In a message dated 7/17/01 2:59:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Forgive me, but it sounds as though any science fiction that doesn't reinforce a particular philosophical assumption of yours ceases to qualify. What A.I. does is examine the assumption that digitally simulated emotions are the same as real ones. I can't imagine a more science fictional theme. It doesn't give a clear answer. It employs elements of fairy tales (which could include fantasy and religion and the humanities generally) because those are the ways in which humans, as a rule, approach issues of emotion and genuiness of humanity. Without using these kinds of tests of David's "realness" there would be no story, only a naked assertion of yes, no, or maybe. >> As usual I agree with most of what you have said but the problem I have is that the film makers did not really explore the issue of what makes something "real" in David's sense of the word. First, Joe and Teddy are not sharpely distinghished from David. The film makers use these characters to manipulate our emotions (especially Teddy). If they really wanted to explore this issue there should have been a sharper demarcation between the old bots and new bot (David). In addition, David is a peculiar invention. Given what amounts to human emotions (at least one - love of mother) and yet not really given anything else. He can't grow old, can't eat etc. He is a unifunction machine whose purpose is to alleviate the lonliness of one individual, his "mother". This reminds of another weakness in the "design" of David and therefore the story. He does not bond with his "father". If you were designing a surrogate child robot for a family wouldn't you want the "child" to love his father as well? So in fact David is a tool a machine with a single purpose. In this context I don't see him as real.
