Determinism In Avengers Endgame (SPOILERS)

      
     As of April 25, 2019, the final piece of Marvel’s current iteration of the MCU, Avengers Endgame has finally been released worldwide and is smashing the box office. The film is a sister movie to the previous Avengers Film: Infinity War, and deals with elements of time travel, second chances, and brushes against the concept of Determinism. After the events of IW, the titan Thanos used the power of the Infinity Stones to snap away half of all life in the galaxy, and the remaining heroes must band together to reverse the damage and save the universe. One of the Avengers, Antman has the ability to enter the Quantum Realm and suggests they use its powers to time travel to various points in the MCU to collect the Infinity Stones to undo the snap and save the world. This suggests that the fate of the world is not written in stone (no pun intended) and that one's fate can be altered through the existence and manipulation of multiple dimensions and timelines.
     Another of the Avengers, Doctor Strange, has the ability to look across millions of different timelines to predict the future, and tells Iron Man that of the millions of potential worlds he sees, that only one results in the Avengers ultimately beating Thanos. All other roads lead to permanent ruin. This fate is going to come about for our heroes because forces have been set in motion that cause them to occur. Basically cause leads to an effect, which creates another cause, and so on. Think of a baseball being hit for a home run. This was caused by the bat hitting it out of the park. The batter was predetermined to hit the ball, just as much as the pitcher was determined to throw it. This is an example of Determinism.
    Determinism is a theory that posits that all choices (even choices of morality) are predetermined by previously existing causes. This means that even though we perceive humans having free will, that all events are caused by a continuous domino effect that leads to a string of other events. Truly free actions then require options, which Determinism does not allow. For example, let's say I eat Bran Flakes for breakfast. One could make the argument that no outside forces lead to me choosing to eat Bran Flakes, that it was my free will that leads me to eat them, so free will is real. Hard Determinists would argue that you made the choice to eat Bran Flakes because you were predisposed to do it. You ran out of cereal at home so you decided to go out shopping. You bought that box of cereal at the grocery store, put it in your house, which caused you to want to eat it as to not want to waste the cereal you just purchased. You chose to buy Bran Flakes instead of Lucky Charms because that’s what your doctor recommended for you to do, and you were compelled to comply with her diagnosis. Cause and effect.
    With this in mind, we go back to Doctor Strange’s premonition. In order to create the one timeline in which the Avengers can beat Thanos, Strange realizes that certain events must occur in the precise order and be planned out just right. In a shocking moment in the film, Strange gives over the coveted Time Stone without a fight, shocking the rest of the team, but this event is the first link in the chain of events that leads to the titan's defeat in Endgame. By giving Thanos the stone. Tony Stark is kept alive for End Game, allowing for the Avengers to discover time travel, allowing the Avengers a second chance to undo the snap. Likewise, Strange helped the rest of the heroes just long enough before the snap could possibly kill Antman in the Quantum Realm (Set up in Antman and Wasp, the film directly after Infinity War), which leads to him being transported five years into the future to give Tony the idea to build a time machine using Pym Particles. This results in the Avengers coming up with a plan to get a new set of Infinity Stones to undo the snap, which they accomplish near the end of the film.
    Because Doctor Strange had knowledge of the past, present, and future via the Time Stone, he was able to create the exact correct conditions that allowed the Avengers to beat Thanos. In his 18th century thesis on the nature of Determinism, Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace wrote: “If a mind, at any given moment, could know all of the forces operating in nature and the respective positions of all its components, it would thereby know with certainty the future and the past of every entity, large or small.” Ironman may be the hero who makes the dramatic final sacrifice at the conclusion of Endgame, but Doctor Strange is ultimately the hero that saved the MCU from Thanos by perfectly setting the final stage for the other heroes to undo the snap, even if at the time he was a pile of ash on the ground. That and, hey, he basically gave everyone a lift to the final battle at Avengers Tower so.....basically everyone would’ve been screwed without him. Thanks, Benedict Cumberbatch.

I Fell in Love......With an Android?!?: Exploring the Romance of the Uncanny Valley

     In our last class discussion, we talked about the ethical dilemma of falling in love with a robot in response to conversations in the novel Bladerunner. The question was asked: “If you really loved someone, had been with them for years, and found out one day that they had been a human-like robot the entire time you were together, would that be a deal breaker for you?” I think this might be asking the wrong question, instead, I think it would be better to ask: “How comfortable are we giving androids/robots human-like features and mannerisms? Can a bond such as love and empathy be shared between man and machine? What is the human animal?” My dad always had a saying: “If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck, then it’s most likely a duck.” That is to say, if a cow thinks it’s without any question a duck, but we associate its physical features with a cow, who are we to tell this cow that it isn’t a duck?
    We see this type of dilemma playing out in modern-day transgender and gay communities. Many people would argue that one’s gender is assigned at birth biologically based on one's genitalia and chromosomes. XY for male, XX for female. The pushback from these communities makes the argument that gender is a state of mind. A man can say “I was assigned male at birth, but now associate myself as female(transgender).” That is to say, no one is born straight, or born gay/trans, but can acquire the desire to be through individually lived experiences. According to a quote from the American Psychiatric Association: “Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” Even so, many conservative parties in the US make the claim that these type of relationships are “taboo”, and shouldn’t be allowed because they run contrary to the status quo, but due to the efforts of protest, modern media such a as film, art, literature, and so on, these communities are slowly starting to become more widely accepted as time goes on.
    Back to robots. In 1974 Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori came up with a theory on robot relations called The Uncanny Valley. He believed that the more human-like features a robot has, the less positively humans will respond to a robot. Let's play a game. I’m going to show you three robots, and I want you to note to yourself how each one makes you respond emotionally. 

Image #1 (Wall-E)

Image #2 (Zeno Hanson Robotics in Texas) 

Image #3 (Ava Ex Machina)

    Odds are pretty good that Image #1 of Pixar’s Wall-E gave you positive emotions. Wall-E has human-like qualities such as the big eyes and bipedal body but is distinctly NOT human. After all, he’s just a cute little robot, right? Image #2 is a project called Zeno, a robot designed at Hanson Robotics to have physically child-like features. Odds are pretty high that you were probably a little shocked by this image. It’s a robot built to very closely mimic human-like features, but we distinctly know that it’s not human, and this knowledge disturbs the average person. Image #3 is of the android Ava from the 2014 film Ex Machina. While we know as viewers that she’s a robot, her features are just realistic enough to where we as audience members begin to emotionally sympathize with Eva, and consider her to be a fully realized person by the end of the film. She has, in essence, almost escaped from the Uncanny Valley. This chart below very loosely tracks the emotional response to the Uncanny Valley. 

     The less human-like a robots features, the more positively we tend to respond to it, but once you start to add human-like features, our fear and anxieties about the robot begins to increase, To fall in love with robots in the future, roboticists are going to have to overcome the curve of the Uncanny Valley and create robots so indistinguishable from humans like Ava, that we’ll hardly be able to tell the difference. Only then can I get my robot bride to love me. Here’s hoping that the future and technology can catch up before I get old. 


Until then just remember to follow this advice:

The Twilight Zone: Science Fiction and Culture Industry:

                 “Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies”
 
   The Monsters on Maple Street: In this episode of Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone, the community of a small city block of 1960s America hears a mysterious object flying above their homes, and shortly after all of their electronic devices and appliances stop working. The inhabitants of Maple St. come out of their homes to discuss what’s going on. Through a series of conversations, the idea that a member of the community is an alien invader from outer space begins to spread. leading to eventual mass hysteria and self-destruction of the community. The episode ends with the reveal that alien invaders had landed close by Maple St. and had allowed the panic, mob mentality and self-preservation inherent in mankind to destroy us instead of having to do it themselves. “This behavior, it’s the same every time?” “Yes, the world is full of Maple Streets.”
    This episode aired only six years after the American “Red Scare” which was the name given to the fear and anxiety that Communist agents of sympathizers we’re hiding among us in the US. The space invaders in this episode could be seen as an allegory for foreign agents coming into the country to cause riots, revolt, and unrest. I also think that Serling is providing commentary on the Social Contract, the idea that some individual freedoms are given up in exchange for safety and protection in our society. The Social Contract is broken once someones personal survival is put in jeopardy. The spreading of false information as fact is also brought into question in this episode. When forces outside the common persons understanding the strings to manipulate the masses, this can lead to internalized biases and fears. Charlie is quick to point fingers and even impulsively kill a man because he’s acting out of self-preservation and is impulsively acting on false information. We see this happening in our current political climate with President Trump calling for a Muslim Ban and increased security for the US/Mexico border to protect our country from “killers and rapists”. I think the major thing being put into question with Maple St. is this: Do we as humans in modern society cooperate out of a desire to live together as equals with others, or do we simply put on a front for our own self-interest/self-preservation? In short, is it so hard to believe that we really are the monsters?
     
     A World of Difference: This episode begins with up and coming businessman Author Curtis starting his workday. He drops off some paperwork with his secretary at the front desk, and after entering his office, hears someone yell “CUT”. The camera pulls back, and Arthur’s office is revealed to the set for a movie set, except Arthur isn’t an actor, and doesn’t know what’s going on. The people on the set claim his name is Jerry, and that he’s the lead for a movie. After a series of events, Arthur find his way back on the set, and he’s transported back to the TV world, but we as the audience never know if either Jerry or Arthur was the “real” man. This episode can be seen in many ways. One way is to look at it in terms of fictional characters becoming fully realized as “Real” people. In the moderns era, it’s not that uncommon for someone to know the entire canon Superman comics going back to the 1940s, but then not be able to remember their mothers birthday. Modern audiences love consumable media and their favorite characters so much that they almost become a part of our reality. The lines between fiction and fantasy begin to blur, and we begin to filter our lives through fictional characters and worlds. Another way to look at it would be to see the episode through the lens of escapism. It’s often very tempting if your an outcast, or have bad things going on in your life to want to escape from your real life problems. It’s possible that Jerry wanted to escape from his crummy life and his awful wife, and so fooled himself into thinking he really was Arthur Curtis, up and coming businessman going on vacation with his cute wife, and having playful banter with his secretary. Jerry wishes to escape his complex world for one that is more predictable, simple, and static. The ending can be seen as Jerry becoming a ghost of the real world and becoming fully committed to the fictional one.

The Beginnings of Dystopia: Censorship in Science Fiction (Midterm Essay)

     

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DP0pDr3jEAB0waZaaKQHdg1YXWgIkoiVBfAc3B3oXXE/edit?usp=sharing

     Science fiction of the past century has given us potential insight into what the future might hold for modern society if we don’t take the time to think for ourselves and carefully observe the world around us. With the advancement of new technologies, including the internet, it’s never been easier to communicate ideas, philosophies, culture, and beliefs with other people all around the globe. We’ve been adapting old and modern ideas into new forms of communication such as memes, GIFs, YouTube videos, games, electronic literature, and much more. A free and open forum such as the current internet allows this communication to occur, but what happens when corporate interests, governments, and policymakers no longer want common citizens to freely express themselves? They begin to quietly create policies and legislation to limit all thinking and communication until only the narrative that they want you to hear is left. Policies such as the recently passed Article 13 in Europe have started to create a divide between citizens and the means they use to communicate and express themselves. They might indicate the beginning of a dystopia, or a society characterized by poverty, oppression, and extreme government control commonly used in Science fiction. Works of science fiction such as Fahrenheit 451 and Pleasantville can serve as cautionary tales for extreme government oversight and oppressive control.
    
     On March 26, 2019, the European Union voted on and passed the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, otherwise known as the European Copyright Directive. This bill was drafted back in 2001, and its intended purpose was to create universal legislation that would “harmonize” copyright laws across all of the EU. According to an article by Katie Collins: “Article 13 is the part of the directive that dictates how copyrighted content -- including TV shows, films, videos, and pictures -- is shared on the internet. It dictates that anyone sharing copyrighted content must get permission from rights owners, or at least have made the best possible effort to get permission, before doing so“ (Collins). Essentially, the EU is trying to limit and control how copyrights are controlled for the sake of “protecting” smaller creators while limiting any kind of fair use for the purpose of education, critique, and parody. This means no more gag posts involving a funny picture you didn’t take, someone else’s music, or using someone clips for criticism and parody.  In short, it means taking away the freedom of speech on a continental level. We see the warning signs for a world similar to Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.
    
     The world of Fahrenheit 451 is that of complete government control. In the near future of the twenty-fourth century, books have been become such a complete symbol of debate, free thought, and intellectual growth, that special Firemen are employed to burn books and start fires, not put them out. In this dystopia, protagonist Guy Montag lives and serves as one of these book burners until his neighbor, the eccentric young Clarisse opens his eyes to the real world slowly passing him by. No one sits to watch the grass grow, bombs are flying constantly overhead, and Montag can’t even recall how he and his wife originally met. After stealing books from the houses he’s tasked to burn, Montag begins to open his eyes and see what society has become in the era of constantly streamed entertainment and leisure. He’s eventually corned by his boss Fire Captain Beatty, who despite being a Firemen, is clearly one of the more well-read characters of the novel. The most shocking thing that Captain Beatty tells Montag regarding the banning of books and the collapse of free thought is that we ourselves might be responsible. “ It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick...With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word `intellectual,' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be” (Bradbury pg.54-55). Beatty, and by extension Bradbury is making the argument that in a struggle for absolute equality, intellectual discourse and debate must be cast aside. Books in this world are symbols of free thinking. They are the catalyst that allows the common man to fight back against oppression. They are burned because we allowed them to be burned. As time goes on, fewer people see them as containing anything of value, so their destruction is looked upon as righteous by the brainwashed masses. The people in this society are their own book burners and oppressors. No one stood up to do anything about it until it was too late, causing the country to be involved in numerous wars and impulsive acts. The novel ends with the optimistic view that Montag and the traveling scholars will rerun to society and help the masses rebuild, but the reader might walk away from the story wondering if it's already too late.
    
     Many readers have argued that Fahrenheit 451 is a world ruled over from the perspective of totalitarianism and not a dystopia. One could make the case that a totalitarianist society is one in which a government takes control with a centralized and aggressive dominance similar to a dictatorship. A dystopia, as discussed before, is a society in which people are given the illusion of choice. No one on the government level is telling them what they should and should not be doing. They simply allow for the regulation and control of its citizens through societal pressures. In his essay on 1984, Robert Resch discusses the differences between totalitarianism and a dystopia. “The term totalitarianism was used to discredit all forms of critical or utopian thinking as inherently dangerous. Totalitarianism became dystopia, or rather a dystopian parody of utopia itself, while American pluralism was transformed into the highest form of good that could be "realistically" expected from a human society“ (Resch) The overconsumption of distrustful media  through the gigantic television screens and neighbors spying on one another in the novel could be another sign that the novel is dystopian rather totalitarianist.
 
     Pleasantville is a 1998 science fiction drama film written and directed by Gary Ross. David and his twin sister Jenifer are two high school kids living on opposite sides of the social ladder. Jenifer is one of the popular girls with lots of friends, while David is an awkward social outcast with poor people skills. At home, David watches reruns of a 1950’s black and white syndicated television show called Pleasantville, similar in tone and presentation to Father Knows Best, the series about a small (almost entirely white upper middle class) town that lives by post-WWII nuclear family structures and gender norms. Through a series of events, both David and Jenifer are sucked into the world of Pleasantville and are forced to adapt to the social norms and rigid structure of a 1950’s family show. Instead of entirely blending in, the siblings eventually decide to teach the town about the real world outside, eventually causing the black and white world of Pleasantville to become filled with color, freedom and artist expression. Similar to other dystopian stories, the people of Pleasantville don’t realize they are being controlled, censored, and repressed until someone makes them aware of the fact they are and respond by rebelling against and other throwing the established order of the town.
    
     Pleasantville is strange in that the only way in which the town functions is if everyone is in their specific place, doing their specific job at exactly the right time. For example, David takes on the role of Bud, the main son character in the show, and basketball practice cannot start or end unless he’s present. Otherwise, all the other boys just stand around.  In a paper discussing the nature of Pleasantville's political themes, Evrim Koç writes about how the citizens of the town react to being aware that they have a choice for the first time in their lives. “As events unfold, it becomes clear that “pleasantness has its price”. These depictions of control, peace, and order in the mirror are coupled with the scenes of restriction and confinement. In this monochrome world, the books are empty and residents are confined in the suburban boundaries since they “never travel beyond Main Street, no one knows of any world outside..... As the people in the town realize that the order is maintained indeed by social and spatial restrictions, they start to liberate their desires and needs and resist against the oppressive codes.” The repressed nature of sexuality is a huge element of the film. Both Jenifer and her fictional mother have sexual awakenings and discoveries. One infamous scene in the movie has a role reversal in which Jenifer has to tell her very repressed mother about what sex is, and that it can be enjoyed. Sexual, literate and artistic freedom are all core elements that the film explores. Unlike 451, David, Jenifer, and the citizens of Pleasantville are able to win out against there oppressors and provide the town with the freedom on choice. How they use this new freedom is left up to the viewer's imagination.
    
     Both Fahrenheit 451 and Pleasantville provide examples of creative works that show the downsides of oppression and censorship. They seek to inform us about the nature of dystopia, and the various forms it can take. While Bradbury goes about allowing the people of future America to decide they want to slowly but surely be silenced and robbed of individuality and freedom, Pleasantville goes about asking what society might do if they only had just discovered that they were being oppressed their entire lives. In both stories, we can see the negative effects of extreme censorship and giving in to the mob mentality to preserve the status quo. Legislation such as European Copyright Directive and Article 13 show that people in power want to silence the majority so our voices can’t be heard, and they can continue to oppress others to solely benefit themselves. Science fiction stories like these can serve as cautionary tales that show us why we can’t stay silent, and why can’t be passive in freedom of speech and expression. 

Works Cited:

Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2013.
Collins, Katie. “Everything You Need to Know about Europe's New Meme-Ending War.” CNET, CNET, 25 Mar. 2019, www.cnet.com/news/article-13-europes-hotly-debated-eu-copyright-law-explained/.

Ersöz Koç, Evrim. "Control and Resistance in the Heterotopic Spatiality of Pleasantville." CINEJ Cinema Journal 5, no. 1 (2016): 57-83.

Resch, Robert Paul. “Utopia, Dystopia, and the Middle Class in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Boundary 2, vol. 24, no. 1, 1997, pp. 137–176. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/303755.

Ross, Gary, Jon Kilik, Robert J. Degus, Steven Soderbergh, Tobey Maguire, Jeff Daniels, Joan Allen, William H. Macy, J T. Walsh, Don Knotts, Marley Shelton, Jane Kaczmarek, Reese Witherspoon, John Lindley, Randy Newman, Fiona Apple, and Paul T. Anderson. Pleasantville. New York, NY: New Line Productions, 1999.