Cinema Lucy (2014) - What if We Used 5% of Our Brain?

[Arnox]

Rating

3.00 star(s)

It's said this script took 10 years to write. I can't tell if that explains everything or nothing about this movie. Not to say that this movie is totally devoid of action, thrills, interesting questions, and theories, but it seems every time this movie does something very right, it has to do something wrong. The general idea of us having more brainpower is a cool one! But why base it on that 10% myth? Why not just have the movie be about us getting 200% or more of our brains compute? It would have accomplished exactly the same thing and wouldn't have pissed off a bunch of nerds in the process.

Though this movie got put through the ringer because of that scientific oversight, if that were the biggest thing wrong with it, this movie would actually have been incredibly good, but time and again, Lucy (the character) shatters immersion and does something or decides on something that doesn't make any sense. And in a movie that's supposed to be about a character who's a ridiculous supergenius, this crap gets especially egregious. One of the things we see, for example, is Lucy getting more and more detached from her humanity, but science says that higher intelligence will actually INCREASE our capacity for empathy and love, not decrease it.

If you look at the experiences of people who've taken drugs like DMT and psilocybin, substances that, I might add, have firm scientific proof concerning their vast abilities to expand one's intelligence, a consistent pattern emerges where users become more empathic and caring of those around them. I can also personally get behind this as it has been and is now my firm position that raw logic and reason isn't enough. The other vital half of all life is passion, desires, and general emotions. Passion is the fuel. Logic and reason aims and directs it. Neither can exist without the other. Passion without logic is pure chaos. Logic without passion is utterly cold and lifeless.

And thus, we come to the big problem with this movie. Lucy doesn't seem authentically intelligent. She seems like what an atheistic teenager would consider intelligent. Yes, Lucy. Life was given to us a billion years ago.^{[citation needed]} What have we done with it? Who cares. What are you, the life police? In seriousness, I get that it's just a suggestion that we could do better. Fucking hell, we could definitely do better... But we certainly aren't gonna be doing better by turning ourselves into emotionless science zombies. Later in the movie, Lucy proposes giving all her knowledge to humanity. Morgan Freeman asks her if mankind is really ready for that sort of thing. Lucy responds by saying that, "Ignorance brings chaos, not knowledge." No, Lucy. Our own choices bring chaos. Knowledge is just a tool. We CHOOSE to use that knowledge for good or for evil.

Alright, enough dragging this movie through the mud. Again, there are still some things to enjoy in this movie and I've gotten on its ass pretty hard here, but even so, I don't know if it merits any repeat viewings.

 

[Houseman]

If you look at the experiences of people who've taken drugs like DMT and psilocybin, substances that, I might add, have firm scientific proof concerning their vast abilities to expand one's intelligence

Ah yes, that old stereotype where drug users are more intelligent when compared to normal people. Tale as old as time

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

The 10% is indeed a myth, but not that big of a deal and I'd say it's the only issue with the movie (which I've watched 3 times. It's a good movie).

Ah yes, that old stereotype where drug users are more intelligent when compared to normal people. Tale as old as time

Stoned people are famous for making intelligent decisions. /s

 

[Arnox]

Ah yes, that old stereotype where drug users are more intelligent when compared to normal people. Tale as old as time

I think you misread me. I'm saying drugs like DMT and psilocybin actually literally improve intelligence, expand perspectives, and generally cause neurogenesis. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6131656/ Not to say that these drugs can't have adverse effects. They ABSOLUTELY can, but neuron death is definitely not one of them, even in incredibly high doses.

The 10% is indeed a myth, but not that big of a deal and I'd say it's the only issue with the movie (which I've watched 3 times. It's a good movie).

Nah, as I said above, if the myth thing were the only issue, this movie would be really good, but it has a host of other problems as well that can't be overlooked.

 

[Houseman]

I think you misread me. I'm saying drugs like DMT and psilocybin actually literally improve intelligence, expand perspectives, and generally cause neurogenesis. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6131656/

1) Your link implies that these drugs increase neuron growth. Intelligence isn't measured in neurons. See: Elephants.

2) Your link is about mice.

 

[Arnox]

Your link implies that these drugs increase neuron growth. Intelligence isn't measured in neurons.

According to Lucy (the movie), it is. So, using real-life examples of neuron growth, the movie is proven wrong in its own assertions. Regardless though, if neurons had absolutely no effect on intelligence, then Alzheimer's wouldn't be nearly so debilitating. As to elephants, https://neuroscienceschool.com/2017/07/04/elephants-bigger-brains-not-smarter/ While elephants do definitely have more neurons than humans, about 98% of their neurons are located in the cerebellum, in the back of the brain. With that, there were only 5.6 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex of elephants as opposed to 16 billion in the human cortex. So we actually 3x them in the conscious intelligence department.

Your link is about mice.

Very fair. And I would have absolutely agreed with you normally that if this study or studies on DMT in general were only on mice and DMT was never taken by humans, then this study would absolutely be almost meaningless. Nevertheless though, there are stories after stories after STORIES of people who've taken DMT and have noticed major improvements in damn near every single part of their mental and sometimes even physical life, from mental memory to addiction breaking. Because of this, this study on mice is used as just a small representative sample of what DMT is capable of. I also would like to point out that DMT does more than just neurogenesis. For example, it also has neuroprotective effects too,

But once again, I feel I need to say that DMT is not without risks either and needs to be used properly like any other chemical.

 

[Houseman]

Regardless though, if neurons had absolutely no effect on intelligence, then Alzheimer's wouldn't be nearly so debilitating. As to elephants, https://neuroscienceschool.com/2017/07/04/elephants-bigger-brains-not-smarter/ While elephants do definitely have more neurons than humans, about 98% of their neurons are located in the cerebellum, in the back of the brain. With that, there were only 5.6 billion neurons in the cerebral cortex of elephants as opposed to 16 billion in the human cortex. So we actually 3x them in the conscious intelligence department.

Interestingly about Alzheimers, that affects the region (dentate gyrus) where neurogenesis occurs in adults, and this is the region that was studied in the mice.

That region is also not in the cerebellum or the cerebral cortex. The DG has to do with memories, and is damaged by Alzheimer's. Memory and intelligence is not necessarily the same thing, but the former may be required to display the latter.

Nevertheless though, there are stories after stories after STORIES

The History channel should do a series on them. Episodes can air between the series of people who saw aliens and the people who saw bigfoot.

 

[Arnox]

The History channel should do a series on them. Episodes can air between the series of people who saw aliens and the people who saw bigfoot.

Fine, Houseman. You want human trials? Well, here we go then.

Frontiers | Corrigendum: Ayahuasca-assisted meaning reconstruction therapy for grief: a non-randomized clinical trial protocol

1 IntroductionGrieving the death of a loved one is a nearly universal experience, and one which may be experienced multiple times over the course of a lifeti...

www.frontiersin.org

While this is not the one-study-to-rule-them-all that I was hoping for, it's still a substantive human study that was done. That aside, I don't usually take firm stances on stuff, but after an ass-ton of research (which I had to do before I even considered making and trying out DMT), I'm willing to bet a part of my reputation that DMT has very strong mental benefits of all kinds, even though it, of course, still can be dangerous.

 

[Houseman]

Frontiers | Corrigendum: Ayahuasca-assisted meaning reconstruction therapy for grief: a non-randomized clinical trial protocol

1 IntroductionGrieving the death of a loved one is a nearly universal experience, and one which may be experienced multiple times over the course of a lifeti...

www.frontiersin.org

While this is not the one-study-to-rule-them-all that I was hoping for, it's still a substantive human study that was done.

I don't think this was a study that was done. It seems like it's a plan for a study that could be done. It says it's a "clinical trial protocol"
If you read through it, there are no outcomes. No charts or graphs showing any differences from the other control groups. No conclusion. Not even an abstract.

 

[Arnox]

I don't think this was a study that was done. It seems like it's a plan for a study that could be done. It says it's a "clinical trial protocol"
If you read through it, there are no outcomes. No charts or graphs showing any differences from the other control groups. No conclusion. Not even an abstract.

Yeah, it's a bit thick. Here's the relevant part:

We therefore propose that ayahuasca assisted with an evidence-informed therapeutic approach, the meaning reconstruction model (37, 38), could show greater reduction in grief severity than psychotherapy alone.The rationale behind this hypothesis is grounded in a wide range of neurobiological and psychological evidence. Ayahuasca is an Amazonian concoction, usually prepared from the Banisteriopsis caapi vine and the Psychotria viridis shrub, which has been utilized for healing and ritual purposes since pre-Columbian times (39). Regarding the neurobiological evidence, in vitro, animal and human studies have demonstrated how harmine, tetrahydroharmine, harmaline (all three present in B. caapi) and dimethyltryptamine (present in P. viridis) stimulate adult neurogenesis and neuroplasticity, similarly to other serotoninergic psychedelic substances (40–43). A window for neuroplastic changes would appear to open a few hours after administration, lasting from a few days to a month (44). This period has been related to improvement in grief, depressive mood, stress, mindfulness, acceptance, emotion regulation, social behavior, wellbeing, and quality of life (45). Moreover, elevated peripheral Brain-Derived Neurotropic Factor (BDNF) levels have been observed in healthy volunteers and clinically depressed patients two days following the ayahuasca administration, correlating with clinical improvement in those who were diagnosed with major depression (40). Recent studies have shown that psychedelics reopen a critical period to induce metaplasticity, which dynamically regulates the potential for synaptic plasticity (46, 47).

 

[Signa]

Man, I came in here to riff on the title of the thread, and I feel like I'm just going to dumb down the conversation now.

 

[Gauche]

We'd use 5% of our brain