Resolution

I finished another pass through Resolution, my finished screenplay, in which I attempted to straighten out the hero's internal problem and external problem on the page and make his trajectory very clear.  I also needed to make the idea work a bit harder intellectually, and probably still need to work on this.

The idea is that conscious/productive/runaway Machine Intelligence will not arrive until the simplest constituent worthy of the name is capable of attachment to its external world with an attitude - and specifically an attitude of love.  To take the human brain as a model might help, but you have to let me use a simplified model - a brain as about 1400grams of thinking goop, with the smallest component being a single junction between two cells.  Each cell's external world is blood, and neighbouring cells.  Somehow it discerns which of its relationships with neighbouring cells are of service to the whole and strengthens them, but without any knowledge of the whole, only of its neighbours.  The cell is committed in relationship to its neighbours.  If necessary, it will give up connections, or die for lack of usefulness. Psychologically, the drives, reflexes, habits, substructures, structures, superstructures of personality are in relationship, competing, combining, forming alliances, frustrating each other. Somehow, we pull it all together. It's hardly original to liken the mind to society - Plato may have started it (I really have a lot of reading to do!), but once you start to do it, Rousseau seems like he's talking psychology and Kierkegaard seems to be prescribing for the state. And the point is, what character lets all things hold together?

The character that makes it better to be in relationship than not.  Service.  Love.  But the important qualification, Love from Wholeness, so that there should be an answer for anything that may go wrong in the self by reference to the neighbour, or the neighbour by reference to the self. This character, from top to bottom is Resolution.

Is there room for diversity in such a theory?  I think so, in the sense that I may yet have in my unthought, in potential, answers to problems I never experience. So paralleling gene expression, everything is present in potential, but only certain things are realised (expressed). Maybe.  Genes are one example.  Words, letters and substrate languages might make another potential example, and a more open one.  More work is required.

But anyway, confused and bored as you probably are now, you are ready to appreciate the difficulty of articulating all that and more through a sci-fi action blockbuster without confusing and boring is considerable.