I knew this would be my kind of movie coming in-a kind of mind fuck where there are all kinds of ontological implications. The movie didn't disappoint. The story was backdropped by Morgan Freeman as a professor of science and his theorizing about what it would mean if a human being were to use more of their brain than 10 percent.
According to him, animals only use about 10 percent of their brain. In the movie, Lucy somehow gets into some intrigue while living in China and becomes a 'reluctant drug mule' where a dosage of the drug CP4 starts to increase her brain use.
UPDATE: I'm not terribly surprised to discover that the 10 percent of the brain idea is a pure myth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/ted-ed-percentage-brain-richard-cytowic_n_4719173.html
I have to admit that I had thought something like this was true but that it probably didn't mean much: I figured that if we only use 10 percent of our brains that's all we really need-the idea that we could use more was probably an illusion. After all, I figured that probably most of what our brains do we don't need to think about.
What's clear in retrospect is that what I was thinking about was less brain usage than brain consciousness
. Most of what we do happens beneath the level of consciousness is what I had in mind. Actually based on neurological research there is no way to locate consciousness either.
"Although parts of the brain have broadly understood functions, many mysteries remain about how brain cells (i.e., neurons and glia) work together to produce complex behaviors and disorders. Perhaps the broadest, most mysterious question is how diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form conscious experiences. So far, there is no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Therefore, as with James's idea that humans have untapped cognitive potential, it may be that a large fraction of questions about the brain have not been fully answered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth
So when I thought of the 10 percent myth I was thinking more that only 10 percent of what our brains do is conscious rather than we only use 10 percent.
In any case, this is a movie and movies are not science by any stretch but art. What matters in the movie is not what science really says but what this means in terms of humanity's beliefs about itself-it's sociology and philosophy not science much less neurology. That's what I found interesting.
Early after Lucy absorbs the drugs, she explains-to her perplexed mother-that 'human beings are primitive.' What seems to happen is that she is now able to read people's minds and is struck by their motivations-basically, she sounds disappointed. Apparently, she finds that they're mostly driven by things like fear and the desire to avoid pain. Again, this seems to come as a shock to her and quite a disappointment. Evidently she had presumed they were motivated by far less base instincts.
She also finds that by being able to think more and better she is slowly becoming less human. Now Freeman as the theorizing professor had said that if a human being were able to use 20 percent of their brain they'd be able to control themselves and at 40 percent they'd be able to control other people. A student then asks him what if they could control 100 percent and he declared that he doesn't know.
I will confess that I find Lucy's gender as in many ways determining the way she ends up reacting to her new endowment. What I find striking is that she never tries to use her new superior brain functioning for power or riches-she never uses it to win a lottery ticket.
What all her thinking seems to do is enable her to see through humanity and not be very impressed with it. Actually, based on her action, it seems that the optimum brain usage is somewhere between 20 and 40 percent-over that level it seems to become a liability-assuming one wants to live as a human being. She did at times before she hit 40 percent use her brain in some cheeky ways like on a flight to Paris a stewardess tells her she has to turn off her laptop and she says 'You have something dripping from your lip, go get me some champagne.'
This seems to have something do do with the idea that she can read human motivations and use them-this would certainly help me as a telemarketer! Ultimately, though she builds on the idea that what makes us human is primitive. The answer to what happens to us when we use 100 percent of our brains ends up being that we are no longer human at all and that we die.
Lucy chooses to give up life and humanity pretty easily. I can't help but think that a male character would have at least found it more difficult to do so. Freeman had said in his theorizing lectures that until now what has driven humans is a need for time. When Lucy hits 100 percent of brain usage she gives up time-becoming 'timeless' presumably-timelessness being another Urban Legend I should think-and she is gone.
She literally goes all the way back to the beginning of time and meets Cro-Magnon man. When he sees her he is scared but she manages to reassure him and they touch fingers-then it's over; Lucy is no more at least as a human-actually she texts her sort of love interest, a French police chief she picks up along her adventure-and tells him that she is now everywhere.
Again, as I said above, what matters about this movie is more what it says about human ontology-our beliefs, our psychology, our dreams, etc-than the scientific truth-which is clearly lacking. What Lucy's revelation seems to be is something like Buddhism's Path to Enlightenment. Ultimately, Nirvana is found by giving up all strong human feelings and desires.
I did say above that I think a male character might have had a different trajectory than Lucy. My guess is he'd at least struggle to do the right thing-giving up the fight for time. She found it very easy to do so, to 'leave the world as she found it' so to speak. A male protagonist probably would at least have struggled to give up the desire for time a little longer-maybe tried to use it for power and glory at least at first before everything spun out of his control and he repented.
At the end of the move Lucy declares-to us, basically-'Now you know what to do.' What is this we should do? Apparently giving up on our desire for time and are very belief in our own humanity. I must say that I find this a little problematic-such an easy decision for not being, for deciding it's better to not be than to be.
At it's bottom, the lesson is again nihilism-much like Buddhism-or Christianity is. Like her touching fingers with Cro-Magnon man. This is apparently a hello but what it ultimately proves to be is a goodbye. So I'm not so clear that now we know what do.
P.S. For the record I find it very worth watching, just that I have some problems with its ontological implications-which makes it more rather than less worth watching from my point of view.
;
According to him, animals only use about 10 percent of their brain. In the movie, Lucy somehow gets into some intrigue while living in China and becomes a 'reluctant drug mule' where a dosage of the drug CP4 starts to increase her brain use.
UPDATE: I'm not terribly surprised to discover that the 10 percent of the brain idea is a pure myth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/ted-ed-percentage-brain-richard-cytowic_n_4719173.html
What's clear in retrospect is that what I was thinking about was less brain usage than brain consciousness
. Most of what we do happens beneath the level of consciousness is what I had in mind. Actually based on neurological research there is no way to locate consciousness either.
"Although parts of the brain have broadly understood functions, many mysteries remain about how brain cells (i.e., neurons and glia) work together to produce complex behaviors and disorders. Perhaps the broadest, most mysterious question is how diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form conscious experiences. So far, there is no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort. Therefore, as with James's idea that humans have untapped cognitive potential, it may be that a large fraction of questions about the brain have not been fully answered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth
So when I thought of the 10 percent myth I was thinking more that only 10 percent of what our brains do is conscious rather than we only use 10 percent.
In any case, this is a movie and movies are not science by any stretch but art. What matters in the movie is not what science really says but what this means in terms of humanity's beliefs about itself-it's sociology and philosophy not science much less neurology. That's what I found interesting.
Early after Lucy absorbs the drugs, she explains-to her perplexed mother-that 'human beings are primitive.' What seems to happen is that she is now able to read people's minds and is struck by their motivations-basically, she sounds disappointed. Apparently, she finds that they're mostly driven by things like fear and the desire to avoid pain. Again, this seems to come as a shock to her and quite a disappointment. Evidently she had presumed they were motivated by far less base instincts.
She also finds that by being able to think more and better she is slowly becoming less human. Now Freeman as the theorizing professor had said that if a human being were able to use 20 percent of their brain they'd be able to control themselves and at 40 percent they'd be able to control other people. A student then asks him what if they could control 100 percent and he declared that he doesn't know.
I will confess that I find Lucy's gender as in many ways determining the way she ends up reacting to her new endowment. What I find striking is that she never tries to use her new superior brain functioning for power or riches-she never uses it to win a lottery ticket.
What all her thinking seems to do is enable her to see through humanity and not be very impressed with it. Actually, based on her action, it seems that the optimum brain usage is somewhere between 20 and 40 percent-over that level it seems to become a liability-assuming one wants to live as a human being. She did at times before she hit 40 percent use her brain in some cheeky ways like on a flight to Paris a stewardess tells her she has to turn off her laptop and she says 'You have something dripping from your lip, go get me some champagne.'
This seems to have something do do with the idea that she can read human motivations and use them-this would certainly help me as a telemarketer! Ultimately, though she builds on the idea that what makes us human is primitive. The answer to what happens to us when we use 100 percent of our brains ends up being that we are no longer human at all and that we die.
Lucy chooses to give up life and humanity pretty easily. I can't help but think that a male character would have at least found it more difficult to do so. Freeman had said in his theorizing lectures that until now what has driven humans is a need for time. When Lucy hits 100 percent of brain usage she gives up time-becoming 'timeless' presumably-timelessness being another Urban Legend I should think-and she is gone.
She literally goes all the way back to the beginning of time and meets Cro-Magnon man. When he sees her he is scared but she manages to reassure him and they touch fingers-then it's over; Lucy is no more at least as a human-actually she texts her sort of love interest, a French police chief she picks up along her adventure-and tells him that she is now everywhere.
Again, as I said above, what matters about this movie is more what it says about human ontology-our beliefs, our psychology, our dreams, etc-than the scientific truth-which is clearly lacking. What Lucy's revelation seems to be is something like Buddhism's Path to Enlightenment. Ultimately, Nirvana is found by giving up all strong human feelings and desires.
I did say above that I think a male character might have had a different trajectory than Lucy. My guess is he'd at least struggle to do the right thing-giving up the fight for time. She found it very easy to do so, to 'leave the world as she found it' so to speak. A male protagonist probably would at least have struggled to give up the desire for time a little longer-maybe tried to use it for power and glory at least at first before everything spun out of his control and he repented.
At the end of the move Lucy declares-to us, basically-'Now you know what to do.' What is this we should do? Apparently giving up on our desire for time and are very belief in our own humanity. I must say that I find this a little problematic-such an easy decision for not being, for deciding it's better to not be than to be.
At it's bottom, the lesson is again nihilism-much like Buddhism-or Christianity is. Like her touching fingers with Cro-Magnon man. This is apparently a hello but what it ultimately proves to be is a goodbye. So I'm not so clear that now we know what do.
P.S. For the record I find it very worth watching, just that I have some problems with its ontological implications-which makes it more rather than less worth watching from my point of view.
;
I believe you are incorrect to believe a male would have had a different path. Being that after the initial absorption of the drug, and subsequent "unlocking of a percentage of the brain" Lucy became aware that she was either going to die from her body's reaction to "withdraws" from the CP4, or she would have to take more with the knowledge that her understanding of the universe would remove her from any semblance of humanity. I believe a man placed in that same position, with the same hyper-intelligence that Lucy had after her initial absorption of the CP4, would have acted in an extremely similar way. A simple reasoning for this is because whilst in the hospital in Taiwan she says she has lost all desires Said loss of desires would include lusts for power, wealth, glory, or the obvious sexual desires. Furthermore, I don't believe that giving up human feelings or desires are required for Enlightenment; but rather a consequence of Enlightenment. Lucy even indulges in self-desire later in the film after nearly reaching Enlightenment when she brings the police chief with her only "to serve as a reminder". She willingly acknowledges that he is of no use to her other than to serve as a reminder of her lost humanity to herself. For the record I found your analysis of the film to be very well done, I just felt that your statments about a male taking a different path to be misguided and of obvious bias.
ReplyDeleteYeah no problem Anon. I just think that the idea of losing all desires like lust for power, wealth, and glory and even sexual desire seem more appetizing to women.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's bias-unless it's wrong to believe that there are any meaningful differences between the sexes.
I could imagine another protagonist-put aside the question of gender-that would not go for the enlightened road. Some might try to realize their human desires rather than throwing them off as if they're nothing more than last seasons clothes. Now I do think that women in general tend to hold things like lust for power and glory in low estimation already, so it might I think it would be easier for them on average.
Put it this way-you seem to think that anyone in Lucy's position would react the same-I can certainly imagine a scenario where someone tries to realize their human desires rather than eschewing them.