I'd really like it if they didn't regurgitate this type of movie every 2 years. Psychic powers sound really good on paper but make a rather cringeworthy performance in film. Especially since every time it happens the character usually does that lame head tilt from side to side. It's sad though this movie does have a pretty interesting cast. Too bad it'll be a 6.5 at best.
shareI hate when movies use pseudo-science, instead of getting a doctor or medical researcher to fix any problems with the script (and make it more realistic- even by future standards, we doctor's know what to expect). As a Neurosurgeon with 2 PhD's (Physiological Anthropology and Biological Psychology) I can't stand when movies (i.e. Lucy and others) or TV shows (i.e. Bones, Limited, and Scorpion) don't do proper research on the medical, mental, and physiological aspects that are possible. I leave the comic book and true SciFy out of this, since they go in admitting that they are working with a fictional premise (although some of those actually use
more true science than these other movies and shows). These problems are in books as well. My colleagues and I get together to pick out and discuss the fallacies and improbability in the various media that use such pseudoscience. As a neurosurgeon, I get so annoyed by one primary thing above all, when these forms of media propose that people don't normally use 100% of their brains. We all use all of our brains, all of the time (at times even more so while sleeping). A small example are those with brain damage, even a slight coup/counter-coup damage of the brain, as usually occurs car accidents (even minor ones) or shaking a baby, can cause irreparable damage and major changes in the person. I would gladly give my free time to be a medical/psychological specialist, if it helped make these movies and TV shows and books more realistic, simply for the sake of educating the people engaging in the media.
cause lasting problems.
They're making films, not writing papers for scientific journals.
And by the way, Chris Carter co-wrote the X-Files revival finale with a couple of PhD buggers. Still didn't help it from being anywhere close to a masterpiece.
This will be the only comment or reply you'll get. Like I give a sh!t about YOUR interwebz opinion.share
The issue is that most people who watch this aren't experts or knowledgeable on the subject and the film helps perpetuate the 100% of the brain myth. You can say it's just a movie, but these kinds of things really do inform how we think about the world and can be a source of misinformation, which should always be avoided. Misinformation can cause real problems.
shareFirst of all, while I agree that it's annoying to see the same myths constantly recycled, such things are more easily forgiven, at least in part, if the movie were actually GOOD. The bigger problem as I see it, is that the same laziness that went into the research for the movie, also, all too frequently, goes into the rest of the film-making process.
The more troubling aspect, as I see it, is the technophobia that such movies tend to spread. It spreads in our culture to such things as distrust of medical science that takes the form of vaccination fears, belief that global warming is somehow some kind of conspiracy, that GMOs are poisonous, that 'chemicals' in the food that we give our children are killing them, and so on. Chemical paranoia has gotten so bad that one California community came very close to banning the chemical called "DHMO" (the California politician in question failed to realize that DHMO is that most dangerous and insidious chemical of them all, that infects all our lakes and rivers, and the bodies of our children and is responsible for so many deaths every year -- and yes I'm talking about Water).
I have no doubt that scientists make mistakes and that caution is always a good idea. But when your paranoia gets so bad that you think the majority of scientists, because they disagree with your fears are shills for Monsanto, or Evilcorp or Communists, or Donald Trump, or Liberals, or whatever it is you blame for all your fears, then you know that we are dealing with insanity. A preponderance of bad Frankenstein films only feeds that paranoia. And make no mistake, this is another Frankenstein film.
Do you think the chemicals in food aren't affecting your children's brains,? Maybe you don't have children
Maybe you don't believe in science then. That's basically it. If you don't believe in science, then you won't believe a scientist when he says that something is safe. More often than that, I find that it's not just that people believe that science is wrong, but that there is some kind of conspiracy afoot.
I would definitely eat organic foods if they were proven safer than GMOs, but they haven't been. In fact, it's been shown that you are many times more likely to pick up a food-borne illness from an organically grown crop, simply because they use the 'old fashioned' kinds of fertilizer. On the other hand, there's no evidence that non-organic foods are inherently more dangerous than organic foods (and many of them are, in fact much safer, for the reasons I mentioned).
Don't make the same mistake that they almost made in Orange County when they came infinitesimally close to banning water back in 2004 because of how dangerous it is (and water is very dangerous). It happened because of the usual chemical panic, only the idiots didn't realize that the chemical in question was simple water. Every danger that was listed on the announcement was 100% true. But it was water: http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp
Once you recognize your fears as being irrational, you can start worrying about things that are TRULY dangerous, like thinking that anyone with an opinion that is different from yours, even if they are experts, must be part of a conspiracy.
Science has done many wonderful things for humanity however also many stupid things, lead in petrol,CFCs,the atomic bomb!
The fda recently banned antibiotics in soap,it's very easy to say this will make our life easier, our profits bigger,only years later to find the scientific breakthrough has done immense amounts of harm. To often people launch into situations without anticipating the consequences, look at the war on terror, you destroy people's homes and work places and suddenly you have a refugee crisis, unfortunately the people who make many of these decisions are either to stupid to understand the concequences or to greedy to care
Your response is all over the place, and you haven't mentioned which chemicals you think are killing us or our children. The reason for that is that there's no evidence that any of them are. And, in fact, our lifespans have been increasing.
It's fine to decide that you are going to eat or not eat anything and make up a reason for doing so. But you are trying to get people to panic, not over the actual threats that we know about, but ones that you dreamt up. There are real things that we KNOW are bad for us -- too much salt, and too much sugar in our diets, to name two. Water will kill you if you overhydrate, specifically, if you are an athlete (though it's rare, the obsession with staying hydrated has killed a dozen athletes, and the irony is that the belief in hydration is based on ad campaigns created on behalf of a couple of different drink companies -- there's no basis for it). The belief in the dangers of a couple of different artificial sweeteners -- saccharine and most recently, aspartame -- was traced to lobbyists for the sugar companies. Too bad, it's the sugar that will ACTUALLY make you sick, and eventually die. But no, let's obsess about the stuff that has yet to kill a single person or make a person sick.
Then there's the whole anti-GMO fun. Have you ever eaten at Chipotle? They advertise that their foods are GMO-free. Never mind that they are being sued in a class-action lawsuit over that claim by people who say that that's a lie... But in 2015, they made at least 60 people sick due to E coli outbreaks, and more in 2015. It actually isn't a surprise because Organic foods are much more likely to cause food-borne illnesses because of natural fertilizers (artificial fertilizers happen to be a lot safer).
These are things that REALLY make people ill. Why aren't you upset about real things, and feel the need to make crap up? Those are the foods that you don't want your kids to eat.
We've been eating a version of GMO's since Mendel did his first experiment. It may not be on a genetic level but it was modified in the old fashioned way.
-"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense." -Steve Landesberg
Technically, we were eating genetically modified foods long before that. We just didn't understand the mechanism by which we were getting the altered produce. But yeah, it's true. There probably isn't a person in the entire US who eats an entirely GMO-free diet, and that has been true long before the discovery of DNA.
People have this innate fear of anything they don't understand. They understand selective breeding. We've been doing that since 12000 BCE. No one has ever complained about Watermelon, a genetically modified plant that does not resemble the grey watermelon of centuries ago. No one complains about insulin, which comes from a bacteria that was manufactured back in 1976 for the first time. Genetic engineering is just a tool that we use now that is much more precise and targeted than the tools we've been using for thousands of years.
Maybe you don't believe in science then. That's basically it. If you don't believe in science, then you won't believe a scientist when he says that something is safe.
I would definitely eat organic foods if they were proven safer than GMOs, but they haven't been.
you haven't mentioned which chemicals you think are killing us or our children. The reason for that is that there's no evidence that any of them are. And, in fact, our lifespans have been increasing.
The belief in the dangers of a couple of different artificial sweeteners -- saccharine and most recently, aspartame -- was traced to lobbyists for the sugar companies.
People have this innate fear of anything they don't understand. They understand selective breeding. We've been doing that since 12000 BCE. No one has ever complained about Watermelon, a genetically modified plant that does not resemble the grey watermelon of centuries ago. No one complains about insulin, which comes from a bacteria that was manufactured back in 1976 for the first time. Genetic engineering is just a tool that we use now that is much more precise and targeted than the tools we've been using for thousands of years.
Sorry I had to respond to this because some of your assumptions seem to be wrong on both sides of this argument. I like you am very cautious as to GMO's. However one must be careful and not get carried away with passion. I don't have time to respond to all your points, but I will touch on a few before I go.
Firstly science is imperfect. Sometimes science gets it wrong. Sometimes its an accident. Sometimes it is malicious or callous. There is often a debate amongst scientists so you must be careful not to tar all with the oily brush. Science describes the world to the best of our knowledge at the present time. and it's knowledge built upon knowledge.
for example. In the case of tobacco It was know for a long time that Tabaco was harmful and many scientist DID campaign against it. What happened was no one listened. Edward Bernays (amongst others) was so successful in marketing that he managed to convince entire populations that "What do scientists know? - smoking is cool". His teachings helped to foster a fear of science that still persists to this day - Vaccine crisis?
In actual fact everything we eat if genetically modified. Everything. We just did it over a very long length of time. All our live stock and pets come from a wild animals that that have the "wildness" bred out of them. So to say all GMOs are bad is wrong. Should we be cautious? Yes? Are GMO being used irresponsibly? in part yes. but then so is a pencil when plunged into someone's neck.
I understand that in the US the lack of regulations means that GMO's are surreptitiously should as organic and is being used as a corporate weapon that left unchallenged could destroy parts of the environment. and what happens in the US happens to the rest of us.
The problem isn't science. The problem is us. Just as we are creative, caring, innovative we are arrogant, selfish, destructive. Science is neutral. Science doesn't give a *beep* Science just wants to get to the truth.
Damn I wasn't going to rant.
apologies.
z
Sorry I had to respond to this because some of your assumptions seem to be wrong on both sides of this argument. I like you am very cautious as to GMO's. However one must be careful and not get carried away with passion. I don't have time to respond to all your points, but I will touch on a few before I go.
Firstly science is imperfect. Sometimes science gets it wrong. Sometimes its an accident. Sometimes it is malicious or callous. There is often a debate amongst scientists so you must be careful not to tar all with the oily brush. Science describes the world to the best of our knowledge at the present time. and it's knowledge built upon knowledge.
for example. In the case of tobacco It was know for a long time that Tabaco was harmful and many scientist DID campaign against it. What happened was no one listened. Edward Bernays (amongst others) was so successful in marketing that he managed to convince entire populations that "What do scientists know? - smoking is cool".
In actual fact everything we eat if genetically modified. Everything. We just did it over a very long length of time. All our live stock and pets come from a wild animals that that have the "wildness" bred out of them. So to say all GMOs are bad is wrong.
Should we be cautious? Yes? Are GMO being used irresponsibly? in part yes. but then so is a pencil when plunged into someone's neck.
I understand that in the US the lack of regulations means that GMO's are surreptitiously should as organic and is being used as a corporate weapon that left unchallenged could destroy parts of the environment. and what happens in the US happens to the rest of us.
The problem isn't science. The problem is us. Just as we are creative, caring, innovative we are arrogant, selfish, destructive. Science is neutral. Science doesn't give a *beep* Science just wants to get to the truth.
Damn I wasn't going to rant.
you haven't heard that snopes has been debunked?
shareScientists work for corporations that make food, they will not say the companies food is not safe now will they. There would not be many scientists who dont have a link to a grant or a paychack would come from someone making profit in the food industry. Going off the norm as a scientist would not make that person a living. Money is tied to that business and if your in the profession you wont make waves. Whistle blowers do not get protected, they get black listed from their profession. Knowing what we know about smoking now, doctors, dentists, and everyone one who might be an authority was promoting it. That could not have been a conspiracy that they all promoted smoking was it?
shareYou are making GROSS generalizations here. No 'scientists' as a group do not work for corporations. Certainly there are scientists who do, and you would be right to be skeptical of those who are on the payroll of any specific corporation. But those are not the same scientists who work for the National Academy of Sciences who came to the conclusion that GMOs are better for the environment than organic foods, and are just as safe as any other food. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/us-panel-releases-consensus-genetically-engineered-crops
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Furthermore, the same corporations that sell GMO foods, also sell the bulk of Organic foods in America. Yeah, there are certainly still some small price-gouging farms out there, but the bulk of organic food comes from the same corporations that you say have scientists on the payroll. The irony is that you end up paying a premium for organic food that comes from the same exact corporations, only you are 8 times more likely to get a food-borne illness from it, like E. Colli (because you know what's in Organic fertilizer, don't you?). It's one of the reasons why there were E. Colli outbreaks all around the country, stemming from Chipotle.
And btw, ALL produce in this country has been genetically modified. Watermelon would not even exist if not for genetic modification. The world has been using genetically-modified mosquitoes to fight disease all over the world (which has reduced outbreaks of Zika and Dengue Fever by as much as 90% in some parts). Genetic modification has existed for thousands of years.
I'll tell you what. If you can identify a specific strain of a specific type of corn or wheat or rice that is demonstrably a danger to either health or the environment, then it should be reported. And I might agree that that particular strain of crop, whether it is a GMO or not, ought not to be sold in supermarkets. Short of that, I have to treat all anti-GMO fearmongers as ignorant crackpots.
Someone wanted to ban water forreal?
shareYes -- it just goes to show how most people are scientifically illiterate, so no one has any perspective. Water can be deadly -- everyone knows that. But use a technical name for water, and suddenly all perspective is lost.
Oxygen and water can be toxic -- but we need them to survive, so no one questions water or oxygen in the food we eat, and the air we breathe -- you don't have to explain that oxygen and water are toxic in high concentrations. But tell someone that DHMO is toxic (or any other chemical) and suddenly everyone thinks it's going to kill you without ever asking the important questions, like how much is toxic?
You should always be skeptical of non-scientists making scientific claims about what is and is not dangerous because most of the time they don't understand anything about what they are talking about. They either don't understand the science enough to make legitimate claims or they are making stuff up to scare you into clicking on their links. That's basically the point that the originator of the DHMO hoax was trying to make. Be skeptical the next time you see someone claiming that X is killing you.
How is that a problem? The problem does in no way lie with the movie, but with the education of people.
sharePretending reality doesn't exist doesn't benefit movies. It's one thing to do fantasy, it's completely another to pretend tobe sci-fi using well known, long debunked myths.
shareLots and lots of movies, science fiction or otherwise, contain technical errors. Depending on the nature of those errors, they are either overlooked by the audience, or they contribute to ruining the movie-going experience. What distinguishes the errors which are overlooked to those which actually can ruin your experience depends on how easy it is for a viewer to suspend their disbelief.
Aspects that reduce your ability to suspend your disbelief include:
1. Exactly how substantially broken the movie reality seems to you, based on how strongly the violated rules are to your personal world view.
2. If the movie isn't enjoyable to you to begin with (excluding the broken world-view), the more likely you are to nitpick those broken rules, no matter how trivial they otherwise may be.
3. If the film is internally inconsistent (ie. breaks its own established reality, whether or not that established reality contradicts actual reality).
4. If there's only one small technical error, then you can more easily accept that error. If the errors keep on coming, then you will quickly reach a critical mass.
Aspects that will increase your ability to suspend your disbelief include:
1. If the film, excluding its problems, is fun or enjoyable, you are likely to overlook minor issues, or downplay less minor issues.
2. If the issues are not intrinsic to your world view, even if you know, intellectually, that the film made a technical error, it will likely bother you less.
Note that this is all very subjective -- a person who lacks scientific sophistication, much less literacy, will likely not be as bothered by errors, whether they are small or large.
For example, I've had a better science education than most people, and have been recently giving science lectures for non-science students on a weekly basis. So while I am able to suspend my disbelief for fantasy films, I'm less able to do so for films that purport to be science fiction that use bad science as a major plot point.
I hate when movies use pseudo-science, instead of getting a doctor or medical researcher to fix any problems with the script (and make it more realistic- even by future standards, we doctor's know what to expect).
My colleagues and I get together to pick out and discuss the fallacies and improbability in the various media that use such pseudoscience. As a neurosurgeon, I get so annoyed by one primary thing above all, when these forms of media propose that people don't normally use 100% of their brains. We all use all of our brains, all of the time (at times even more so while sleeping).
I'd like to point out two things.
First, regarding "true sci-fi", it depends on how you define it. If you mean "hard sci-fi", a large subgenre of sci-fi, you mean that nothing can be shown that violates the laws of physics. Aka, not time traveling, since its paradoxes cannot be resolved, not unless the Novikov self-consistency principle is proved anyway. Lightsabers, the Star Wars "force" concept, telepaths, telekinetics, and even faster than light travel do not belong in the realm of hard sci-fi either.
On the other hand you can have travel at some significant fraction of the speed of light, matter-antimatter annihilation super efficient engines, tiny black hole powered insanely energy dense engines, (slow) colonization of an entire galaxy by Von Neumann probes, nano or molecular assemblers that can manufacture just about anything, and even Kardashev 1, 2 & 3 scale alien or future human civilizations. Hard sci-fi can be revised after a major sci-tech breakthrough (for instance if an Alcubierre FTL drive is ever built) but not by much.
Regarding the infamous 100% use of the brain, I would draw a distinction between quantitative and qualitative use. Yes, we all use (quantitavely) 100% of our brains, and even if the use was simultaneous nothing would really change (perhaps we would just have an epileptic attack). Yet there is also qualitative use, for instance cerebral metabolism efficiency and rate. To draw an oversimplified parallel with a CPU a computer can use 100% of the transistors of a CPU but the CPU can also become more efficient and higher clocked.
We, instead of CPU engineers can be "upgraded" by evolution. Or, much faster, via biotechnology as in the trailer (was that individual neuron nanobots?) of the film. Isn't that possible?
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
BrainGirl78, I would like to chat with you about your post here if you have some time. I will Private Message you here, if that is possible.
shareBrainGirl78, don't quit your day job (at Starbucks).
share[deleted]
Hi, I'm an MD.
https://vibbi.com/braingirl78
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-desiderio-09402b7a
So this is you?
Can't find you here.
http://www.abns.org/en/Verify%20a%20Neurosurgeon.aspx/
Or here
http://physicians.bassett.org/?FreeText%3AExternalKeyword=neurosurgery
http://physicians.bassett.org/?FreeText%3aLast+name=Desiderio
You're not in Doximity either.
Where did you train?
Could it not just be a badly explained explanation! As in, we, our body, is always using 100% of our brains, but on a personal level, we don't cognitively control 100% of our brains. Much like how many of our systems are autonomous, we don't have to think about breathing or blinking, its generally a natural occurrence. I think that the mythos of the statement has been misconstrued over the years for simplification (similar to how everyone see's the evolution diagram of ape into man, and thinks that that is correct... its a simplification, no matter how wrong it is, it gets part of the theory across)!
I'm with you, I hate the perpetuation of the 10% statement, but as a vehicle for a storyline, it doesn't need to be explained futher than the old adage it has become... or you would risk alienating the audience with jargon and proper science!
Ridiculous nonsense.
This movie, as with all other such movies, DO admit that they are working with a fictional premise. It's given.
You have completely misunderstood the point of movies. As a physicist (working as a postdoc in astro physics), I am still fully capable of enjoying a movie, that is scientifically inaccurate. Even ones that people with your background would find realistic, while people with my background would know they are not.
Yes, the idea that we only use some little percentage of our brain is bogus (just like your claim of education is). Nothing else you wrote, was at all relevant.
"these movies" are not supposed to be more realistic. You need to choose your movies better, if that's what you want. It was clear both from description and trailer, that it wasn't going to be realistic.
Does everyone have perfect eidetic memories? Does everyone have full conscious control of autonomic functions? Nope. Why not? Because we don't "utilize" 100% of our brains. It's a slight mistake to say we "use" X amount of our brains, because the brain is always in use. They always mean to say utilize.
Then again, a study did find that devout religious people experience atrophy of their hippocampus because they consciously shut their minds off to logic and reasoning (they fail to use a part of the brain so it has no need to grow), which is a function of the hippocampus... So, actually, not everyone uses 100% of their brain even when they have the capacity to do so.
Food for thought to keep your noggin' in full use!
~
My list of 1,000+ weird wild movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls053942167/
Then again, a study did find that devout religious people experience atrophy of their hippocampus because they consciously shut their minds off to logic and reasoning (they fail to use a part of the brain so it has no need to grow), which is a function of the hippocampus...
Did I miss something?
She didn't have ANY psychic powers, AT ALL as far as I remember.
I also must have missed the 100% of brain power thing.
Can you please highlight to me the points in this movie which indicate them?
Did I miss something?
That appears to have a non psychic explanation. I think she could use the nanites in her brain in order to connect to the internet and/or the local network of the facility, which the local power grid was connected to. That could explain how she knew about Lee, the name of the psychiatrist and even details about his personal life (I don't think anyone in the facility told her, why would they? And how would they even know?). We saw no other psychic exhibition of her powers. No telekinesis, no telepathy, no nothing. Why would they give her psychic powers and fail completely to explore them?
Let me delve a bit deeper into how neuron targeted nanites (a brilliant idea btw, the only one that makes the film stand out) could connect to the internet or a LAN. Individually they couldn't, because they are much smaller than the wavelength of all viable wireless frequencies. However they could work in concert to form an either static (fixed) or dynamic (reconfigurable, depending on the wireless frequency) antenna. Regarding power they require tiny, and neurons have more than enough milliVolts to feed them. They use the neurons' voltage for all their other functions (whatever they may be) anyway.
It's very sad, though, that the film left even that aspect unexplored, with only that scene and a previous one when she was looking at Lee through a CCTV camera and Lee's monitor went a bit nuts, like something was electro-magnetically interfering with it (Morgan's ~100 billion nanites). For Christ's sake, was that in an effort to shave screen time, or did they think they would confuse the audience? Why give clear hints of something that 95% of your audience will not pick, thinking erroneously that she has "psychic powers", unless you freaking show how it works?
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
You're digging too deep. All I said was that she closed her eyes and turned off the lights with her mind.
Rewatching the movie now. Dr. Ziegler said the room has been reconfigured for Morgan to control some of the environment (said after Morgan turns off the music).
Ziegler also warns the Paul Giamatti character about her "emergent precognition" and says, "What you don't understand is the reach of her intelligence."
But I never said she was psychic.
_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.
I like to dig deep, sometimes perhaps deeper than the screenwriter intended :p Yes, I almost forgot that part of the film. That is a stronger hint that she was controlling networked devices with her nanites rather than doing things with (the organic part of) her mind. If she could control her immediate environment with conventional psychic powers (such as flipping switches with telekinesis) why would they need to reconfigure her room (presumably with network controls)?
Since she is so deeply intertwined with her nanites, and the distinction between brain and machine in her is so blurred, you could consider her network control abilities a specific kind of "psychic powers", in some sense. That is, if my theory is correct. A "netkinetic", if you like. I just don't think she could read minds, move objects with her mind or control fire, aka the psychic powers we are normally accustomed to.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
Pretty sure that was just hacking.
shareJust returned from the movie and that line is not there and Morgan does not possess any psychic powers. Only in one scene does she show exceptional intelligence and that is when she guesses the psychiatrist sent to test her is a father of a young girl. No where else in the film does she show any sign of any powers, although she seems to have learned some wicked fighting moves and drives a car (no reason to believe she was ever given lessons).
shareSaw it today. Agreed, there is no line in the movie about using 100% of her brain - I don't mind this trope myself, but it always does jump out at me in a movie and it simply isn't there.
There is some mention of psychic powers, though. In the run-up to her psych evaluation there is a passing reference to Morgan being somewhat prescient. And several times Morgan displays knowledge of people she shouldn't have; she refers to both Lee Weathers and Dr. Shapiro by name the moment she meets them, and of course gives Shapiro several details about his family life.
--
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.
I figured one of the scientists (probably the one she loved) told her about both Lee and Shapiro. It was not top secret to the others. They knew she was coming and knew Shapiro would be there the following day. As I said previous, she probably guessed that Shapiro had a daughter, hoping to use it as sympathy for herself and her plight, trying to get the doctor thinking of his own child in such a situation, or to see, hopefully, something of his daughter in Morgan.
shareThey might possibly have told her their names, though it really didn't seem that way. But details about the Dr's family life, right down to how he visits his kid? They wouldn't even know that stuff, let alone be telling it to her. And coming right after one of them specifically states that she has prescience, too.
--
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.
I think some psychologists are capable of telling how many children you have and what gender based on your reactions and how you behave. However, determining exactly how old that child is an impressive accomplishment.
shareShe was psychic, and slightly telekinetic. The doctor says so, she also controls the music and lights with her mind. Yes, he says they rigged the room so she could do that, but there still had to be some unknown thing at work there, unless her nano bots have wifi. Except they never suggest she can interact only with machines, but it's said and shown that she can read minds. They never do mention the old trope of her using 100% of her brain though.
Maybe BrainGirl, which seems to be a pathological liar, should use 100% of her brain so she'd stop getting upset about things she imagined being in the movie.
Even with infinite IQ you cannot "guess" the freaking age of someone's child. She was either a telepath, which was never explored or even suggested, or the ~100 billion nanites in her brain allowed her to connect to the facility's LAN and look up information about the psychiatrist and Lee. The latter appears much more plausible. The only clear "abilities" she showed both involved network action. First when she looked at Lee through the CCTV camera and Lee's monitor got weird and second when she turnt off all the lights.
If nanotechnology develops to the point that individual neuron nanites are possible then it should be trivial to have them connect to a local LAN. We are talking about the deepest, lowest level and most elegant merge of bio and tech that is possible, far far beyond crude high level "cyborg" implementations.
I wrote in my above comment more about it, and how would it work.
Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.share
If nanotechnology develops to the point that individual neuron nanites are possible then it should be trivial to have them connect to a local LAN. We are talking about the deepest, lowest level and most elegant merge of bio and tech that is possible, far far beyond crude high level "cyborg" implementations.
Looking at the reviews it looks like most of the critics have used a quill generated story and just embroidered apone it, sad , I thought it was a well thought out plot about emotion v pychopathica and the use of clones in warfare, probably happening somewhere around Kentucky in the axis of evil at this very moment
I thought it was a joke but you seem upset. What are you talking about? The movie didn't mention anything about 100% of brain power whatsoever.
shareSome people can "use" all 100% of the brain even today!!!
It's called Epilepsy...