I had to watch Netflix's incredibly expensive flop The Electric State. Among the many things wrong with it was some very dubious brain science. So here I am to tell you about that.
Thanks for pointing out the junk science that completely destroys the dire warnings of the source material. To me the whole thing stinks of AI propaganda trying to spread the message that humans are just bio robots and it’s okay to form creepy attachments with dangerous technology that has a nasty habit of turning homicidal whenever it gets let off the leash.
It's a YA adventure advocating that YAs touch grass. Doomed. But I think the (very lite) social commentary is on point. I assume this was in the comic?
It was not in the original book. The word 'robot' does not feature in the original book. The film is so radically different it struggles to justify the 'adaptation' label at all
I've heard nothing but bad about "The Electric State" so haven't been even tempted to check it out. Your post makes it pretty clear that's the right decision. In any event, the Russo Brothers are pretty hit-n-miss. Mostly miss.
In movies like this, there need be no logic, or even sense, just a string of visual tropes to create impressions and feels. Stir in some quips and zingers for flavor. Leave intelligence and nuance out of it.
"[T]he brain can do anything" is similar to the trope that a good enough software, or a magic chip, can hack anything the script requires hacked. The real pity is that science fiction used to be (and some written SF still is) much more intelligent and scientifically accurate (e.g. Neal Stephenson, Robert J. Sawyer, Liu Cixin, and others). I owe part of my interest in science to the SF I read in the 1960s and 1970s.
Can't fault anything about the sentiment here, but I will stand up for modern day sci-fi in terms of intelligence and accuracy, if you know where to look. I actually struggle with 'classic' sci-fi.
Partly because I find it difficult to suspend disbelief when predictions and assumptions made by writers in the past have since become laughably inaccurate (e.g. Asimov's advanced robot AI being written on typewriters).
And also because I find that in older stories, scientific accuracy and plot is prioritised, considerably, over people speaking and behaving realistically. Maybe because I'm a neuropsych person, but that always strikes me as just as bad, if not worse, than any misapplied physics, or whatever.
Modern writers I really like who seem to get the balance right include Martha Wells, Adrian Tchaikovsky, and Miciah Johnson (although I've only read 'The Space Between Worlds' of hers, but that was enough to win me over).
I read that old stuff back in the day. I agree it's amusing to read now. Even relatively recent SF didn't predict the cell phone revolution. Many still thought faxing would still be a thing. Even on spaceships. I read a Bruce Sterling novel recently ("Islands in the Net", 1988) that thought telex would be the main means of communication and that video phones were too expensive for real-time use, so people pre-recorded messages and squirted compressed versions to the recipient. The future is hard to predict!
The thing about a lot of SF is that it's about the ideas presented, and dialog and human interactions often do take a back seat. Great for idea people and techies, less so for lovers of literary fiction.
And, yeah, as I said, some written SF is very good. Octavia E. Butler was a good blend of ideas and writing. Her two-book series "Parable of the Sower" (1993) and "Parable of the Talents" (1998) is almost eerie in how it anticipates P45&47. A near spitting image.
Every time I hear/read "the brain is like a computer" I always wonder "oh, really? Where are the electronic hormones?".
Does the computer make different decisions at different times of its menstrual cycle? Does it act differently when it's on HRT/TRT?
Or when it's abusing steroids?
Or when introduced to and bonding with its little baby computers?
Or when it's aroused (for whatever reason)?
Or any of the bazillions other hormone-mediated impacts on the brain and executive function.
And that ignores other things like blood chemistry, drugs and alcohol, sleep deprivation, etc etc. Brains are not electronic computers and will never act like or house uploaded human consciousness in a way that would replicate the human experience.
OK, I'm not a neuroscientists but gawd I'm sick of this crap!
Thanks for pointing out the junk science that completely destroys the dire warnings of the source material. To me the whole thing stinks of AI propaganda trying to spread the message that humans are just bio robots and it’s okay to form creepy attachments with dangerous technology that has a nasty habit of turning homicidal whenever it gets let off the leash.
https://naakua.substack.com/p/the-demonic-state
It's a YA adventure advocating that YAs touch grass. Doomed. But I think the (very lite) social commentary is on point. I assume this was in the comic?
It was not in the original book. The word 'robot' does not feature in the original book. The film is so radically different it struggles to justify the 'adaptation' label at all
Now I understand the hate a bit more!
I've heard nothing but bad about "The Electric State" so haven't been even tempted to check it out. Your post makes it pretty clear that's the right decision. In any event, the Russo Brothers are pretty hit-n-miss. Mostly miss.
In movies like this, there need be no logic, or even sense, just a string of visual tropes to create impressions and feels. Stir in some quips and zingers for flavor. Leave intelligence and nuance out of it.
"[T]he brain can do anything" is similar to the trope that a good enough software, or a magic chip, can hack anything the script requires hacked. The real pity is that science fiction used to be (and some written SF still is) much more intelligent and scientifically accurate (e.g. Neal Stephenson, Robert J. Sawyer, Liu Cixin, and others). I owe part of my interest in science to the SF I read in the 1960s and 1970s.
Can't fault anything about the sentiment here, but I will stand up for modern day sci-fi in terms of intelligence and accuracy, if you know where to look. I actually struggle with 'classic' sci-fi.
Partly because I find it difficult to suspend disbelief when predictions and assumptions made by writers in the past have since become laughably inaccurate (e.g. Asimov's advanced robot AI being written on typewriters).
And also because I find that in older stories, scientific accuracy and plot is prioritised, considerably, over people speaking and behaving realistically. Maybe because I'm a neuropsych person, but that always strikes me as just as bad, if not worse, than any misapplied physics, or whatever.
Modern writers I really like who seem to get the balance right include Martha Wells, Adrian Tchaikovsky, and Miciah Johnson (although I've only read 'The Space Between Worlds' of hers, but that was enough to win me over).
I read that old stuff back in the day. I agree it's amusing to read now. Even relatively recent SF didn't predict the cell phone revolution. Many still thought faxing would still be a thing. Even on spaceships. I read a Bruce Sterling novel recently ("Islands in the Net", 1988) that thought telex would be the main means of communication and that video phones were too expensive for real-time use, so people pre-recorded messages and squirted compressed versions to the recipient. The future is hard to predict!
The thing about a lot of SF is that it's about the ideas presented, and dialog and human interactions often do take a back seat. Great for idea people and techies, less so for lovers of literary fiction.
And, yeah, as I said, some written SF is very good. Octavia E. Butler was a good blend of ideas and writing. Her two-book series "Parable of the Sower" (1993) and "Parable of the Talents" (1998) is almost eerie in how it anticipates P45&47. A near spitting image.
Every time I hear/read "the brain is like a computer" I always wonder "oh, really? Where are the electronic hormones?".
Does the computer make different decisions at different times of its menstrual cycle? Does it act differently when it's on HRT/TRT?
Or when it's abusing steroids?
Or when introduced to and bonding with its little baby computers?
Or when it's aroused (for whatever reason)?
Or any of the bazillions other hormone-mediated impacts on the brain and executive function.
And that ignores other things like blood chemistry, drugs and alcohol, sleep deprivation, etc etc. Brains are not electronic computers and will never act like or house uploaded human consciousness in a way that would replicate the human experience.
OK, I'm not a neuroscientists but gawd I'm sick of this crap!