@RUTGERS.ARPA:Postmaster@bbn-vax (03/20/85)
From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa
From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
Date: 18 Mar 85 23:45:58 GMT
The device in Brainstorm did have a number of interesting
possibilities. However, seeing the after-death experience is not
one of them, so the discussion as it stands is moot. There would be
no way for the device to pick up information once brain-death
occurred. In the movie, it just blithely continues to record the
experiences of her soul. No doubt this was made possible by new
astral plane technology they didn't bother to tell us about. Right.
This is known as ``engineering for failure'': let's think of a way that
something can't possibly work, assume it works that way, then show how it
won't work.
Clearly brain-death hadn't happened, since the machine was still recording
information from the brain. Those weren't the experiences of her soul, those
were subjective impressions of random signals as the brain broke down--a cross
between phosphenes and dreaming. That a living observer of these phosphenes
interprets them as ``angels'' and a heavenly chorus should hardly be
surprising, since 1) we've been primed to do so by a lot of folk-lore, and 2)
the uniformity in descriptions of the ``mystical experience'' the effects of
drugs, and ``near-death'' experiences might cause us to believe there is some
occurence that is common to these states, giving rise to the folk-lore in the
first place.
It would be easy to mis-interpret that last sentence to mean I think mystical
experiences are real. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that these
``visions'' are caused by nervous-system events [ugly term, how can I say that
more precisely?--oh, well, trying to describe objectively purely subjective
events leads one to such verbal gymnastics] which the conscious mind is trying
to interpret in familiar terms.
Both Eastern (Buddhist and Hindu) and Western (Christian) mystics describe the
mystical experience in much the same way (see Thomas Merton's ``The Wisdom of
the Desert'' or his book about Chuang Tzu) but they interpret these
experiences according to their own milieu. One might assume that the
similarity in descriptions comes from a similarity in experience. And of
course we all know about how Acid-heads think they have mystical experiences
while tripping. I think the experiences are probably the same, what is
different is the (culturally-induced) interpretation.
It might have been neat for Brainstorms to have had two witnesses there at the
end: the Western-culture neurophysiologist and an Eastern-culture (say
Japanese or Indian) neurophysiologist, then do split-screen to show their
different interpretations of what was happening. Oh well, it would have been
neat for Akira Kurosawa to direct Star Wars (starring Humphrey Bogart or
Toshiro Mifune as Han Solo and Lauren Bacall as Princess Leia (with Bacall as
Leia, no need for a Luke Skywalker at all, and you can't improve on the choice
of Alec Guinness for Obi-wan Kenobi)), too...
Of course you might assume that brain-death had occured because of the
subjective length of the events (it seemed like a lot longer than the two or
three minutes the brain might be expected to still be active) and I assume
that was artistic license, since they were obviously having fun with that
sequence (and rightfully so). I liked that sequence a great deal. I really
loved all the mystical symbols they were able to cram into those scenes,
particularly the very first one, just as whats-her-name's ``soul'' went
through the ceiling (remember, I'm talking in metaphor, here), and turned away
from her body to look upon an infinite net of jewels, each jewel reflecting
all the other jewels, each reflection a jewel showing reflections of the
others. I think such a description of the mystical experience can be found
among Christian mystics and Eastern mystics both.leeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/23/85)
REFERENCES: <1020@topaz.ARPA> Talking about Louise Fletcher's death in BRAINSTORM. >Clearly brain-death hadn't happened, since the machine was >still recording information from the brain. Those weren't >the experiences of her soul, those were subjective >impressions of random signals as the brain broke down--a >cross between phosphenes and dreaming. There may be some indication that she was directing them, but it takes some decoding. I think there is the implication that she came from a religious background and still took it seriously. {WOW! How did he get that out of the film???} Well, it's like this. We see her on the roof of a building talking to a man with heavy eyebrows. He obviously is someone whose opinion she considers important. Elsewhere in the film there is a scene in a cathedral and this same heavy-eyebrowed man is leading the service. I believe the end credits also list someonw as a clergyman. This all might imply someone with deep religious convictions who keeps them out of her work. I have known people much like that in the scientific community. Admittedly none of this do I have a really strong case for, but I think the implication is hidden there. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!ahutb!leeper
davidl@orca.UUCP (David Levine) (03/25/85)
>Clearly brain-death hadn't happened, since the machine was >still recording information from the brain. Those weren't >the experiences of her soul, those were subjective >impressions of random signals as the brain broke down... I thoroughly agree with this interpretation. I'd come to the same conclusions myself. However, I happened to catch Brainstorm again last night, and I noticed that the final scene, with the angels and all that, occurred in Brace's (Christopher Walken's) mind after the tape ran out! This can be interpreted in (at least) two ways: a) Brace's mind was locked into "something beyond this world" by following the brain patterns of a dying person, and would have continued to the Beyond if his wife hadn't brought him back. b) Brace's mind was slightly deranged by "subjective impressions of random signals," and continued the sequence according to the dictates of his (Brace's!) religious training. I think that the angels did not appear until after the tape ran out. I don't think there's any evidence in the film that Trumbull intended it either way. As in any fiction with depth, there's room for interpretation by the viewer. Neat simile at the end: the conclusion of the film takes place at Kitty Hawk. The Wright Brothers' first flight was less than the wingspan of a modern airliner. This first 'flight' of Brainstorm took us to the edge of Infinity... where might we go from here? This is a fine film about the development of a technology. What's Trumbull doing today? David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!orca!davidl) [UUCP] (orca!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay.csnet) [ARPA]
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/27/85)
It seems clear to me that the "brain death" interpretation is not what was intended by the writer. Such things as the angels and her looking down upon her body clearly imply that what is being experienced is the beginning of the afterlife, and not random signals flickering through a crashing biocomputer. The whole story is structured as a mystical quest to discover the nature of the after-death experience. What dramatic tension is there in "I MUST find out what the subjective experience of brain death is like!" The issue is never mentioned in the movie. No one speculates that perhaps what she is experiencing is merely brain death. The issue obviously never occurred to the writer at all, or there would be some mention of it. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"