So if humans cease to exist, do we celebrate the solving of all environmental issues?AlaskanAg99 said:Maroon Stormtrooper said:
The question is, would you rather have an android wife or a real human wife? I thinks it's going to be a big time 1st world problem when humans start marrying androids and not procreating!
Overpopulation is the #1 environmental problem today. Frankly, it can't happen fast enough. Less people = less pressure on the environment, social issues, urban sprawl, etc....
*** WESTWORLD Season 1 (HBO) ***
351,660 Views |
2710 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Sazerac
I'm thinking back to Delores in the dark after meeting with Ford, talking to her consciousness that she didn't think Ford knew that she was "waking up" or whatever.
I'm trying to remember the sequence of events there, and it seems to me that Ford pulled her away from William for that meeting (VR space conversation notwithstanding). Taking in to account that we have an unreliable narration situation, at least temporally anyway, where does that conversation fit in to what we think about the order of the narrative?
I'm trying to remember the sequence of events there, and it seems to me that Ford pulled her away from William for that meeting (VR space conversation notwithstanding). Taking in to account that we have an unreliable narration situation, at least temporally anyway, where does that conversation fit in to what we think about the order of the narrative?
I don't think her talking to Ford was concurrent with her trip with William. It either happened previously (in that loop that she keeps remembering when she's with William) or it happened in the "current" timeframe (the MiB time) where she's retracing that loop.
Pretty big leap to go from "cutting back on procreation" to "end of humanity." No one is saying humans won't have sex with humans anymore. But I do agree that life-like "sex bots" could solve a lot of issues for mankind... people won't produce offspring as much, the population will cap out (and maybe even ultimately decrease somewhat, which would only be a good thing), less sex trafficking, less rape, less prostitution, fewer lonely people, etc...
After seeing the hidden work space in the cottage I don't think there are any VR conversations.MW03 said:
I'm thinking back to Delores in the dark after meeting with Ford, talking to her consciousness that she didn't think Ford knew that she was "waking up" or whatever.
I'm trying to remember the sequence of events there, and it seems to me that Ford pulled her away from William for that meeting (VR space conversation notwithstanding). Taking in to account that we have an unreliable narration situation, at least temporally anyway, where does that conversation fit in to what we think about the order of the narrative?
I don't either, though it would be a convenient answer to how they get the hosts out of the park when they are in the middle of a story with a guest.
Between the heavy handed critiques and the discussion about overpopulation and environmentalism, this thread has really gone off the rails this week.
I'm not sure what everyone finds so unbelievable about the techs and Maeve.... If we're OK with the logic leap that there aren't cameras monitoring every single inch of the facility -- which we've already had to make from the first episode -- then the only times Maeve would have seemed completely out of place is when she cut the dudes neck.
Everything else wouldn't seem very out of place to be seen by another employee in a place where lifelike drones are interacting with techs all day, every day... We just saw a guy eating the flesh off a severed arm in one "development" scene... Probably takes a whole lot for an employee to see something and think "wait that's not right".
Everything else wouldn't seem very out of place to be seen by another employee in a place where lifelike drones are interacting with techs all day, every day... We just saw a guy eating the flesh off a severed arm in one "development" scene... Probably takes a whole lot for an employee to see something and think "wait that's not right".
Edit out thread derail
bangobango said:
Between the heavy handed critiques and the discussion about overpopulation and environmentalism, this thread has really gone off the rails this week.
This got much more interesting than the actual show. Because the androids are fake, and their only history is their abuse by humans for entertainment I don't see how the writers are hoping for the audience to connect with the characters.
I just dont care about the Hosts. Their backstory is they are a prop in a themepark. I care about them as much as Marty Moose.
Go start a new thread then.
I care about them BECAUSE they're being abused by the humans. The hosts have real feelings, even if their backstories are fake. Does that give humans the right to use and abuse them? I certainly don't think so.AlaskanAg99 said:
Because the androids are fake, and their only history is their abuse by humans for entertainment I don't see how the writers are hoping for the audience to connect with the characters.
I just dont care about the Hosts. Their backstory is they are a prop in a themepark. I care about them as much as Marty Moose.
Define "real feelings."
Go re-watch the scene where the MiB kills Homesteader Maeve's daughter and her subsequent reactions in the lab. Real feelings.
I wasn't being snarky. I'm genuinely curious as to what defines "real feelings" on an existential level. Maeve's reaction is purely code; "if x happens, react with y." But it could be argued that humans are basically "wired" the same, albeit more complicated, and I was curious as to your - or anyone else's - thoughts on the matter.
I liked Ford's quote in that conversation with Bernard, about their not being a "real" threshold that makes humans' feelings unique.
It's certainly an interesting existential question
It's certainly an interesting existential question
It's all programming, they aren't real. And that's exactly where the storyline fails. They can be manipulated, turned off, re booted, put in storage, incinerated, and abused time and time again. That's the whole point of the park.
Now Maeve has decided to build an army and has command and control capabilities because she hacked her own programming and made the leap to advance program herself? And the two body tech guys have password permissions in an area they don't work. They fear the behavioralist programmers yet have no problem walking in. They're the lowest positions in the company but their credentials allow access AND they somehow just know how all the software operates?
I realize this is being sold as the most amazing show. But it's falling apart fast. And why would anyone care about the maze. The pretense for why so much of this is happening is thin.
Any thread about a show has to include the good and the bad.
Now Maeve has decided to build an army and has command and control capabilities because she hacked her own programming and made the leap to advance program herself? And the two body tech guys have password permissions in an area they don't work. They fear the behavioralist programmers yet have no problem walking in. They're the lowest positions in the company but their credentials allow access AND they somehow just know how all the software operates?
I realize this is being sold as the most amazing show. But it's falling apart fast. And why would anyone care about the maze. The pretense for why so much of this is happening is thin.
Any thread about a show has to include the good and the bad.
Ahh ok, I honestly couldn't tell.
But for me, it goes back to the quote from Talulah Riley's character back in Episode 2 when William first gets to the compound. When he asks if she's real, she responds with "if you can't tell, does it matter?"
At what point does it go from them emulating feelings to actually having those feelings? I don't know if there is a real answer for that. But if I can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter to me, I believe them.
But for me, it goes back to the quote from Talulah Riley's character back in Episode 2 when William first gets to the compound. When he asks if she's real, she responds with "if you can't tell, does it matter?"
At what point does it go from them emulating feelings to actually having those feelings? I don't know if there is a real answer for that. But if I can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter to me, I believe them.
I think, given that Maeve's settings had previously been tampered with to allow her to "wake up" outside the park, that we can probably assume she has some role to play in either Ford or "Arnold's" plans. And if they have the ability to go in and change the hosts code without anyone knowing, I don't think it's a huge jump that they could manipulate people's work schedules to create an opening, or change their permissions so they can help her, or any number of other things.
I agree that that part of the story is pretty unbelievable even in the our already suspended disbelief, but I'm willing to let the show try to explain itself.
I agree that that part of the story is pretty unbelievable even in the our already suspended disbelief, but I'm willing to let the show try to explain itself.
I started to get into this early on, but lost the thread of the thought. Your comment reminded me about it, so I looked it up. Here's what I posted then:TCTTS said:
I wasn't being snarky. I'm genuinely curious as to what defines "real feelings" on an existential level. Maeve's reaction is purely code; "if x happens, react with y." But it could be argued that humans are basically "wired" the same, albeit more complicated, and I was curious as to your - or anyone else's - thoughts on the matter.
Quote:
The question, in other words, is does the perception of a thing define the reality of that thing.
I'd offer that whether a unit can pass a turing test isn't indicative of whether the host is actually emoting or not. Dr. Ford doesn't think they are, while Bernard thinks Delores actually does. Or at least is beginning to. Does emotion signify true existence anyway? On the other hand, if she's truly in an existential crisis, and if she is doubting the nature of her existence at its foundation, you could say that she is real. Cue Decartes.
Schmendeler's return was this:
Quote:
do we really experience emotions? or is it just a response to stimuli and hormones released by the body in response to those stimuli?
At this point, we were clearly screwing around, but my response was this:
Quote:
Ah yes, but does that matter? Maybe we don't experience emotions at all, but it's your ability to ask that question to yourself that proves you are real to yourself, not how you feel about the question that you posed. Well, if you're a Rationalist, anyway.
It's an interesting philosophical conversation to pair with this show, anyway.
I thought the MiB had an interesting line about that in his story to Teddy. He said it was the most real thing he'd ever seen in the hosts, when she was dying and carrying the child outside.TCTTS said:
I wasn't being snarky. I'm genuinely curious as to what defines "real feelings" on an existential level. Maeve's reaction is purely code; "if x happens, react with y." But it could be argued that humans are basically "wired" the same, albeit more complicated, and I was curious as to your - or anyone else's - thoughts on the matter.
Then, when looking at Dolores, was she programmed to care about William? She's outside of her homestead damsel loop, in which she only knows the world is a beautiful place, or fear when her parents are killed. She's never cared about other guests before (that we've been shown).
Bernard appears to have more feelings than what he was programmed to have, although I suppose Ford could easily insert new things as the situation called for them.
Hector may be the only other host that has something going on, with his darker outlook on life in westworld. I'm not completely sold on him yet, but I think it's possible he's got more than just his programming going on.
+1 for Doc Brown timeline on the chalkboard. I can't keep track of all this BS.
You're a beating.AlaskanAg99 said:
It's all programming, they aren't real. And that's exactly where the storyline fails. They can be manipulated, turned off, re booted, put in storage, incinerated, and abused time and time again. That's the whole point of the park.
Now Maeve has decided to build an army and has command and control capabilities because she hacked her own programming and made the leap to advance program herself? And the two body tech guys have password permissions in an area they don't work. They fear the behavioralist programmers yet have no problem walking in. They're the lowest positions in the company but their credentials allow access AND they somehow just know how all the software operates?
I realize this is being sold as the most amazing show. But it's falling apart fast. And why would anyone care about the maze. The pretense for why so much of this is happening is thin.
Any thread about a show has to include the good and the bad.
I would suspect Ford has something to do with Maeve maintaining memories. He is putting things in there the technicians do not know about. Bernard picked up on it ealier.
I also agree about the maze. Get on with it and tell us what it is.
She was given admin privileges.redline248 said:
What kind of code gives Maeve the power of suggestion? Or did they somehow insert programming into all the other hosts to obey Maeve?
Who gave Bernard the idea to kill Elsie (or how did he decide to do it)? Residual Arnold code manifesting?
I took it as she's only talking outloud for the benefit of the viewers to explain what it is she's doing because her just staring at things and controlling them would look weird.
White Liberals=The Worst
Joined:
Nov 9, 2016
Posts:
10,783
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't have time to read through 48 pages, is this a good show?
It started well with a good concept. Storytelling is muddled and complex with a possible 3 time lines going on without clear indicators of *when* you are. Plus a mysterious maze that sofar makes no sense but theyve been talking about it forever. And a lot of talk if androids have real feelings or not.
I'll finish the season but I'm less than enthused about it.
I'll finish the season but I'm less than enthused about it.
Wycliffe_03 said:
Don't have time to read through 48 pages, is this a good show?
It is a great show despite 2 or 3 wet blankets cluttering up the thread this week.
Don't listen to Alaskan, the answer is yes.Wycliffe_03 said:
Don't have time to read through 48 pages, is this a good show?
i think William may be a host.
claym711 said:
i think William may be a host.
Not sure if serious but if you are then he was shot by a host already and nothing happened outside of getting the wind knocked out of him.
Show threads are a conversation about not only the plot, but the quality of the show itself. Apologies for this not being a praise-only thread (which has never happened in the history of the internet). That said, almost all critiques this week have been qualified with "I enjoy the show, but..." I see hardly any outright negative complaints. All things considered, this is about as positive a thread as you could ask for.dlance said:Wycliffe_03 said:
Don't have time to read through 48 pages, is this a good show?
It is a great show despite 2 or 3 wet blankets cluttering up the thread this week.
4stringAg
Jim Schlossnagle set to leave Texas A&M for Texas head coaching job
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
364
CreekBottom
Jim Schlossnagle set to leave Texas A&M for Texas head coaching job
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
292
Thunder18
Jim Schlossnagle set to leave Texas A&M for Texas head coaching job
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
285
PJYoung
McClain: Schloss lost all credibility outside of Austin
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
223