pixar catalog title might accompany 'WALL-E' on release day. Originally, 'Finding Nemo' was to be released, but has since been delayed until 2009.