Pris' death scene
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
lately.
It bothers me. After almost 20 years of viewing it, it still bothers me. I
guess that makes for an effective scene, yes?
We all go on and on and on about Roy's death scene, but have we really given
any decent thought to Pris'?
It has nibbled into my psyche to such a degree that I have converted that
scene into a verb and use it unconsciously. I used it today. There are
several examples for which I use it. Helium balloons struggling to break
free of their ribbons are "pulling a Pris". An electronic gadget that is
acting really flaky is "pulling a Pris" (case in point - the car antenna was
bent and wouldn't collapse into itself and it just spun endlessly in a
lopsided circle while simultaneously the car's mechanical works were trying
to pull in down to the flush position). A child's tantrum.
When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts flailing?
Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
What do you see?
CZF
Michael Chellson
I hate Darryl Hannah in that role..."Accelerated decrepitude"...."Dude"
Or how about a spoiled child not getting what she wants (any parent will
appreciate this)
Or a really X'd our rave chick!
--
Mike Chellson
Mythp...@Earthlink.net
"Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer" <c...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ihMz7.17829$f6.71...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Netrunner
>I'm not sure why, but Pris' death scene has given me pause for thought
>lately.
>
>It bothers me. After almost 20 years of viewing it, it still bothers me. I
>guess that makes for an effective scene, yes?
Maybe. We should always remember with such things, the possibility
exists that perhaps its just you. But let us see.
>We all go on and on and on about Roy's death scene, but have we really given
>any decent thought to Pris'?
Roy saves another being after toying with him, shows empathy and
spouts poetry before dying with dignity. Pris just gets the crap
blown out of her. Discussions will obviously be mostly about Roy.
But discussion of the other deaths should be undertaken occasionally.
>It has nibbled into my ... Pris ...
<Just snipped some of your interesting comment - ummm perhaps I should
have snipped all of it.>
>
>When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
>
>Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts flailing?
Yes.
>Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
Not exactly.
>What do you see?
I see pain.
Netrunner.
--
"Pain of mind is worse than pain of body."
- Publilius Syrus
--
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
news:jh60ttoimsgj3unt1...@4ax.com...
Hi Netrunner,
It isn't often that I actually start an on-topic thread.
I was hoping for a little conversation on the matter.
I couldn't help but feel your reply as dismissive. Maybe it's just me ...
as you said.
In any case, I felt it was worthy of contemplation and still do.
As always, everyone is entitled to their opinion. <ummmm perhaps I should
have snipped all of it>
Can I be so bold as to render an observation? Somehow, if my post was made
by Lukas or Roy, I can't help feeling that the reply would have been
different.
But, as you said, maybe it's just me.
(((((((Netrunner)))))))
And I'll hug you anyway.
CZF
RoyBoy
Can I be so bold as to render an observation? Somehow, if my post
was made by Lukas or Roy, I can't help feeling that the reply would
have been different.
Well this is true for everyone, and especially the females...
speaking for myself. However, Netrunner isn't in the
mood for debates, as he specified in my thread...so maybe
he should have skipped this thread...but perhaps he will
get back into the mood at some point.
RoyBoy
When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
I'm pretty sure its symbolism is that of raging against
the dying of the light. But what it is...not sure.
***
Do you see a machine with its works all busted
up and its parts flailing?
***
I think this is probable, and despite that it conveys
a very strong message..."I want to live"...another
strange, beautiful yet frightening synergy between
technology and biology.
I'm a little more sure now of what it is. :')
***
Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
***
Surprisingly no. If this was the case...Pris should have laid
still and tried to escape later...or started dragging herself
away.
--
"We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil,
but Heaven protect us from those who do evil in the name
of good."
- Arthur C. Adams
"Smiles free. Do you want petroleum flavored fries with that?"
"If truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy
http://members.home.net/blade2019/
Womb Raider
Zerquera-Fischer <c...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts flailing?
>
> Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
>
> What do you see?
As for me it's a machine (product) failing on a massive scale with
massive uncontrolled impulses surging all around.
WR
Blind Curves
"Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer" <c...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ihMz7.17829$f6.71...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
<snip>
>
> When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
>
> Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts flailing?
>
> Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
>
> What do you see?
>
I see an angry being that doesn't want to die. I see a being that assumed
that although it may be stupid, it was physically superior to a human. And
it's just got ten shades of holy shite blown out of it by one. I have always
thought she was extremely pissed off about being stopped in her tracks, like
a child pulling a tantrum.
Rachael
Lukas Mariman
"Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer" <c...@mediaone.net> schreef in bericht
news:ihMz7.17829$f6.71...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> ... [snipped]
> When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
>
> Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts
flailing?
>
> Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
>
> What do you see?
Well, there is definitely something of the former in it, IMO.
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
"Blind Curves" <racha...@nex.com> wrote in message
news:0MYz7.6599$uh1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer" <c...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:ihMz7.17829$f6.71...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> >
> that although it may be stupid, it was physically superior to a human. And
> it's just got ten shades of holy shite blown out of it by one. I have
always
> thought she was extremely pissed off about being stopped in her tracks,
like
> a child pulling a tantrum.
That's very close to my assessment as well.
CZF
Elfblade
around indeed suggests the death throes of a mechanism. But to me it's
plan to see that she's terrified. She doesn't want to die. Zhora was
plainly afraid, as well. And Future Nior comes right out and says that
all the flailing was Pris's attempt to cling to life and fight off
death, and you all know after a week or so of my being here how fond I
am of spouting off Fututre Noir like scripture. <G> My opinion is that
it's a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B--
Pris was terrified---a human emotion---and in pain, and her
bio-mechanical response was to flail around in agony once she'd been
damaged by the blaster. Though her body was partially
mechanical/synthetic/whatever, I did get the sense that a sentient
being's life was fading, and they were scared. I dunno, sometimes I
just wish I could nurture and Replicants. It's freaky, I know, but
they need to be cuddled.
Poor Pris. *sniff* I like her, I really do. And I didn't see anything
wrong with Daryl Hannah's acting, though other people are of course
entitled to their own opinions.
"Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer" <c...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<ihMz7.17829$f6.71...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>...
Elfblade
explain about myself---I'm kinda weird in that I tend to persopnify
gadgets, anyway. I believe sometimes that everything sort of has a
spirit, it has energy. So sometimes I believe in things like Luftwaffe
Gremlins and Copy Machine/Soda Machine/Computer Gnomes. :) And I work
on computers. I'm kinda wacky that way. So there's no question of the
Replicants as sentient beings for me, since sometimes I'm of the
impression that all machines are to some degree or another.
Kind of like modern Dryads; a Dryad being a solid-spiritual
manifestation of the tree's consciousness. I believe in Faeries, too.
Did I mention that I'm kind of pagan? Unitarian, actually. I know it
sounds crazy. I don't see gnomes or anything, it's just kind of
something I imagine about machines/trees/rocks/clouds/storms/any type
of organic, meteoric, or synthetic phenomena sometimes.
I'm going to sit back and let you guys call the men in white suits
now. ;)
---Elfblade
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
similar thought pattern on this subject. And no, it's not freaky to want to
nurture the reps. Kind of like wanting to hold a sick, tired lion. You
know the lion can kill you and it is on the top of the food chain, but you
realize it has nothing to relax its aching head on, and you offer your lap,
accepting the risk.
CZF
"Elfblade" <elfb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:855f22c.01101...@posting.google.com...
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
Living in a part of the United States where Native Americans abound, I, too,
have had my eyes opened to the life within all things.
And the less I can physically see, the more I can, for the lack of a better
term, psychically see.
If they take you away, you'll have a roommate.
CZF
"Elfblade" <elfb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:855f22c.01101...@posting.google.com...
Blind Curves
<snip>
> So there's no question of the
> Replicants as sentient beings for me, since sometimes I'm of the
> impression that all machines are to some degree or another.
> Kind of like modern Dryads; a Dryad being a solid-spiritual
> manifestation of the tree's consciousness. I believe in Faeries, too.
> Did I mention that I'm kind of pagan? Unitarian, actually. I know it
> sounds crazy. I don't see gnomes or anything, it's just kind of
> something I imagine about machines/trees/rocks/clouds/storms/any type
> of organic, meteoric, or synthetic phenomena sometimes.
> I'm going to sit back and let you guys call the men in white suits
> now. ;)
Call them for me too then.
I'm not sure why we feel how we do, but I acknowledge that I feel that way.
For example, a few years ago, we sold our first car (a Ford Fiesta older
than me !) after it giving us a year or so of faithful service. I was sad to
see it go, but husband wanted something newer.
A month or so later, the person we'd sold it to (who was a work colleague
who bought it for his daughter) told us that the faithful little car had
been stolen from outside his daughter's flat, joyridden and then set on
fire. A total write off.
I wept.
Poor little car - given many years of faithful service to a string of
owners, gamely started first time even when the weather was sub zero, and
then some nasty bastard comes along, steals it, abuses it and basically
kills it.
Now the question is, why did I (and husband as it goes) attribute sentient
character traits to that hunk of formed metal ? And why did I cry over it ?
Beats me. All I know is, I'm not the only one who does such things.
Rachael
p.s. Blessed be !
Blind Curves
<snip>
>
> And the less I can physically see, the more I can, for the lack of a
better
> term, psychically see.
>
Now *that* entirely sums it right up.
Rachael
Elfblade
that...I just saw "Blind Fury," and Rutger Hauer is damn GORGEOUS in
that film, and in Blade Runner. He's almost too beautiful to be true!
:)
Okay, that's my "girly moment" for the day. Anyway, I spent about an
hour bashing Tyrell on my website last night as to how the Reps are
treated. Sick Megalomaniacal Bastich!
---Elfblade
Blind Curves
> that...I just saw "Blind Fury," and Rutger Hauer is damn GORGEOUS in
> that film, and in Blade Runner. He's almost too beautiful to be true!
> :)
Beautiful is the right word, fer sure.
> Okay, that's my "girly moment" for the day. Anyway, I spent about an
> hour bashing Tyrell on my website last night as to how the Reps are
> treated. Sick Megalomaniacal Bastich!
> ---Elfblade
Your "animoid" photos are most amusing, btw.
Rachael
Patrick Meaney
and the human reaction. When she's shot, her nerves, etc. are probably
fried, and go out of control. Tyrell can't replicate everything withint he
human, and this bizarre reaction is probably some result of the inherent
design flaws. However, it is also an attempt by her to ward off death. She
is physically compelled to that by her circuts, but mentally, she wants to
hold off death for as long as possible.
Unlike Roy, I don't think she truly embraces her humanity at the end. She
never had the moment of redemption. She was trying to kill Deckard until the
end, as opposed to Roy, who ultimately saved him. She could never overcome
the inherent replicant programming, to achieve human emotion. Roy is the
only replicant we see in the film who can do this.
--
Patick
"Lost Continent"?! Well, I lost my keys before, but this is
ridiculous!"-MST3K
Blind Curves
"Patrick Meaney" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b63A7.64$pw1....@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
<snip>
> Unlike Roy, I don't think she truly embraces her humanity at the end. She
> never had the moment of redemption. She was trying to kill Deckard until
the
> end, as opposed to Roy, who ultimately saved him. She could never overcome
> the inherent replicant programming, to achieve human emotion. Roy is the
> only replicant we see in the film who can do this.
Interesting point.
I suppose it is a matter of what *kind* of emotions - because we do see
emotion from all the reps in one form or another. If you split emotions into
two catagories - emotions that one would consider instinctual (i.e. Pris'
killing instict which she calls on in order to survive), and what are
"higher" emotions (i.e. learned or evolved or some other word that I can't
think of right now) then I reckon it better illustrates the point.
For example, we know Leon understands the concept of living in fear, so he's
obviously familiar with that emotion. And he looks pretty peeved when he
slams Deckard around before he gets iced by Rachael, so I suspect anger is
an emotion he knows too. Anger and fear are often cited as being base
emotions.
Yet compassion - which as you say we only see from Roy - is something
usually attributed to beings who've reached some kind of mature mental
stage.
So maybe it's really about what separates us from basic animals (often said
to be our "higher" emotions). Is the capacity for higher emotions what makes
us human or will any old emotion do ? Heavy stuff for this time of night.
;-)
Rachael
Patrick Meaney
> So maybe it's really about what separates us from basic animals (often
said
> to be our "higher" emotions). Is the capacity for higher emotions what
makes
> us human or will any old emotion do ? Heavy stuff for this time of night.
For the reps, and probably for regular humans as well, it's the higher
emotions that make the difference. It's like the difference between us and
primitive men. We all knew that we had to get food, and stay alive, but only
in relatively recent evolutionary time, have we started to create, and
experience the higher forms of emotion. Pris never advances beyond this, and
neither does Leon, or Zhora. The fact that they are killed while attempting
to kill Deckard basically justifies their retirement. They truly were worthy
of the fear that Replicants inspired, worthy of the Blade Runner units. Roy
isn't like that, and that's why he doesn't deserve to die, while the others
do. Another interesting thing to look at is where Rachael stands in all
this. She never attacks anybody, except in defense, but is she human? She
never does anything to prove her humanity like Roy, except, perhaps, to love
Deckard. Does that warrant her survival? Unlike Pris, etc. she truly did
achieve higher emotions, or so it would seem. We never truly find out what
the exact relationship between Rachael and Deckard is. Roy is the only one
who defenitively proves his humanity in the movie, and that's including the
"human" characters.
Netrunner
Only when judged by those with limited minds ...
>..... And I work on computers.
Who doesn't? Bastard things. (Sorry for that outburst, but having
messed around with computers for over 20 years, I'm rather tired of
them not working the way they do in the movies.)
>I'm kinda wacky that way. So there's no question of the
>Replicants as sentient beings for me
Sentient for sure. The question is firstly whether Roy gains empathy,
and secondly, do all the others have the potential (if they lived
longer)?
>..... Did I mention that I'm kind of pagan? .....
No, but you're certainly not alone.
>I'm going to sit back and let you guys call the men in white suits
>now. ;)
What shall we call them? I have a few choice insults ready ... ;-)
Blessed be.
Netrunner.
Netrunner
Like Aslan?
Netrunner
>Hi Netrunner,
>
>It isn't often that I actually start an on-topic thread.
>
>I was hoping for a little conversation on the matter.
As RoyBoy pointed out, I gave him a short answer as well - I'm just
not in the mood, nor have the time for any serious discussion right
now. There are plenty of others here who can provide a more in-depth
answer. I gave the best answer my present state of mind allowed.
>I couldn't help but feel your reply as dismissive. Maybe it's just me ...
>as you said.
I can see how you might think that, but it was an honest answer. When
Pris dies, I see pain. The quote at the end indicated that "pain"
actually means a whole great load of things that I didn't have time to
explore in full. Maybe I will explore the full depth of what I
implied more fully sometime, just not right now. With a positive
frame of mind, my post could be considered succinct?
>In any case, I felt it was worthy of contemplation and still do.
Well, I said, "But discussion of the other deaths should be undertaken
occasionally." All of the deaths are worth discussion - I would
actually rank Pris as 3 of 6.
>As always, everyone is entitled to their opinion. <ummmm perhaps I should
>have snipped all of it>
You refer to my flippant remark, which I made based on the words, not
who wrote them. I am full of flippant remarks at the moment - a
result of emotions boiling off - luckily I have more experience than
Roy at dealing with them, so am not about to kill anyone. Well, I
don't think I am ...
>Can I be so bold as to render an observation? Somehow, if my post was made
>by Lukas or Roy, I can't help feeling that the reply would have been
>different.
Absolutely not. I have looked very carefully at exactly what I wrote
and can assure you that I would not have said anything differently
regardless of who wrote it. Maybe as RoyBoy suggested, I shouldn't
have responded at all, but it was on-topic and although I can see what
you're saying, my response was actually as positive as I could manage.
>But, as you said, maybe it's just me.
Well, I didn't actually, I said "we" should consider the possibility
with such things, (that we are alone in our observation). I still
answered your questions.
>(((((((Netrunner)))))))
>
>And I'll hug you anyway.
Thank you. I need it. And have one back. And don't ever again think
I treat you differently to anyone else here, for whatever reason. I
can be just as short and blunt with RoyBoy and Lukas and etc. In
fact, I'll look for a post I can do just that, (or is that not
actually solving the problem?)
(bonus hug)
Netrunner.
--
" For who would lose,
Though full of pain, this intellectual being,
Those thoughts that wander through eternity,
To perish rather, swallowed up and lost
In the wide womb of uncreated night,
Devoid of sense and motion?"
- Paradise Lost - John Milton
Patrick Meaney
> So maybe it's really about what separates us from basic animals (often
said
> to be our "higher" emotions). Is the capacity for higher emotions what
makes
> us human or will any old emotion do ? Heavy stuff for this time of night.
For the reps, and probably for regular humans as well, it's the higher
emotions that make the difference. It's like the difference between us and
primitive men. We all knew that we had to get food, and stay alive, but only
in relatively recent evolutionary time, have we started to create, and
experience the higher forms of emotion. Pris never advances beyond this, and
neither does Leon, or Zhora. The fact that they are killed while attempting
to kill Deckard basically justifies their retirement. They truly were worthy
of the fear that Replicants inspired, worthy of the Blade Runner units. Roy
isn't like that, and that's why he doesn't deserve to die, while the others
do. Another interesting thing to look at is where Rachael stands in all
this. She never attacks anybody, except in defense, but is she human? She
never does anything to prove her humanity like Roy, except, perhaps, to love
Deckard. Does that warrant her survival? Unlike Pris, etc. she truly did
achieve higher emotions, or so it would seem. We never truly find out what
the exact relationship between Rachael and Deckard is. Roy is the only one
who defenitively proves his humanity in the movie, and that's including the
"human" characters.
Netrunner
>this. She never attacks anybody, except in defense, but is she human?
All good stuff. Worth mentioning that Rachael kills defending someone
else, not herself. It would be possible to suggest she does so in
order to best assist her continued survival, but I think it is simpler
than that.
Elfblade
card last night because some of my games don't recognize the on-board
shite. I had to get a new modem because AOhell (which I'm not using
anymore) didn't recognize my on-board modem. I'm never getting a
prosystems bare-bones system again. I'm going to get a DVD-Rom, and
then I'm going to get Blade Runner and Big Trouble In Little China on
DVD. And I've already preordered by copy of The Adventures of Buckaroo
Banzai:Across the Eigth Dimention on DVD. :D Soon I'll be able to
watch them all on my tiny 15 inch monitor. At least it has excellent
resolution. :)
> Who doesn't? Bastard things. (Sorry for that outburst, but having
> messed around with computers for over 20 years, I'm rather tired of
> them not working the way they do in the movies.)
>
I know. I remember seeing "Hackers" for the first time and saying,
"Wait! The internet doesn't look like that!!!
>
> Sentient for sure. The question is firstly whether Roy gains empathy,
> and secondly, do all the others have the potential (if they lived
> longer)?
I think he does. Of all the Reps, I think that he truly
transcended his synthetic/robotic state (if the Replicants can truly
be considered Robots: some of the stuff that didn't make it to the
film, including Holden's hospital scene, suggests that they're almost
totally bio-organic.)
>
> >..... Did I mention that I'm kind of pagan? .....
>
> No, but you're certainly not alone.
Good to know. :) Blessed Be, Everyone! :)
>
> >I'm going to sit back and let you guys call the men in white suits
> >now. ;)
>
> What shall we call them? I have a few choice insults ready ... ;-)
I dunno....white suits....
"HEY! CABANA BOY! CLAEN MY F**KING POOL!" <G>
LOL
Cheers!
---Elfblade
Blind Curves
"Patrick Meaney" <patrick...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cV4A7.97$pw1....@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
> >
> > So maybe it's really about what separates us from basic animals (often
> said
> > to be our "higher" emotions). Is the capacity for higher emotions what
> makes
> > us human or will any old emotion do ? Heavy stuff for this time of
night.
>
> For the reps, and probably for regular humans as well, it's the higher
> emotions that make the difference. It's like the difference between us and
> primitive men. We all knew that we had to get food, and stay alive, but
only
> in relatively recent evolutionary time, have we started to create, and
> experience the higher forms of emotion. Pris never advances beyond this,
and
> neither does Leon, or Zhora. The fact that they are killed while
attempting
> to kill Deckard basically justifies their retirement. They truly were
worthy
> of the fear that Replicants inspired, worthy of the Blade Runner units.
Roy
> isn't like that, and that's why he doesn't deserve to die, while the
others
> do.
Oooh, I don't know about that. It would imply that all creatures who kill in
self defence, territorial battles or for food would be for the chop. I
certainly don't believe that.
I see the reps - Pris, Zhora, Leon - more as I would a wild dog. It'll kill
you if you mess it around or overstep the boundaries. Afterall, living life
as a slave is hardly fulfilling. I certainly wouldn't want a rep as a slave.
I can't think of anything more horrible.
One other question is - if Tyrell built reps to be only slaves, why didn't
he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him" to
such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not wanting
to be slaves anymore) ? Or did he just build them to be slaves without
programming them to *want* to live a life of service because sick people who
*have* slaves in the first place probably *like* it when their lackeys are
not enjoying life ?
<rant about slavery over>
Rachael
Patrick Meaney
I think that actually shows more empathy on her part. She truly cares for
other lifeforms, at least Deckard. Roy saves Deckard, as does Rachael. I
think Rachael has less humanitarian motives than Roy though. Still, it is a
legitimate advanced emotional response.
Patrick Meaney
> he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him" to
> such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not wanting
> to be slaves anymore) ?
Perhaps he did program them to be slaves, and they are content for most
their existence, but as they grow older, they also develop their own
emotions, and feeling about slavery. If you look at it, all the reps in the
film are older. That may have something to do with why they escaped. We
never saw an off the line replicant.
Patrick Meaney
> he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him" to
> such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not wanting
> to be slaves anymore) ?
Perhaps he did program them to be slaves, and they are content for most
their existence, but as they grow older, they also develop their own
emotions, and feeling about slavery. If you look at it, all the reps in the
film are older. That may have something to do with why they escaped. We
never saw an off the line replicant.
Womb Raider
Blind Curves <racha...@nex.com> wrote:
> One other question is - if Tyrell built reps to be only slaves, why didn't
> he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him" to
> such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not wanting
> to be slaves anymore) ?
I've always thought that Tyrell's creations are flawed in this way.
That the original intent was never to have them empathize with anyone
but the fact that they can given enough time represents a flaw in their
intended design.
Some will contest this and say that any design similar enough to our
own Real Human brain will eventually feel certain emotions by it's
design. I'm not sure. But I am sure that Tyrell's intent was never to
have his products emote very much at all. Instead of overcoming this
design limitation Tyrell chooses to "cushion" the emotions with memory
implants. I've always viewed this more as a patch to fix a bug than the
proper choice of altering the basic design. Others seem to have
differeing opinions.
WR
Blind Curves
> > One other question is - if Tyrell built reps to be only slaves, why
didn't
> > he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him"
to
> > such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not
wanting
> > to be slaves anymore) ?
>
> Perhaps he did program them to be slaves, and they are content for most
> their existence, but as they grow older, they also develop their own
> emotions, and feeling about slavery. If you look at it, all the reps in
the
> film are older. That may have something to do with why they escaped. We
> never saw an off the line replicant.
Yeah, true. This would imply they overcame their programming and got away
from him, as it were.
Though, if Tyrell were a real person, I would certainly put him down as
being manipulative and nasty. Programming reps to be slaves without at least
being decent enough to program them to be happy about it is just the sort of
nasty thing he'd do, I reckon. If he were a real person, IYSWIM.
Rachael
Netrunner
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> had a brainstorm and posted this to
alt.fan.blade-runner:
I will now elaborate on this post to better put across my meaning as I
was a little short on my answers before due to lack of time and
evidently my words were lacking.
>>I'm not sure why, but Pris' death scene has given me pause for thought
>>lately.
>>
>>It bothers me. After almost 20 years of viewing it, it still bothers me. I
>>guess that makes for an effective scene, yes?
>
>Maybe. We should always remember with such things, the possibility
>exists that perhaps its just you.
Should better read "just one", i.e. We should all remember with
specific interpretations, that although there might be lots of other
people with the same idea, perhaps we might be the only one!
> But let us see.
To see whether others do have the same ideas (which some indeed do -
but several options are explored).
>>We all go on and on and on about Roy's death scene, but have we really given
>>any decent thought to Pris'?
>
>Roy saves another being after toying with him, shows empathy and
>spouts poetry before dying with dignity. Pris just gets the crap
>blown out of her. Discussions will obviously be mostly about Roy.
>But discussion of the other deaths should be undertaken occasionally.
So we tend to discuss Roy a lot, and Tyrell some, but we should
undertake examination of all the other deaths sometimes as well, (i.e.
I agree that it is worth examining Pris' final clutching at life now).
<snip silly play on words>
>>When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
>>
>>Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts flailing?
>
>Yes.
Yes, I do see a machine. Not literally a mechanical thing coming
apart like clockwork springs, but a "made thing" that is being
destroyed. I believe that probably all the Nexus 6 Reps are capable
of achieving empathy given long enough, but evidently Pris hasn't
reached that point yet. Although she is a sentient being. However,
that still doesn't take us away from the fact she is a "made thing".
Her "works" *are* all "busted up" and her response is not the response
you would expect from a human who has been shot. To me it gives the
impression of too many unknown signals hitting her brain, which is
thus firing off all sorts of instructions resulting in her flailing
around. The machine is broken.
>>Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
>
>Not exactly.
I agree that Pris is sentient, but even before she is shot, she has
lost control of her emotions, isn't thinking clearly (allowing Deckard
to get to his gun) and ends up getting shot. So, I think that she was
sentient but in the very end is clinging to life only in the sense
that any organism does. i.e. she is also broken in mind and I think
dropped back into a state where her brain is no longer fully aware.
In essence, whatever it is that turned her from a piece of flesh into
a thinking being is already well on its way out before she draws her
last breath.
>>What do you see?
>
>I see pain.
>
>Netrunner.
>--
>"Pain of mind is worse than pain of body."
> - Publilius Syrus
I see pain. That is what I see. Not simple physical pain, but a pain
of mind screaching as it is released from years of torment. A
striving for a better life that was just not to be. And after the
years of being a slave, then escaping to seek "more life", the nasty
man has ripped it away from her. And Roy, her love, is the only one
left of her "friends". But she probably doesn't believe she is about
to go to heaven, so this isn't a final release from mortal strife, it
is the final pain to top off a life filled with pain. And like the
other emotions, fear of death is not something she can cope with - it
is simply an end to hope.
I put this quote on my other post. It is worth reading it carefully -
I chose it because it strikes me as being very relevant.
--
" For who would lose,
Though full of pain, this intellectual being,
Those thoughts that wander through eternity,
To perish rather, swallowed up and lost
In the wide womb of uncreated night,
Devoid of sense and motion?"
- Paradise Lost - John Milton
Netrunner.
--
"Life is pain."
- 'Mommy' - The Long Kiss Goodnight
--
RoyBoy
Though, if Tyrell were a real person, I would certainly put him down as
being manipulative and nasty. Programming reps to be slaves without at least
being decent enough to program them to be happy about it is just the sort of
nasty thing he'd do, I reckon. If he were a real person, IYSWIM.
Tyrell cannot program them to be happy or sad...they aren't supposed
to have emotions. When they do...he tries to compensate with memories
(happy ones) with Rachael, but even there, Tyrell cannot control how
she feels.
If Tyrell had the power to give them brainwashed emotional states...
he would do whatever the customers wanted.
--
"We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil,
but Heaven protect us from those who do evil in the name
of good."
- Arthur C. Adams
"Smiles free. Do you want petroleum flavored fries with that?"
"If truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy
http://members.home.net/blade2019/
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
Quick question - is everyone seeing Patrick's posts twice recently, or is my
ISP having a bad week?
> If you look at it, all the reps in the
> film are older. That may have something to do with why they escaped. We
> never saw an off the line replicant.
(nitpick)
Hmmm, since a rep has only a four-year lifespan, wouldn't it make sense to
produce an adult rep so that s/he is ready to rock and roll right off the
assembly belt? They are built for service, yes? And I think we do see the
replicants "fresh off the line" when we see the footage at the police
station.
(/nitpick)
I think your other point, about the self-realization about their state and
their rebellion against it, is right on target.
CZF
Blind Curves
"RoyBoy" <aph...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:5YCA7.19114$ya.32...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
> ***
> Though, if Tyrell were a real person, I would certainly put him down as
> being manipulative and nasty. Programming reps to be slaves without at
least
> being decent enough to program them to be happy about it is just the sort
of
> nasty thing he'd do, I reckon. If he were a real person, IYSWIM.
> ***
>
> Tyrell cannot program them to be happy or sad...they aren't supposed
> to have emotions.
Yet they do. You would have thought he would forsee that and act
accordingly - implanted emotional states might well be easier to control
than home-grown ones.
I wonder - Rachael doesn't really seem that much different to Roy in the
emotional capacity stakes. I wonder if Roy is not that far behind Rachael in
his make-up.
I wonder if I will ever be able to put it into words exactly what I'm trying
to say here. ;-)
Rachael
Blind Curves
> "Patrick Meaney" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> Quick question - is everyone seeing Patrick's posts twice recently, or is
my
> ISP having a bad week?
>
Nah - I'm seeing them twice too.
Rachael
RoyBoy
Yet they do. You would have thought he would forsee that and act
accordingly - implanted emotional states might well be easier to control
than home-grown ones.
Yes...and yet Tyrell cannot set their emotional states, he is
trying to control (cushion) emotions by using memories...but
this is still in the prototype phase. What you are missing...that
implanting emotional controls is still being tested.
***
I wonder - Rachael doesn't really seem that much different to Roy in the
emotional capacity stakes. I wonder if Roy is not that far behind Rachael
in his make-up.
***
Well he isn't different. Rachael is a Nexus-6 with memories...Roy has
memories a plenty...however, memories of being a slave.
***
I wonder if I will ever be able to put it into words exactly what I'm
trying to say here. ;-)
***
That Roy is little different from Rachael and hence from us?
Netrunner
>One other question is - if Tyrell built reps to be only slaves, why didn't
>he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him" to
>such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not wanting
>to be slaves anymore) ? Or did he just build them to be slaves without
>programming them to *want* to live a life of service because sick people who
>*have* slaves in the first place probably *like* it when their lackeys are
>not enjoying life ?
Thing is this is a gradual development. Would you object to a
non-sentient android doing things for you? Perhaps one with limited
human expression? How about if you had a C3PO? Or perhaps something
even simpler. But development of Reps in the BR world was quite rapid
and people were taken along with the progression. The people in BR
are supposedly not aware that Reps are so advanced. In fact my view
is that most people aren't given Nexus-6 Reps as domestics anyway.
They probably get something less advanced that does not have the
capacity to develop empathy, etc.
Really, the question is, at what point does advanced "intelligence"
programming in a computer change into "sentience"?
Netrunner.
--
"My imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me
to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and
wonderful as man."
- Dr. Frankenstein - Mary Shelley
--
Netrunner
>> One other question is - if Tyrell built reps to be only slaves, why didn't
>> he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him" to
>> such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not wanting
>> to be slaves anymore) ?
>
>I've always thought that Tyrell's creations are flawed in this way.
>That the original intent was never to have them empathize with anyone
>but the fact that they can given enough time represents a flaw in their
>intended design.
Well chosen words. Tyrell's *intended* design is the key. To him,
them developing their own emotions is a problem to be solved.
>Some will contest this and say that any design similar enough to our
>own Real Human? brain will eventually feel certain emotions by it's
>design. I'm not sure. But I am sure that Tyrell's intent was never to
>have his products emote very much at all. Instead of overcoming this
>design limitation Tyrell chooses to "cushion" the emotions with memory
>implants. I've always viewed this more as a patch to fix a bug than the
>proper choice of altering the basic design. Others seem to have
>differeing opinions.
My view is very similar. The Reps are programmed with simulated human
responses, but they keep developing their own emotional responses. To
Tyrell, this is a bug. However, I think it quite possible he did look
at changing the basic design. I like to think he did this and decided
that the Reps developing emotions was inherent in the fundamentals of
his design and thus couldn't be changed. Hence the "bug fix"
accepting they'll get emotions, but trying to make sure this doesn't
stop them functioning as Tyrell intends. Of course I've made all this
up, but that is my take on it.
Netrunner.
Lukas Mariman
"Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer" <c...@mediaone.net> schreef in bericht
news:VhDA7.19230$f6.84...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> "Patrick Meaney" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> Quick question - is everyone seeing Patrick's posts twice recently, or
is my
> ISP having a bad week?
I'm seeing it two! uhm - too!
Blind Curves
> ***
> Yet they do. You would have thought he would forsee that and act
> accordingly - implanted emotional states might well be easier to control
> than home-grown ones.
> ***
>
> Yes...and yet Tyrell cannot set their emotional states, he is
> trying to control (cushion) emotions by using memories...but
> this is still in the prototype phase. What you are missing...that
> implanting emotional controls is still being tested.
I'm not missing it at all, RoyBoy. I understand utterly. I just think that
the whole thing would have been more successful, shall we say, if the idea
had been to control the inevitable emotions in the first place, rather than
allow them to develope unchecked or to try to cushion them.
>
> ***
> I wonder - Rachael doesn't really seem that much different to Roy in the
> emotional capacity stakes. I wonder if Roy is not that far behind Rachael
> in his make-up.
> ***
>
> Well he isn't different. Rachael is a Nexus-6 with memories...Roy has
> memories a plenty...however, memories of being a slave.
However, Tyrell does say she is the first of a new (and one and only, we're
led to believe)model, as it were. An experiment, nothing more, I believe his
exact words were. So, one would assume there has to be *some* difference
between she and Roy - she's an updated and bettered version, we're led to
think. My point is, exactly how better is she supposed to be to Roy ? They
seem, in their emotional responses and developement, pretty similar. Is the
cushion of memories the only thing Rachael has that Roy doesn't have ? And
if that's so, why does Leon (supposedly an "earlier model") have
photographs - supposed to represent memories - too ?
I'm not like, expecting you to answer the questions or doubting your opinion
or anything - these are just things I have pondered for a while.
>
> ***
> I wonder if I will ever be able to put it into words exactly what I'm
> trying to say here. ;-)
> ***
>
> That Roy is little different from Rachael and hence from us?
>
Not exactly. I'm going for a more "what if" approach, rather than using
theories set down in the existing BR world. I've always got to ask the
awkward questions. ;-)
Rachael
Blind Curves
"Netrunner" <Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pth6tts7legrauql4...@4ax.com...
>
> >One other question is - if Tyrell built reps to be only slaves, why
didn't
> >he program them to just like it ? Did his creations "get away from him"
to
> >such an extent that they developed emotions of their own (i.e. not
wanting
> >to be slaves anymore) ? Or did he just build them to be slaves without
> >programming them to *want* to live a life of service because sick people
who
> >*have* slaves in the first place probably *like* it when their lackeys
are
> >not enjoying life ?
>
> Thing is this is a gradual development. Would you object to a
> non-sentient android doing things for you?
Probably. Though I'm quite fond of my washing machine.
> Perhaps one with limited
> human expression? How about if you had a C3PO?
It would annoy the hell out of me within a couple of hours. ;-)
> Or perhaps something
> even simpler. But development of Reps in the BR world was quite rapid
> and people were taken along with the progression. The people in BR
> are supposedly not aware that Reps are so advanced. In fact my view
> is that most people aren't given Nexus-6 Reps as domestics anyway.
> They probably get something less advanced that does not have the
> capacity to develop empathy, etc.
Interesting.
>
> Really, the question is, at what point does advanced "intelligence"
> programming in a computer change into "sentience"?
>
Yeah, that about sums up what I was thinking. The whole idea about sentient
things being only things that have "souls" - I'm not sure how I feel about
it. I'm not sure how I feel about alot of stuff raised in BR - which is why
I'm forever asking questions that run at a tangent, I suppose.
Rachael
RoyBoy
I'm not missing it at all, RoyBoy. I understand utterly. I just think that
the whole thing would have been more successful, shall we say, if the idea
had been to control the inevitable emotions in the first place, rather than
allow them to develope unchecked or to try to cushion them.
***
Ahhhhhhh...well I'm confused. Trying to cushion them is
controlling them...certainly not the level or detail with
which you are proposing I am supposing.
Ehehehehe...that's a gem right there!
***
However, Tyrell does say she is the first of a new (and one and only, we're
led to believe)model, as it were. An experiment, nothing more, I believe his
exact words were. So, one would assume there has to be *some* difference
between she and Roy - she's an updated and bettered version, we're led to
think.
***
Well when Tyrell says that, the context is memories.
***
My point is, exactly how better is she supposed to be to Roy ?
***
In controlling of herself, not being reactionary...not killing people.
***
They seem, in their emotional responses and developement, pretty similar.
***
But their development and responses aren't similar...
***
Is the cushion of memories the only thing Rachael has that Roy doesn't have?
***
I think so.
***
And if that's so, why does Leon (supposedly an "earlier model") have
photographs - supposed to represent memories - too ?
***
Leon took those photographs...Rachael's was given to her.
They both share the desire to belong, to know who they are
and blah blah. Leon is a (relatively) stupid Nexus-6...
a need for comfort and belonging may be higher for him...
ie. he is nostalgic...or maybe he has a bad memory and likes
reminders.
***
I'm not like, expecting you to answer the questions or doubting
your opinion or anything - these are just things I have pondered
for a while.
***
And when you post them I ponder with you. Pon-Der...
its been quite some time since I have said that word...
it is a good word...lots of emphasis, good name for a
kid!
***
Not exactly. I'm going for a more "what if" approach, rather than using
theories set down in the existing BR world. I've always got to ask the
awkward questions. ;-)
***
I see...well I'll get used to your metaphysical style...
or ignore it...one of the two, regardless this NG is
richer for the experience.
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:49:51 +0100, Netrunner
> <Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> had a brainstorm and posted this to
> alt.fan.blade-runner:
>
> I will now elaborate on this post to better put across my meaning as I
> was a little short on my answers before due to lack of time and
> evidently my words were lacking.
>
> >>I'm not sure why, but Pris' death scene has given me pause for thought
> >>lately.
> >>
> >>It bothers me. After almost 20 years of viewing it, it still bothers
me. I
> >>guess that makes for an effective scene, yes?
> >
> >Maybe. We should always remember with such things, the possibility
> >exists that perhaps its just you.
>
> Should better read "just one", i.e. We should all remember with
> specific interpretations, that although there might be lots of other
> people with the same idea, perhaps we might be the only one!
CZF with a unique opinion? And I said it out loud? Wow! To boldly go where
no one has gone before! (chest puffs with pride) ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
> > But let us see.
>
> To see whether others do have the same ideas (which some indeed do -
> but several options are explored).
To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilization,
and new perspectives, then battle them to death. AND DECK IS *NOT* A REP
!!!
>
> >>We all go on and on and on about Roy's death scene, but have we really
given
> >>any decent thought to Pris'?
> >
> >Roy saves another being after toying with him, shows empathy and
> >spouts poetry before dying with dignity. Pris just gets the crap
> >blown out of her. Discussions will obviously be mostly about Roy.
> >But discussion of the other deaths should be undertaken occasionally.
>
> So we tend to discuss Roy a lot, and Tyrell some, but we should
> undertake examination of all the other deaths sometimes as well, (i.e.
> I agree that it is worth examining Pris' final clutching at life now).
And a jolly good discussion has ensued! My very first self-started thread
has come to life! The magic! And now I will do anything to keep it up to
inflate my sorry-ass ego ;-) ;-)
>
> <snip silly play on words>
>
> >>When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
> >>
> >>Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts
flailing?
> >
> >Yes.
> Yes, I do see a machine. Not literally a mechanical thing coming
> apart like clockwork springs, but a "made thing" that is being
> destroyed. I believe that probably all the Nexus 6 Reps are capable
> of achieving empathy given long enough, but evidently Pris hasn't
> reached that point yet. Although she is a sentient being. However,
> that still doesn't take us away from the fact she is a "made thing".
> Her "works" *are* all "busted up" and her response is not the response
> you would expect from a human who has been shot. To me it gives the
> impression of too many unknown signals hitting her brain, which is
> thus firing off all sorts of instructions resulting in her flailing
> around. The machine is broken.
Yes, sadly, this is true. But an astute point you have made, sir. "I
believe that probably all the Nexus 6 Reps are capable of achieving empathy
given long enough, but evidently Pris hasn't reached that point yet. "
She didn't get the time, and I think she is really really mad about that.
Cheated.
>
> >>Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
> >
> >Not exactly.
> I agree that Pris is sentient, but even before she is shot, she has
> lost control of her emotions, isn't thinking clearly (allowing Deckard
> to get to his gun) and ends up getting shot. So, I think that she was
> sentient but in the very end is clinging to life only in the sense
> that any organism does. i.e. she is also broken in mind and I think
> dropped back into a state where her brain is no longer fully aware.
> In essence, whatever it is that turned her from a piece of flesh into
> a thinking being is already well on its way out before she draws her
> last breath.
Yes, her death throes are primal, all the more sad. To de-evolve (in a
matter of speaking) in such rapid succession has put her over the edge - and
backward. Fear and desperation, loss of control and demise. The primitive
spasming of a being that is dying but doesn't want to go.
>
> >>What do you see?
> >
> >I see pain.
> >
> >Netrunner.
> >--
> >"Pain of mind is worse than pain of body."
> > - Publilius Syrus
I'm putting *that* quote in my book.
Wow. Thanks, Netrunner.
CZF
Womb Raider
Blind Curves <racha...@nex.com> wrote:
> IYSWIM
Now what is that supposed to stand for?
WR
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
Speaking of seeing - WHERE'S THE CLEAR PICTURE, WOMBIE ???????
CZF
"Womb Raider" <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:211020012305356400%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
Womb Raider
Blind Curves <racha...@nex.com> wrote:
> I'm not missing it at all, RoyBoy. I understand utterly. I just think that
> the whole thing would have been more successful, shall we say, if the idea
> had been to control the inevitable emotions in the first place, rather than
> allow them to develope unchecked or to try to cushion them.
Trying to cushion then is trying to control them. It's the first phase
of Tyrell's plan in dealing with N6's emotive capabilities. Perhaps
Tyrell failed to forsee these "inevitable" emotions.
> However, Tyrell does say she is the first of a new (and one and only,
> we're
> led to believe)model,
What specific line of Tyrell's gives you that impression? She's an
experiment. She is the first N6 to have memory implants. That's her
only difference.
> So, one would assume there has to be *some* difference
> between she and Roy - she's an updated and bettered version, we're led
> to
> think.
I totally disagree. I've always taken what Tyrell says to mean she is
new only in the fact that she has memory implants.
> Is the
> cushion of memories the only thing Rachael has that Roy doesn't have ?
Yes. She's the test bed for this memory implant treatment. She's the
experiment, not the control. That's why she's locked away in Tyrell's
little tower. How she manages to run away has always interested me
however.
> And
> if that's so, why does Leon (supposedly an "earlier model") have
> photographs - supposed to represent memories - too ?
Why woudn't he? Leon is no more an earlier model than Roy or Deckard :)
The sole difference between Rachael and the others is that she has
false memories. Physiologically, she's as they, a Nexus-6.
I've always felt that Leon's photos are ones that he took himself. They
are his "precious" photos. The main photos we see from Leon are of
Zhora and Roy anyhow.
WR
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> Really, the question is, at what point does advanced "intelligence"
> programming in a computer change into "sentience"?
Or more to the point, is sentience simply advanced intelligence
programming?
WR
Womb Raider
Blind Curves <racha...@nex.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that about sums up what I was thinking. The whole idea about sentient
> things being only things that have "souls" - I'm not sure how I feel about
> it. I'm not sure how I feel about alot of stuff raised in BR - which is why
> I'm forever asking questions that run at a tangent, I suppose.
>
>
> Rachael
Perhaps thats part of the whole argument of whether reps are sentient
or not. I don't believe in any soul or anything similar so to me reps
are nothing more than products of the Tyrell corporation. Maybe others,
who do believe in some sort of soul or magic intangible spark of life
see that spark in reps and hence say they are people too.
For that matter there are some people out there that see spirits or
souls in trees and rocks and anything else one can shake a stick at.
Maybe the argument is a moot one from the get go.
WR
Patrick Meaney
"Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer" <c...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:VhDA7.19230$f6.84...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> Quick question - is everyone seeing Patrick's posts twice recently, or is
my
> ISP having a bad week?
>
No, that's a fault on my end. The news servers have been down most likely,
and I can't tell whether or not the post has been sent, or if it hasn't got
through. It seems to be better today though.
--
Patrick
RoyBoy
Or more to the point,
is sentience simply advanced intelligence programming?
more wetware...wired properly...
programming is the same...
larger brains do allow for more...
Netrunner
>
>Yes, sadly, this is true. But an astute point you have made, sir. "I
>believe that probably all the Nexus 6 Reps are capable of achieving empathy
>given long enough, but evidently Pris hasn't reached that point yet. "
>
>She didn't get the time, and I think she is really really mad about that.
>Cheated.
Well here is a thought. Was Roy trying to achieve empathy or did it
happen to him? He was trying to get more life and perhaps even
explore his existence, but do you think someone without empathy
actually seeks empathy? Pris is a little upset, but at what? She has
been cheated of life, but would she think beyond that?
Netrunner
--
"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."
- Marvin
--
Netrunner
>> Yeah, that about sums up what I was thinking. The whole idea about sentient
>> things being only things that have "souls" - I'm not sure how I feel about
>> it. I'm not sure how I feel about alot of stuff raised in BR - which is why
>> I'm forever asking questions that run at a tangent, I suppose.
>
>or not. I don't believe in any soul or anything similar so to me reps
>are nothing more than products of the Tyrell corporation. Maybe others,
>who do believe in some sort of soul or magic intangible spark of life
>see that spark in reps and hence say they are people too.
It is an intriguing question. We start with just "the facts of life"
- that is, here is a collection of flesh and bone and that is all it
is. Here is another collection of flesh and bone and - oh its me and
I'm "alive". At what point does a collection of cells become a living
thing and what exactly is it that makes them alive?
Then there is sentience. The dictionary definition has it as simply
being capable of perception and feeling. So, basically little more
than alive. What about empathy? (Some) cats are capable of (some)
empathy, (I know from personal experience that this is true), so that
confuses the issue even more as in reality, empathy is not the
defining measure of what is human?
What about higher brain functions? Well, humanity likes to think of
itself as superior, but even if we accept that premise, what happens
if we do create a replicant of a human? At some point it comes alive,
gains sentience, is capable of higher thoughts, can learn, can gain
empathy. Some say that species intelligence is simply a function of
brain capacity. Perhaps "soul" is nothing more?
>For that matter there are some people out there that see spirits or
>souls in trees and rocks and anything else one can shake a stick at.
>Maybe the argument is a moot one from the get go.
Well we are all connected, but what you call it is simply a matter of
philosophy and terminology. Do we have souls? Can the Earth be
considered as a living organism made up of component parts, the way we
are made of cells, parasites, etc. I could go on, but I'm trying to
keep religion out of it, so I'll stop rambling now.
Netrunner.
--
"Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while."
--
Charybdis y La Zanahoria
> I'm not sure why, but Pris' death scene has given me pause for thought
> lately.
>
> It bothers me. After almost 20 years of viewing it, it still bothers me.
I
> guess that makes for an effective scene, yes?
>
given
> any decent thought to Pris'?
>
> scene into a verb and use it unconsciously. I used it today. There are
> several examples for which I use it. Helium balloons struggling to break
> free of their ribbons are "pulling a Pris". An electronic gadget that is
> acting really flaky is "pulling a Pris" (case in point - the car antenna
was
> bent and wouldn't collapse into itself and it just spun endlessly in a
> lopsided circle while simultaneously the car's mechanical works were
trying
> to pull in down to the flush position). A child's tantrum.
>
> When you see Pris' death scene, what do you see?
>
> Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts flailing?
>
>
What the fuck? What movie were you watching? Priss dies????
Heh. Ok...so maybe *I* was watching the wrong movie.... Bubble Gum
Crisis/Crash probably.
Anyways. What do I see?
I'm really not sure. Honestly, I hadn't explored my feelings about it
either.
It seemed to me to be a more of a malfunction and perhaps frustration and
rage.
Whatever it was, her reaction at that point in time made her seem less
human, and more of a machine.
Roy and Zhora seemed to have much more humanity when they died.
The contrast furthers muddles the lines between machine and man, and what it
is to be human.
CyLZ
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
> >>The machine is broken.
> >
> >Yes, sadly, this is true. But an astute point you have made, sir. "I
> >believe that probably all the Nexus 6 Reps are capable of achieving
empathy
> >given long enough, but evidently Pris hasn't reached that point yet. "
> >
> >She didn't get the time, and I think she is really really mad about that.
> >Cheated.
>
> Well here is a thought. Was Roy trying to achieve empathy or did it
> happen to him? He was trying to get more life and perhaps even
> explore his existence, but do you think someone without empathy
> actually seeks empathy? Pris is a little upset, but at what? She has
> been cheated of life, but would she think beyond that?
>
No, I don't believe that she would see beyond simply being cheated out of
life. She is manipulative and cunning, but there's no substance behind it.
Roy has the same qualities but he has "evolved" further, by experience, by
manufacture, who knows? Even if she had the time, I do not believe that
Pris would ever "reach that point".
CZF
Evil Sponge
> empathy, (I know from personal experience that this is true),
You were a cat in a previous life?
Evil Sponge
This whole thread makes me wonder to what extent replicants are programmed
at all (I believe Wombie and I touched on this argument b4 somewhere). If
replicants are vat grown, it would seem to me that once the initial design
of the cell or cells is completed, there is little control over the growing
of the being. In that case, would it be possible to program anything more
than general characteristics at all?
Obviously, there is some form of programming, resulting in the different
models (combat, pleasure etc) and A, B and C ratings. In opposition to this,
however, is the ideal of different generations. How can a Nexus 6 be
different to a Nexus 5 (or whatever) if there is no control over the
growing? If the growing takes place as in nature, beginning with a single
cell and dividing, surely there would be no difference between the rep and a
living being. I don't like the idea of a "soul" or whatever u want to call
it, so I'm rejecting that as an explanation :o)
Of course, earlier reps we're also difficult to distinguish from humans...
so ... the upgrade to the Nexus phase obviously offers some other kind of
development. We know that earlier models couldn't empathise, so if emotions
are seen as a bug (an idea I like and agree with), why advance to Nexus 6? I
suppose the answer is to be stronger and more intelligent, but I feel that
something is missing somewhere.
This is all a bit jumbled and random... hopefully someone else can make
sense of what I'm saying :o)
Evil Sponge
"Elfblade" <elfb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:855f22c.01101...@posting.google.com...
> Pris's death scene is disturbing, I'll agree with that. The flailing
> around indeed suggests the death throes of a mechanism. But to me it's
> plan to see that she's terrified. She doesn't want to die. Zhora was
> plainly afraid, as well. And Future Nior comes right out and says that
> all the flailing was Pris's attempt to cling to life and fight off
> death, and you all know after a week or so of my being here how fond I
> am of spouting off Fututre Noir like scripture. <G> My opinion is that
> it's a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B--
> Pris was terrified---a human emotion---and in pain, and her
> bio-mechanical response was to flail around in agony once she'd been
> damaged by the blaster. Though her body was partially
> mechanical/synthetic/whatever, I did get the sense that a sentient
> being's life was fading, and they were scared. I dunno, sometimes I
> just wish I could nurture and Replicants. It's freaky, I know, but
> they need to be cuddled.
> Poor Pris. *sniff* I like her, I really do. And I didn't see anything
> wrong with Daryl Hannah's acting, though other people are of course
> entitled to their own opinions.
>
A lot of people seem to agree that Pris' reaction is partly mechanical, the
reaction of a broken machine. I feel that as replicants are identical to
humans in every way except their emotions, this doesn't seem right. A human
would not react as Pris does when shot, but this is not due to her being
artificial or mechanical, but because she doesn't know how to deal with what
she is experiencing. In that way, I see it as a very human reaction, but
confused. Perhaps organic would be a better word than human... If her
reaction is to be seen as a broken machine, I would say that it was only a
metaphorical one.
Evil Sponge
> explain about myself---I'm kinda weird in that I tend to persopnify
> gadgets, anyway. I believe sometimes that everything sort of has a
> spirit, it has energy. So sometimes I believe in things like Luftwaffe
> Gremlins and Copy Machine/Soda Machine/Computer Gnomes. :) And I work
> on computers. I'm kinda wacky that way. So there's no question of the
> Replicants as sentient beings for me, since sometimes I'm of the
> impression that all machines are to some degree or another.
> Kind of like modern Dryads; a Dryad being a solid-spiritual
> manifestation of the tree's consciousness. I believe in Faeries, too.
> Did I mention that I'm kind of pagan? Unitarian, actually. I know it
> sounds crazy. I don't see gnomes or anything, it's just kind of
> something I imagine about machines/trees/rocks/clouds/storms/any type
> of organic, meteoric, or synthetic phenomena sometimes.
> I'm going to sit back and let you guys call the men in white suits
> now. ;)
> ---Elfblade
> >
> > Do you see a machine with its works all busted up and its parts
flailing?
> >
> > Do you see a sentient being desperately trying to cling to life?
Hehe.... I like this idea a lot, actually... especially the Dryad thing. It
makes me think of the SNES game, Shadowrun, again... I know some people were
discussing the RPG Shadowrun somewhere in this ng, so I'd be interested to
hear about this from said people. My favourite character in Shadowrun is the
Jester Spirit (is he universal to the Shadowrun RPG, or did they just make
him up for the SNES game?), who is a personification of technology in decay.
I found this incredibly poetic, and although I don't believe in such things
as u do (i'd like to :o) ), I can agree with what u are saying.
RoyBoy
Of course, earlier reps we're also difficult to distinguish from humans...
so ... the upgrade to the Nexus phase obviously offers some other kind of
development. We know that earlier models couldn't empathise, so if emotions
are seen as a bug (an idea I like and agree with), why advance to Nexus 6? I
suppose the answer is to be stronger and more intelligent, but I feel that
something is missing somewhere.
There is the issue of having power over something that
can feel...can suffer...can love, hate, fear, laugh, cry...
why have sex with a Nexus 5...when you can make
love to a Nexus 6?...disregarding the generally unknown
and very small danger of them rebelling.
Blind Curves
> In article <JLJA7.53640$sF.43...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> Blind Curves <racha...@nex.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not missing it at all, RoyBoy. I understand utterly. I just think
that
> > the whole thing would have been more successful, shall we say, if the
idea
> > had been to control the inevitable emotions in the first place, rather
than
> > allow them to develope unchecked or to try to cushion them.
>
> Trying to cushion then is trying to control them.
I know I'm not explaining this very well - but what I mean is, wouldn't it
have been more successful for Tyrell to have given them the emotions he
wanted, like, happy to live a life of service, rather than to let them grow
their own ? A happy slave would be an easy to work with slave, is what I
mean.
> It's the first phase
> of Tyrell's plan in dealing with N6's emotive capabilities. Perhaps
> Tyrell failed to forsee these "inevitable" emotions.
>
> > However, Tyrell does say she is the first of a new (and one and only,
> > we're
> > led to believe)model,
>
> What specific line of Tyrell's gives you that impression? She's an
> experiment. She is the first N6 to have memory implants. That's her
> only difference.
He's a business man - why would he take the trouble to make something - a
different model of an established product - if it wasn't going to benefit
him financially ? I've always thought she was an experimental prototype,
destined to be tweaked for final production. An upgraded model, if you like.
>
> > So, one would assume there has to be *some* difference
> > between she and Roy - she's an updated and bettered version, we're led
> > to
> > think.
>
> I totally disagree. I've always taken what Tyrell says to mean she is
> new only in the fact that she has memory implants.
As I said - why would he do that if it wasn't going to benefit him in some
way ?
>
> > Is the
> > cushion of memories the only thing Rachael has that Roy doesn't have ?
>
> Yes. She's the test bed for this memory implant treatment. She's the
> experiment, not the control. That's why she's locked away in Tyrell's
> little tower. How she manages to run away has always interested me
> however.
Yeah. A fair point.
>
> > And
> > if that's so, why does Leon (supposedly an "earlier model") have
> > photographs - supposed to represent memories - too ?
>
> Why woudn't he? Leon is no more an earlier model than Roy or Deckard :)
> The sole difference between Rachael and the others is that she has
> false memories. Physiologically, she's as they, a Nexus-6.
>
> I've always felt that Leon's photos are ones that he took himself. They
> are his "precious" photos. The main photos we see from Leon are of
> Zhora and Roy anyhow.
>
Hmmm. Looking at the photographs, it's obvious Leon took some himself. I've
always thought the opposite was also true though - that there were also ones
he'd been given or had collected (so he would think) throughout his life.
Rachael
Lukas Mariman
"Netrunner" <Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:lqq7ttgtchamtn98d...@4ax.com...
> >>The machine is broken.
> >
> >Yes, sadly, this is true. But an astute point you have made, sir.
"I
> >believe that probably all the Nexus 6 Reps are capable of achieving
empathy
> >given long enough, but evidently Pris hasn't reached that point yet.
"
> >
> >She didn't get the time, and I think she is really really mad about
that.
> >Cheated.
>
> Well here is a thought. Was Roy trying to achieve empathy or did it
> happen to him? He was trying to get more life and perhaps even
> explore his existence, but do you think someone without empathy
> actually seeks empathy? Pris is a little upset, but at what? She has
> been cheated of life, but would she think beyond that?
I think someone without empathy wouldn't care at all about the
possibility of acquiring it.
Blind Curves
"Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3bd48232$0$36459$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > Well here is a thought. Was Roy trying to achieve empathy or did it
> > happen to him? He was trying to get more life and perhaps even
> > explore his existence, but do you think someone without empathy
> > actually seeks empathy? Pris is a little upset, but at what? She has
> > been cheated of life, but would she think beyond that?
>
> I think someone without empathy wouldn't care at all about the
> possibility of acquiring it.
>
Very good point.
I suppose the only thing that might make a being without empathy want to
aquire it is, looking at beings that *did* have it, and wanting what they'd
got - like children wantings other kid's sweeties, just *because*. Which
would imply that the being without empathy would have to already have envy,
or curiousity.
Rachael
Elfblade
Yes, I've reacted the same way. I think we all tend to personify
things on some level. It's part of being sentient/human. I'm sorry
about your car.
---Elfblade
"Blind Curves" <racha...@nex.com> wrote in message news:<B9%z7.7551$uh1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> "Elfblade" <elfb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:855f22c.01101...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > So there's no question of the
> > Replicants as sentient beings for me, since sometimes I'm of the
> > impression that all machines are to some degree or another.
> > Kind of like modern Dryads; a Dryad being a solid-spiritual
> > manifestation of the tree's consciousness. I believe in Faeries, too.
> > Did I mention that I'm kind of pagan? Unitarian, actually. I know it
> > sounds crazy. I don't see gnomes or anything, it's just kind of
> > something I imagine about machines/trees/rocks/clouds/storms/any type
> > of organic, meteoric, or synthetic phenomena sometimes.
> > I'm going to sit back and let you guys call the men in white suits
> > now. ;)
>
> Call them for me too then.
>
> I'm not sure why we feel how we do, but I acknowledge that I feel that way.
> For example, a few years ago, we sold our first car (a Ford Fiesta older
> than me !) after it giving us a year or so of faithful service. I was sad to
> see it go, but husband wanted something newer.
>
> A month or so later, the person we'd sold it to (who was a work colleague
> who bought it for his daughter) told us that the faithful little car had
> been stolen from outside his daughter's flat, joyridden and then set on
> fire. A total write off.
>
> I wept.
>
> Poor little car - given many years of faithful service to a string of
> owners, gamely started first time even when the weather was sub zero, and
> then some nasty bastard comes along, steals it, abuses it and basically
> kills it.
>
> Now the question is, why did I (and husband as it goes) attribute sentient
> character traits to that hunk of formed metal ? And why did I cry over it ?
>
> Beats me. All I know is, I'm not the only one who does such things.
>
>
> Rachael
>
>
> p.s. Blessed be !
Patrick Meaney
>
> Of course, earlier reps we're also difficult to distinguish from humans...
> so ... the upgrade to the Nexus phase obviously offers some other kind of
> development. We know that earlier models couldn't empathise, so if
emotions
> are seen as a bug (an idea I like and agree with), why advance to Nexus 6?
I
> suppose the answer is to be stronger and more intelligent, but I feel that
> something is missing somewhere.
>
I think it has to do with Tyrell's ego more than anything. From what he see
in the film, he seems to have lessened his economic motive, and is more
focused on creating perfect human facsimiles. This is why he advances to the
Nexus 6, to come closer to his goal of the perfect human, created by him.
There is absolutely no reason to have slaves that emote, or are closer to
human. I thought the entire point of the reps was to have guilt free
non-human slaves, with all the abilities of humans.
Another explanation is simple business. Maybe Nexus 5 sales were
dropping, and Tyrell felt it was the time for the new product which everyone
would have to update to. He has to have some perks, so he makes the reps
more lifelike, and markets them to consumers. Look at Microsoft with
Windows, or game consoles. It's simple: Once everyone has your product, put
out a new version that everyone has. Tyrell may have done this with the
reps.
--
Patick
"Lost Continent"?! Well, I lost my keys before, but this is
ridiculous!"-MST3K
RoyBoy
A lot of people seem to agree that Pris' reaction is partly mechanical, the
reaction of a broken machine. I feel that as replicants are identical to
humans in every way except their emotions, this doesn't seem right. A human
would not react as Pris does when shot, but this is not due to her being
artificial or mechanical, but because she doesn't know how to deal with what
she is experiencing. In that way, I see it as a very human reaction, but
confused. Perhaps organic would be a better word than human... If her
reaction is to be seen as a broken machine, I would say that it was only a
metaphorical one.
Replicants more different than merely emotions.
Netrunner
>***
>Of course, earlier reps we're also difficult to distinguish from humans...
>so ... the upgrade to the Nexus phase obviously offers some other kind of
>development. We know that earlier models couldn't empathise, so if emotions
>are seen as a bug (an idea I like and agree with), why advance to Nexus 6? I
>suppose the answer is to be stronger and more intelligent, but I feel that
>something is missing somewhere.
>***
>
>There is the issue of having power over something that
>can feel...can suffer...can love, hate, fear, laugh, cry...
>why have sex with a Nexus 5...when you can make
>love to a Nexus 6?...disregarding the generally unknown
>and very small danger of them rebelling.
Hey RoyBoy, you want one don't you? I can tell.
Netrunner
>A lot of people seem to agree that Pris' reaction is partly mechanical, the
>reaction of a broken machine. I feel that as replicants are identical to
>humans in every way except their emotions, this doesn't seem right. A human
>would not react as Pris does when shot, but this is not due to her being
>artificial or mechanical, but because she doesn't know how to deal with what
>she is experiencing. In that way, I see it as a very human reaction, but
>confused. Perhaps organic would be a better word than human... If her
>reaction is to be seen as a broken machine, I would say that it was only a
>metaphorical one.
Definitely (from my viewpoint). Not literally a mechanical machine.
If her brain has not developed sufficiently for her to handle
everything that is suddenly happening, then conflicting and random
signals are probably being fired off. The (metaphorical) broken
machine.
RoyBoy
>There is the issue of having power over something that
>can feel...can suffer...can love, hate, fear, laugh, cry...
>why have sex with a Nexus 5...when you can make
>love to a Nexus 6?...disregarding the generally unknown
>and very small danger of them rebelling.
Netrunner:
>Hey RoyBoy, you want one don't you? I can tell.
Netrunner, Netrunner, Netrunner...always the
perceptive one. Don't mean I would get one. :')
Netrunner
>Replicants more different than merely emotions.
Short on time? That sentence is so succinct it doesn't even contain a
verb!
Lukas Mariman
>
> >Replicants more different than merely emotions.
>
> Short on time? That sentence is so succinct it doesn't even contain a
> verb!
I'm still trying to figure out wat that sentence means. :-)
Evil Sponge
"Patrick Meaney" <patrick...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bT0B7.1134$wM4.1...@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
I agree with this... but it still doesn't explain why the rep developing
emotions would be a bug to be ironed out, as opposed to a new feature to be
advertised. I suppose he hopes to achieve both aims with the memory cushion
experiment... i.e. Rachael... would this have worked if Decard hadn't ruined
it?
Evil Sponge
>
> Well, consider the possibility that Tyrell lets her run away. He no
> longer needs to keep her locked up as that part of the experiment is
> completely concluded. But rather than just destroy her, what better
> than to let out into the world and see what happens? How long can she
> evade Rep-Detect (who he informs). Will she destroy herself first?
> Will she get caught out by some other member of the public? All sorts
> of fascinating stuff to add to the experimental data.
>
> Netrunner.
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> The newsgroup website is www.BRmovie.com
> Home of the Blade Runner FAQ, Character Profiles,
> Fan Fiction, Related books/movies and much more!
> ----------------------------------------------
I agree with this explanation.
Lukas Mariman
"Evil Sponge" <evil....@ntlworld.com> schreef in bericht
news:5iyB7.60929$uh1.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
About reps develping emotions, my interpretation is that they weren't
*supposed* to develop their own emotions, because this makes them hard
to control. You don't want your washing machine to develop emotions.
Evil Sponge
Well... if he means "Reps differ from humans in more ways than their
emotions," then I ask... how? Apart from the obvious improved strength,
intelligence, etc... and as has already been discussed here sometime, these
characteristics are not necessarily superhuman, just very-good-human (for
want of a better word). And Bryant says that that's the only way they
differ... of course, this could be wrong, but no-one else says otherwise.
Evil Sponge
>
> >Jester Spirit
>
> Beware the Harlequin - he is more than he seems.
>
Well, yes, but I know his true name, and as such can bind him to my will :o)
Netrunner
Netrunner
>Yes. She's the test bed for this memory implant treatment. She's the
>experiment, not the control. That's why she's locked away in Tyrell's
>little tower. How she manages to run away has always interested me
>however.
Well, consider the possibility that Tyrell lets her run away. He no
Netrunner
>This whole thread makes me wonder to what extent replicants are programmed
>at all (I believe Wombie and I touched on this argument b4 somewhere). If
>replicants are vat grown, it would seem to me that once the initial design
>of the cell or cells is completed, there is little control over the growing
>of the being. In that case, would it be possible to program anything more
>than general characteristics at all?
Well, there is control via the DNA and probably during the growing
process as well. At the end though, even if the thing you create is
completely biological, you end up with something that has a 'blank'
brain. Synaptic connections have to be formes and I can't see how
they could be grown - they need to be created by pushing information
into the brain in some way.
>Obviously, there is some form of programming, resulting in the different
>models (combat, pleasure etc) and A, B and C ratings. In opposition to this,
>however, is the ideal of different generations. How can a Nexus 6 be
>different to a Nexus 5 (or whatever) if there is no control over the
>growing? If the growing takes place as in nature, beginning with a single
>cell and dividing, surely there would be no difference between the rep and a
>living being.
Well, firstly I guess that some of the A,B,C ratings are the
potentials they test before programming them. "Wow check the muscle
growth on this one - make it a fighter!" The Nexus 6 are better able
to withstand damage, etc. and probably the technique of getting the
information into them has been improved. Perhaps the DNA has been
upgraded and maybe the growth process has been improved as well? I
would guess that if you have sufficient knowledge to mess at the DNA
level, you probably do have some control over the growth process
itself.
Netrunner.
Netrunner
> Another explanation is simple business. Maybe Nexus 5 sales were
>dropping, and Tyrell felt it was the time for the new product which everyone
>would have to update to. He has to have some perks, so he makes the reps
>more lifelike, and markets them to consumers. Look at Microsoft with
>Windows, or game consoles. It's simple: Once everyone has your product, put
>out a new version that everyone has. Tyrell may have done this with the
>reps.
While I see some of that, let us not forget that the development of
Reps is primarily for the exploration of space and to assist the
Off-World emigration. I see this as directly affecting the rapid
advancement in the technology, i.e. the terrible state of the earth
happens after Reps are first invented as is interstellar travel. The
Earth goes to hell and people want to use the new starship engines to
make a new life somewhere else. Colonization is dangerous. Reps are
seen as ideal to be the ones to make it happen. Development is
heavily funded to advance Rep design. Tyrell gets hugely rich off the
back of it.
Evil Sponge
> About reps develping emotions, my interpretation is that they weren't
> *supposed* to develop their own emotions, because this makes them hard
> to control. You don't want your washing machine to develop emotions.
>
>
Exactly..... so we've come full circle..... why the advancement from Nexus 5
to Nexus 6? Which Patrick sort of explained... hmmmmmmmmmmmm
RoyBoy
> > >Replicants more different than merely emotions.
Netrunner:
> > Short on time? That sentence is so succinct it doesn't even
> > contain a verb!
Weehaw!
Lukas:
> I'm still trying to figure out wat that sentence means. :-)
Me too! :')
ES:
***
Well... if he means "Reps differ from humans in more ways than their
emotions," then I ask... how? Apart from the obvious improved strength,
intelligence, etc... and as has already been discussed here sometime, these
characteristics are not necessarily superhuman, just very-good-human (for
want of a better word). And Bryant says that that's the only way they
differ... of course, this could be wrong, but no-one else says otherwise.
***
Ah yes...that's what I was getting at. Well after having a good
argument with Wombie not so long ago...however I do need
to clarify something. Even their emotions are similar to humans,
but their emotional responses could be different. Is there another
instance where there is inappropiate emotion response. I can
sense you thinking of Roy telling Pris about Leon's death, also
of Roy coming down the elevator after killing Tyrell and Sebastian...
well I argued against those examples in my analysis...
but they do work.
What I was getting at for another difference between Reps and
humans is their tolerances for pain, and temperatures. I could
also venture not having childhoods...but that seems to go hand
in hand with the emotional problems.
Evil Sponge
> ES:
> ***
> Well... if he means "Reps differ from humans in more ways than their
> emotions," then I ask... how? Apart from the obvious improved strength,
> intelligence, etc... and as has already been discussed here sometime,
these
> characteristics are not necessarily superhuman, just very-good-human (for
> want of a better word). And Bryant says that that's the only way they
> differ... of course, this could be wrong, but no-one else says otherwise.
> ***
>
> Ah yes...that's what I was getting at. Well after having a good
> argument with Wombie not so long ago...however I do need
> to clarify something. Even their emotions are similar to humans,
> but their emotional responses could be different. Is there another
> instance where there is inappropiate emotion response. I can
> sense you thinking of Roy telling Pris about Leon's death, also
> of Roy coming down the elevator after killing Tyrell and Sebastian...
> well I argued against those examples in my analysis...
> but they do work.
>
> What I was getting at for another difference between Reps and
> humans is their tolerances for pain, and temperatures. I could
> also venture not having childhoods...but that seems to go hand
> in hand with the emotional problems.
>
Ok...... but u see what I was getting at about Pris' non-mechanicality (?)
right?
Hmmmm..... pain can be controlled by the mind, and so could be affected by
emotions and stuff... maybe reps are lacking something that makes detaching
themselves from pain easier? This doesn't really hold though, as it doesn't
explain why there is no physical damage from the exposure to extreme
temperatures.
RoyBoy
Ok...... but u see what I was getting at about
Pris' non-mechanicality (?) right?
Yup...I agree with you on that.
***
Hmmmm..... pain can be controlled by the mind, and so could be affected by
emotions and stuff... maybe reps are lacking something that makes detaching
themselves from pain easier? This doesn't really hold though, as it doesn't
explain why there is no physical damage from the exposure to extreme
temperatures.
***
Yup.
Netrunner
<lukas....@skynet.be> had a brainstorm and posted this to
alt.fan.blade-runner:
Probably my fault for quoting it out of context. He wrote in response
to a paragraph that contained the line, "I feel that as replicants are
identical to humans in every way except their emotions" so presumably
is saying there are other dfferences between humans and replicants.
Which of course there are (like dipping hands in boiling water, for
example).
Lukas Mariman
> >> >Replicants more different than merely emotions.
> >>
> >> Short on time? That sentence is so succinct it doesn't even
contain a
> >> verb!
> >
> >I'm still trying to figure out wat that sentence means. :-)
>
> Probably my fault for quoting it out of context. He wrote in response
> to a paragraph that contained the line, "I feel that as replicants are
> identical to humans in every way except their emotions" so presumably
> is saying there are other dfferences between humans and replicants.
> Which of course there are (like dipping hands in boiling water, for
> example).
Ah, right. I see now...
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> >Yes. She's the test bed for this memory implant treatment. She's the
> >experiment, not the control. That's why she's locked away in Tyrell's
> >little tower. How she manages to run away has always interested me
> >however.
>
> Well, consider the possibility that Tyrell lets her run away. He no
> longer needs to keep her locked up as that part of the experiment is
> completely concluded. But rather than just destroy her, what better
> than to let out into the world and see what happens? How long can she
> evade Rep-Detect (who he informs). Will she destroy herself first?
> Will she get caught out by some other member of the public? All sorts
> of fascinating stuff to add to the experimental data.
>
> Netrunner.
Excellent and interesting point!
WR
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> My view is very similar. The Reps are programmed with simulated human
> responses, but they keep developing their own emotional responses. To
> Tyrell, this is a bug. However, I think it quite possible he did look
> at changing the basic design. I like to think he did this and decided
> that the Reps developing emotions was inherent in the fundamentals of
> his design and thus couldn't be changed. Hence the "bug fix"
> accepting they'll get emotions, but trying to make sure this doesn't
> stop them functioning as Tyrell intends. Of course I've made all this
> up, but that is my take on it.
>
> Netrunner.
Cool. I woudn't jump to disagree with you on that. I'm sure each and
every one of us here at this NG has some sort of made up background as
to what all the unanswered questions and loose ends in the film mean.
I know I do. When I see BR I see an almost totally different film than
what others see, and that's the impetus of my little project :)
WR
Womb Raider
Zerquera-Fischer <c...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> If you see what I mean.
>
> Speaking of seeing - WHERE'S THE CLEAR PICTURE, WOMBIE ???????
>
> CZF
neat. I can't keep up with all these terms.
Doah! The pix. I PROMISE I'll scan the most recent one I have in soon.
Maybe tonight. I've just been really busy working on some friend's
projects lately and I'm behind in everything else. Just keep buggin' me
to remind me!
WR
Cynthia Zerquera-Fischer
news:251020011458557613%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
Hey RoyBoy! Change my title to "Resident Nag".
Hey Wombie - clear photo please!
Hey Lukas - do the letters FAQ mean anything to you?
Hey Elfblade and Terry - jpgs please
Hey guys! - Don had the stones to put up his jpg (I just want to cuddle up
with him and take a nap). Are you telling us all that you have no stones?
Hey everybody! - Stay on Topic! You're pissing Netrunner off!
Hey Netrunner - Will you marry me?
Did I miss anything?
CZF
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> This whole thread makes me wonder to what extent replicants are programmed
> at all (I believe Wombie and I touched on this argument b4 somewhere). If
> replicants are vat grown, it would seem to me that once the initial design
> of the cell or cells is completed, there is little control over the growing
> of the being. In that case, would it be possible to program anything more
> than general characteristics at all?
Well, in the film they say that the reps are "conditioned" for this
task and that. However the methodology of this conditioning is never
explained.
So, I see fresh Reps as being "blanks" that are then conditioned
somehow. I also see this conditioning method as being similar to the
method of implanting memories, I think. Although I have some other
ideas on this.
> Obviously, there is some form of programming, resulting in the different
> models (combat, pleasure etc) and A, B and C ratings. In opposition to
> this,
For what it's worth, I've always considered the A, B and C ratings as
sort of a quality stamp from Tyrell. That although they have tremendous
control over their Reps genetically, perhaps like Chip Fabs, the yields
aren't always what they expect. Perhaps mis-mixed chemicals, or
temperature variances or whatnot affect positivly or negatively the
initial "growth" (from a few cells into a being) of a Rep.
> however, is the ideal of different generations. How can a Nexus 6 be
> different to a Nexus 5 (or whatever) if there is no control over the
> growing? If the growing takes place as in nature, beginning with a
> single
> cell and dividing, surely there would be no difference between the rep
> and a
> living being. I don't like the idea of a "soul" or whatever u want to
> call
> it, so I'm rejecting that as an explanation :o)
See above. As for generations of Nexus' models. I've always felt that
Nexus 6 is the only type of Nexus there is, and that previous models
had other designations. Meaning, that the Nexus 5's and others weren't
sucessful enough to go on the market.
> Of course, earlier reps we're also difficult to distinguish from
> humans...
> so ... the upgrade to the Nexus phase obviously offers some other kind
> of
> development. We know that earlier models couldn't empathise, so if
> emotions
> are seen as a bug (an idea I like and agree with), why advance to Nexus
> 6? I
> suppose the answer is to be stronger and more intelligent, but I feel
> that
> something is missing somewhere.
Maybe N6's are a more controlled revision of previous models. Maybe now
Tyrell can controll more aspects like Reaction Time and Endurance, in
addition to earlier models Eye Color or Toe Width. Plus, one can't
forget that with Nexus 6 Tyrell can control Length of Life. Perhaps he
couldn't with earlier models.
Although, to argue with myself, I'd say that the limited lifespan was
added to compensate for their emotive abilities, so , perhaps this was
some aspect that Tyrell could control all along. Bah, so many
questions!
WR :)
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> >There is the issue of having power over something that
> >can feel...can suffer...can love, hate, fear, laugh, cry...
> >why have sex with a Nexus 5...when you can make
> >love to a Nexus 6?...disregarding the generally unknown
> >and very small danger of them rebelling.
>
> Hey RoyBoy, you want one don't you? I can tell.
RoyBoy, get yer credit card handy and head over to:
It's obvioius that this is how Tyrell started out.
WR
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with this... but it still doesn't explain why the rep developing
> emotions would be a bug to be ironed out, as opposed to a new feature to be
> advertised. I suppose he hopes to achieve both aims with the memory cushion
> experiment... i.e. Rachael... would this have worked if Decard hadn't ruined
> it?
No, because other than her "birth" she's just like any real human. The
guilt-free slave aspect is gone. There's no distinction.
WR
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> Well we are all connected, but what you call it is simply a matter of
> philosophy and terminology. Do we have souls? Can the Earth be
> considered as a living organism made up of component parts, the way we
> are made of cells, parasites, etc. I could go on, but I'm trying to
> keep religion out of it, so I'll stop rambling now.
That's a question that's bothered me for years. What defines life and
what defines humanity. You could disassemble us into piles of cell
types, brain cells over there, muscle cells over there in little piles.
But together we are a "being". At what point do these piles of cells
become an entity. Or, and this is the facinating part, even constructed
are we still piles of cells all working together. Where's consciousness
and self-realization if it exists at all. After that I begin to
question the idea of free will.
WR
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> What about empathy? (Some) cats are capable of (some)
> > empathy, (I know from personal experience that this is true),
>
> You were a cat in a previous life?
Everyone was. What, you didn't know that?
WR
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> A human
> would not react as Pris does when shot, but this is not due to her being
> artificial or mechanical, but because she doesn't know how to deal with what
> she is experiencing. In that way, I see it as a very human reaction, but
> confused.
By that reasoning wouldn't everyone, on being shot the first time,
react that way?
As a friend - who had been shot in the shoulder in war - told me once,
"Getting shot ain't like in the movies kid. You don't go running after
the guy that shot ya, you fall down and you start screaming."
That says it for me, as if Reps are so similar to humans, then her
reaction is perfectly (and I hate to say this) "human".
I'm going to BR hell, I just know it...
WR
Womb Raider
<lukas....@skynet.be> wrote:
> "Netrunner" <Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> schreef in bericht
> news:657dttco1e4al8scn...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >Replicants more different than merely emotions.
> >
> > Short on time? That sentence is so succinct it doesn't even contain a
> > verb!
>
> I'm still trying to figure out wat that sentence means. :-)
RoyBoy sentance function design meaning, obviously.
WR
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Well... if he means "Reps differ from humans in more ways than their
> emotions," then I ask... how? Apart from the obvious improved strength,
> intelligence, etc... and as has already been discussed here sometime, these
> characteristics are not necessarily superhuman, just very-good-human (for
> want of a better word). And Bryant says that that's the only way they
> differ... of course, this could be wrong, but no-one else says otherwise.
We really need to start a thread of "what do we know" about reps. Maybe
we can cull together from that what they are made of and how they work
a little better.
WR