The Philosophy of Wall•e

Pixar's Feature Films WALL•E
#21

well that’s certainly interesting:

However, while I’m precisely here to seek answers to that question (which means I don’t have as of yet a true opinion), I find several point to argue on with you, halos:

-Indeed what you are mentionning has been present in us since our dawn as a species (very much like any animal species, mind you), however aren’t we supposed to also reason due to our superior intellect? when we calmly analize and cultivate feelings for someone, I believe this can go beyond natural reflexes.
My point: some humans are, by one way or another, sterile. Others simply have no yearning to have children. Does that make them uncapable of feelings and ultimately, of sustaining a relationship? as such, I believe we move beyond our initial design of maintaining our species (especially given the fact that we are suffering no population shortage or predatory dangers: take ants for instance)

Then there’s the question of mating. However, I believe even the significance of this act can greatly vary given the individuals: I’ve seen examples where some people had problems with the idea (e.g: victims of traumatizing experiences in childhood, some of them involving rape), yet they still could form that symbiotic relationship. Quite curious, isn’t it?

Of course due to our variety as a collective, I believe love can have lots of meanings (for some it’ll be passion (sexualy oriented), for others it’ll be admiration, etc…), which I suppose is why my question will probably not be answered for quite a while: even though I truly hope some people realize the valour of such a curious and atypical relationship: I’m sure we could grow quite a lot on that.

However, I’ll be truly interesting in the idea of a debate: Perhaps it might bring new elements to me and explain and prevent that strange nostalgia pain felt during that film.

I thank you both for your answers and welcome.

#22

I’d like to use the ideas of the philosopher Richard Dawkins here, Dawkins posits that humanity exists only as a ‘selfish gene’, one which seeks to propogate itself. He suggests that all of human existence is geared towards the continuation of our genes, there is no ‘soul’ and feelings, such as love, are naught but physical processes in our brains designed only to ease reproduction.

He then goes on to note that after a few generations our genes will be lost anyway, our relatives may bear a passing resemblance to us, but that is all. Instead what is continued are our ‘memes’, the various facets of culture, music, fashion, science etc. which we hold to be our own, these are the things which will last.

It is not necessarily my view but it is an interesting one.

Although as humans we are capable of logical thought and analysis beyond that of an animal our base instincts are still primal in nature, the desire to eat, sleep, mate etc. Even through rational thinking is it possible to overcome these desires? Certaintly a relationship which is not based on sexual terms, but on mutual admiration, trust and adoration, is a bright ideal, one from which we would no doubt benefit, but is it truly achievable?

Perhaps our minds are, in a way, too complex. Wall•e and EVE are machines, they are programmed to follow their relative directives. External factors alter this singular directive and that forms the core of their relationship. Humans are, by nature, more complex. They do not have a singular directive, but hundreds of paths, and hundreds of choices between which path to take. We are too focussed on making sense of our on lives to really care about someone, without a sexual or parental bond, in the same all-encompassing bond between the two machines.

#23

Hmm, that’s an interesting view indeed: However, in my opinion, this rases a paradox: richard dawkins litterally compares us to drones (which is in a sense, machinery to it’s crudest sense), who have their feelings and emotions somewhat pre-programmed in order to satisfy the biological imperative: reproduction and safeguard of the species.

I must say (even though I can heardly boast on my experience in these matters) that I don’t quite abide by this view: If those pre-programmed emotions were really present, why were they not here in the first place, at the beginning of our appearance? I think that we deliberately achieved sentience throughout intellect (some say that due to crude means like tools and fire, we were allocated more time to dream, and thus to evolve) and rose above the animal world (even if biologically, we retain the title).

Now, regarding your arguments, I would point out one argument also (still a theory even will all it implies though): Sleep, eat and mate are also biological necessities to us, without them, a body would die. Call them maintenance, just as machines need to change parts or submit to regular checkups. as such, they remain insticts to remind us we can’t survive without them (pretty much like the pain you’ll feel when you will expose your hand to fire, and thus quickly remove it, otherwise you would suffer structural damage.

I think for my part, (and I hope, which is possibly my biggest problem as I’m not remaining impartial) that a relationship can devellop encompassing all these terms (both admiration, and possibly physical mating) yet the definition of the latter in that case would have to be much different then it is today (sorry, I can’t speak for everybody on the planet: Correction: then it is shown today).

it’s late in france and I’ll have to sum up, but once again, regarding your last paragraph, I think humans can choose this way of seeing/analysing said paths: Some might say that people who are somewhat coldheaded and not akin to surplus feelings/doubts might be able to see things in a closer way than eve or wall e do. After all, let us not forget that wall e and eve emulate those feelings and thus gain the understanding they have of them through the movie “hello, dolly!”, which is a perfect demonstration of human emotions.

Might anyone wish to pool their ideas? Your additionnal views might prove valuable to me for understanding and remeding this situation.

Thank you.

#24

starlord: your point really makes sense, though the thought that machines still have thoughts and emotions is still far fetched to me. Then there is the whole soul variable, do they have one, do we have one? But that goes too far into opinion, so I’ll just stick with what you guys said. :wink:

#25

The whole of philosophy is based on opinion, there is no way we can verify any philosophical ideologies. In fact the existence of the soul seems a good point of discussion.

The French philospher Descartes performed a ‘thought-experiment’ in which he imagined he was under the control of an evil spirit. The spirit could control any of his actions, therefore he must doubt that anything he did was ‘his’ action rather than the spirits. In the end he concluded that the only thing he couldn’t doubt was that he was doubting. In other words he couldn’t doubt the fact that he was thinking, therefore the ‘thinking’ part of him must be seperate to the physical part. He reasoned that the ‘thinking’ part of a person was the soul.

So in order to have a soul it seems that something must be able to think. Do Wall•e and EVE think? Or are they just following their own garbled directives?

#26

Hmm, interesting. Would you be considering the fact of picking up a circular plate because it reminds you the party hats in “put on your sunday clothes” a directive? would you consider the fact of recording the “it only takes a moment” song a directive?
Most importantly, would you consider the possibility of jeoperdizing a critical mission by disobeying a direct order to care after a robot of no practical use in this scenario a directive? :wink:

It might simply be my point of view, but I think there’s something more, here.

which brings me back to my original question: Might humans (the good old soul carrying humans we all know) be capable of experiencing a similar relationship then the one demonstrated by wall-e and eve? that symbiotic need of the other partner as a charicmatic driving force? that caring?

Might it also involve “special” circumstances beyond normality, such as the threat of losing that other partner (like eve experienced when wall e was agonizing)? might this mean people are somewhat doomed not to experience this unless those very exceptional circumstances appear to threaten them?

I would be interested to know what you have to reply to this! :slight_smile:

Floridabum, thanks for joining: Regarding that statement, the only thing I’m certain of, is that I’m not certain of anything :laughing: after all, when you look at it the other way, out of all the possible animal species on this planet, we are the only one who achieved sentience. And yet, our time here so far is hugely shorter than, say the three epochs the dinosaurs roamed this planet (trias, jurassic, and cretacerous). Yet we managed to somehow evolve into what we are today… curious isn’t it?

What I truly wonder is what the machines would evolve to, should they have the proper factors to do so (knowing that in some ways, as explaned above, some of a computer’s workings are very similar to a living brain (mostly that notion of binary language). what would happen if tomorrow’s machines (ours certainly aren’t advanced enough) were left to evolve unhindered? is thought (a state of awareness/awakening if you will) only prone to devellop in biological matter? we have nothing to confirm that (even if we have nothing to infirm it either), however, as I’ve explained earlier, is some way, all our creations (including machines) contain imitations of what we are (binary code and the like) which means they bear (even on a far level perhaps) some resemblance to us. Might this resemblance make them capable of thought one day? wait and see… :stuck_out_tongue:

Edit: one thing I just realised recently which justifies my appeal to that relationship is that it’s entirely based on acts (and not speech). I actually saw that people considered their “love” to be (I’ll say the word) more pure (I myself would say clearer) than the conventionnal love between humans: This might be because our specific speech to those relations doesn’t mean much anymore since it’s so overused by just about anyone with extremely different definitions depending on the character. However, wall-e and eve’s relationships are mainly demonstrated by acts such as caring/protecting/holding, etc… which makes it somewhat clearer to see the signification behind those acts (also, hecause they have a high meaning, they are not deemed “substancial” contrary to the impression we might have on some words due to their overuse).

As such, I wonder, might it be possible also to cultivate a relationship mostly through the demonstration of acts instead of speech? this would truly be much closer to the wall-e type relationship in fact.

#27

I wonder what andrew stanton would think of this discussion…

Perhaps he has some of the answers I’m looking for (if he doesn’t, I don’t know who would).

Is he aware of the pixar planet site?

#28

From what I’m aware some people at Pixar are aware of Pixar Planet, however I don’t know whether Mr. Stanton himself knows of it.
Although I’m sure he knows more about Wall•e philosophy than any of us.

Yes I would say that collecting items out of ‘curiosity’ or due to their resemblance to, in this case, a film serves to fulfil Wall•e’s directive. Remember that by this point he is around 700 years long. No one expected the Wall•e drones to last that long. Over the years his primary directive has become convoluted, originally he was tasked with gathering garbage and crushing it into cubes, over time he has developed difficulties in discerning between ‘trash’ and other objects.

Wall•e wouldn’t see any of the scenarios aboard the Axiom as a ‘critical mission’ he is far out of the bounds of his directive, there is no trash here. Everything he does he does only for EVE, not for some lofty higher directive.

Clearly humans do need relationships, if starved of social situations we become distant and disillusioned. However I find it difficult to believe that a non-parental male/female pair could exist only based on mutual compassion. Obvioulsy the mutual love must exist but it has to be compounded by the desire to mate.

Under exceptional circumstances certaintly one partner will try and save the other even at risk of his/her own life. However people have been known to risk their lives for random strangers too, even in less disastrous grounds people will donate organs to save the lives of people they barely know. This does not necessarily mean that the two will form a bond as pure as Wall•e and EVE’s. In the end I think that that is what it boils down to: ‘purity’. I use it not in a religious sense, but rather in the sense that Wall•e and EVE have no comprehension of sex. Humans will always have that primal desire, and so that is all we can base our relationships on.

#29
#30

Curiosly I would say that the only reason Wall•e and EVE hold hands is due to the Hello Dolly clip. Neither of them have that movement as a part of their directive, it is only through emulation that Wall•e understands it’s purpose at all. Note how EVE doesn’t have aclue what Wall•e is trying to do with her hand until she has a chance to review the clip herself. This of course raises the question of how much of Wall•e and EVE’s relationship is simple mimicry?

Yes ‘clear’ is a better word than ‘pure’ in this context, in fact I agree with your entire second paragraph.

I would go so far as to suggest that rather than mating being ‘in our vocabulary’ our vocabulary has come from mating. Not directly of course but human society can be boiled down to two things; sex and violence, language is just a way of expressing these things which has become more complicated as time has passed.

#31

Someone here said they personally knew 6 Pixar employees at this website. There are surely many others who are members or visitors, out of 600+ Pixar people. Mr. Stanton is supposed to sometimes visit the Upcoming Pixar subforum. But it’s highly unlikely he saw the 'Happy Birthday…" post for him by Rachelcakes last Dec. 4th, which was placed either on off-topic or on the members subforum.

#32

That’s interesting: thank you! :smiley:

I’ll do my best to attract his attention to this thread. Many thanks!

#33

I don’t think that our minds are as simple as mating and violence, those seem to be taught rather then simply knowing them. I read of a British couple that tried to have children, but never were exposed to ‘mating’ and didn’t know how to actually get the wife pregnant. There is was no sexual side to the relationship, they married because of mutual compassion. So it is possible for us humans :wink:

But if machines did get the ability to think, I don’t know how we would be able to get them to view anything with creativity, to get them to think of their own response to a problem, and develop emotion from that. Its almost impossible for me to imagine recreating my mind, when we can’t even see it ourselves to try to copy it. If we do actually get an artificial intelligence, it will almost certainly be by mistake.

Then, if we make something as complex, to give it sentience is something that is out of our league all together.

And a sequel around Wall-e and Eve’s kid(s) would be cool, better then what I think it would be (they argue, then someone almost dies, they make up, the end). Though, I would actually prefer if there weren’t a sequel, I love the movie to much to know how it ends, if that makes sense.
:confused:

And I think Mr. Stanton might think we’re overthinking the movie :wink:

#34

well, actually, you’ll be amazed by the raw amount of logic behind feelings: Simply they rely on so great a number of factors (which sometimes we don’t all know of) that they are considered as somewhat “erratic”.

To come back to your idea of creativity: We think of our proper response to a problem depending on a huge array of factors, yet that’s what they are: only factors. there is no “hazard” or unexplanable in this. We might give an answer inspired by precedent exposures to the same problem (experience) or/and depending on the impact of our decision on third parties, and the care we hold to such said third parties, or again, on physical properties (in that case, genetic factors)… a combination of consideration of all these factors craft our decisions.

As an example, wall E may have become learning/curious due to a will to survive (since he’s the only working piece of hardware left on the planet), hence we have the knowlegde=power relationship here, giving him curiosity (sometimes in purely utilitarian ways, like scavenging, sometimes in more… hobbyist like ways, due to things which he feels he has incomplete understanding of). As such, I don’t believe machine sentience to be totally unbelievable… We might be surprised :wink:

I’ve seen another thread amounting to the “humanized” characters of the wall E film: that’s funny! Possibly those people are asking themselves exactly the same questions as we are in this thread, and are somewhat willing/wishing to make wall E and EVE more “accessible” (e.g: human) to convince themselves that such a candid relationship is still possible among us even given our current standards.

Well, perhaps it’s an overthought indeed, but I think that should Mr stanton see this thread, it would be interesting to discuss this, as philosophy is anyway quite present in the film: Should I recall well, he once quoted that the pertinence of true personnal “in the flesh” like relationships initiated by wall E over the computerized contacts the humans have. That idea is also quite pertinent in the question we are currently discussing.

I would personnally point a music to the character of eve which I found suiting. Funnily enough, the music is from EVE online (even though I know nothing of the program) and I called “I saw your ship”. You can listen to it here: eveonline.com/download/music/

I think it quite symbolizes EVE and all she stands for, up to the sheer meaning of the name EVE.

Should you wish to share comments…

#35

Wow, did every one already forget this thread? :laughing:

#36

Sorry, I’m very lazy and I’ve been revising so I haven’t really given much thought to the thread…

Briefly:
If a machine were to become sentient it wouldn’t be in the form of a pre-programmed robot, at least not initially. The first sentient machine would be an internet-like conglomerate of multiple networks all operating independently but towards the same goal, in the case of the internet, the storage and distribution of information. In fact there is some evidence that our internet is becoming somewhat ‘aware’ in that it can reorganise itself in order to better locate and store information.

A ‘robot’ however must follow it’s preprogrammed directive and, unlike the internet which has no such directive, has no opportunities to ‘step over the mark.’ (Reminds me of M-O, jumping off his programmed path in order to more closely follow his directive…)

#37

I play EVE, and when someone sees your ship either A) its a friend from your corp (basically a clan mate). or B) a person whos in an enemy corp or a pirate. Almost all the time its B, which means you either run away or die. So the song might be nice, but I dont think its what eve stands for, even though she is very gung ho.

I think we did share a whole lot about what we think is and will become sentient. I’m all out of input, though I’m glad we stayed away from religion in this one. Not that religion is bad, mind you, but it would complicate our already mind-boggling discussion :confused: