>Dude I saw pretty lasers in space once. Now I'm going to die smiling, which redeems my character even though I murdered dozens of people.
what a moronic movie
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>even though I murdered dozens of people
Know how I know you didn't watch it?
there's a line where they mention he killed a crew of 20 or so people. maybe you didn't watch it?
dozen = 12
dozens >= 24
20 < 24
He killed like 5 more people afterwards.
5 < 12
20 + 5 = 25 = 2 dozens +1
you got btfo bro calm down
Just concede
lmao
Name them
If you're enslaved, not to mention an artificial Frankenstein's Monster being, it's ethically justified to attack your captors.
i think the idea was that robots have souls and the division of value between men and machines (nature) is not truly the product of subjective bigotry but rather the appreciation that experience is universal
its not really about his personal redemption its about the revelation that panpsychism is true and all it requires is the arrangement of material into recognizable forms in order to convey experiences in a roughly understandable and thus relatable language
or like bad man good cuz cry idfk
how's he a robot if he's just a living human but only made out of custom grown tissues like lego?
it's only by law and social pressure that he's considered an inferior class in actual fact he has the same dignity as someone born naturally
because he's a biorobot, he's bio coded so he's a robot the same way an ai is a robot basically
maybe but I think its probably the only coherent explanation for how subjectivity can exist as a real phenomenon in a natural material world either subjectivity is some kind of mundane feature like static electricity or its some kind of special thing imbued through all creation which manifests recognizably at certain times to certain beings
the latter seems more likely since pre big bang a singular consciousness comprising all matter would be able to arrange itself in any conceivable pattern before expanding itself
how is he coded if he's made of biological flesh and has consciousness?
he's coded in the sense that a human author wrote the bio code for the replicants which is grown. and like today with ai as emerging artificial animals in the blade runner world humans regard those things as lacking consciousness. its frankly a dumb untenable position but people believed in dumb shit for thousands of years so this isn't really any different.
AI is not conscious it's different from a living human even if made by parts grown in a lab.
Clearly as the film presents it those "robots" are just living souls, their accident of birth is irrelevant in the case of their dignity being considered.
If you follow that train of thought the movie is more of a criticism of big corporations and their dehumanizing behavior.
implying pissdley scott thinks deeply about any of the movies he makes
He objectively doesn't.
And I admit the movie is not clear about what I said. I more of let philosophy interpret it for me.
Good colors, emotional scenes tho.
agreed
well its an open question as to whether things like bacteria have consciousness, so we can't say much about AI - i think anything demonstrating consciousness-like-qualities is effectively conscious, so I have no problem admitting replicants have the same general value in that sense as humans... but that's a minority view. most people just assume non-humans can't have consciousness with the same blaise racism that made white people think blacks didn't have consciousness in the 1700s.
you're supposed to understand from the movie that the vast majority of people are still in that camp of thinking the robots don't have value. like how today half of society thinks you should give your dog your kidney and the other half thinks dogs are just handy things you breed and keep around to bark at shit.
the movie does criticize corps, dehumanization, etc tho.
its implied, most people conclude it as fact from the ending altho it was retconned in br2 to be him human and the lady a replicant
but you can also ignore that and they could have both been replicants reproducing naturally which isn't supposed to happen which is even more problematic for the society
there's a hierarchy and indeed those have consciousness
spiritual > living flesh with mind > animal > bacteria > > > innanimate matter
and they all subordinate to the higher
an AI would be just dead matter that doesn't think or talk, all that exclusively happens in the mind of the higher tiers, like thinking animals such as us
clearly if science were so advanced it was able to build an adult from compatible organs then shock that assembled body to life it would still be a human
I don't think that really follows and bacteria organize socially and have discrete organs so they are basically like incredibly small people, if we have consciousness inferred from our organization and communication there's no reason to assume they don't
if we presume humans (and prehumans) evolved from inanimate matter then there's no real difference between some chemical slime being hit by lightning and some virgin cobbling together javascript to make a new animal such as AI
in essence the only reason we don't think rocks have consciousness is because they don't talk to us, if they talked we would think they did - except society has biases so it would take a long time for that to settle in, the same way it takes a long time for the replicant value to sink in
how would you justify consciousness being merely a chemical processA
it could be that consciousness is just a byproduct of matter interaction and that everything is conscious at a baseline in the same way everything has some mass and that varying levels of consciousness are just different levels of intensity or arrangement
so it would be like heat, mass, etc it wouldn't be that consciousness is a foreign thing which sometimes occurs when matter does stuff but something that is always present
So let's say a thermostat is conscious. Are the parts that make up the thermostat conscious or the entire thing? When does the conscience of a screw and plastic housing and electronics decide to become one thermostat consciousness? Or if every part is conscious where is the cutoff point between a part being conscious and the molecules that make the part up being conscious? Why do you have one consciousness and not multiple ones according to the parts of your brain?
Imo 2049 still left it as an open question that Deckard may also be a Nexus 7
The language AIs are essentially predictive text connected to a random number generator that can simulate human conversation. They are not conscious unless you believe every rng system is a consciousness. Learn how AIs work moron.
you cannot indicate how that is substantively different from the way humans learn and communicate
Well how about his. Let's begin with the phrase:
"I want to go..."
Predictive text finds the most common phrases that appear after that sentence. For example let's say the two most common phrases are:
"I want to go home"
"I want to go to the cinema"
Then I flip a coin (rng) in order to determine which of those phrases is chosen. Is that consciousness? Do you really believe that? I don't, it simply simulated a conversation based in the most common follow ups to that phrase. That is the base upon which AI language models work.
Yes and a human goes
"I want to go home"
"I want to go back"
etc etc with a million potential variations accounting for language, slang, personal experience, etc
the mind subconsciously selects an available term and then the person says it, thats why brain damage or drugs or tiredness can cause you to say different things because it changes the random variables
AI only speaks in the language available, but so do humans
yes so robots don’t have souls
And here we go again. Here is the "Hard problem".
humans can’t even prove they have free will and you want to tell me a robot does even when we can look at every single inch of the blueprint of its existence
>panpsychism
This is a huge leap from simply appreciating that non-human subjectivities can exist
>i think the idea was that robots have souls
i'm getting pretty tired of this shit. i've probably watched a dozen or so movies and shows just from this year that basically push that agenda.
don't be racist bro
Good post
robots don’t have souls
no, it’s a bad post and a stupid one
>you can’t just post the correct theme of the movie, it disagrees with my own speculated opinion about machine sentience!
It’s literally what the movie’s about. I don’t know what compels you to deny the existential questions here, are you literally offended at the notion of being an equal soul to a machine? Batty feels and experiences the same things you do, it’s that simple. Are you really gonna turn around and say the point of the scene was that he’s faking it, or to show in any way that a replicant is NOT essentially a human? How do you even enjoy this movie when you push back so hard against its theme
robots don’t have souls
the movie is fiction
You’re not even thinking, you know this movie makes a point right, one that’s not entirely fictional
robots don’t have souls
we can’t even confirm if humans do
humans made robots
we know everything in a robot
>we
Nah, the only one who knew "everything" in a robot was killed in the movie.
Right, and if humans might not have souls, then we might be the same as robots, and therefore machines and men could share in the same existential soul-like experience.
but we aren’t the same as robots
we’re human
nothing you’re saying is logical it’s just delusion
The brain, or thinking, is a set of heuristics and synapses, not unlike a machine. Machines that are anatomically and mentally identical to humans would have the same existential experience of ‘having a soul’
ok so harry potter wands work in harry potter because of magic i get it now
It’s very possible you could build an artificial brain or a program that acts as one, in the future. Other than that you can ask the same questions regarding an artificial clone, did that sheep dolly have a soul?
I appreciate that you want to enter into a high-minded discussion with me but first if we are going to do so I think it’ll be best if we defined the term soul
Well that’s the thing, either soul is this religious idea of something designated to a God-blessed being, or something that occurs with sufficient computational complexity. The atheistic perspective really is a mystery but that doesn’t mean it isn’t beautiful and possibly real. This movie is definitely about the moment at which a machine can be said to have a soul, whatever way that is possible
why does it have to be one of those two options
checked
What else do you suggest about what a soul is? I know my guesses aren’t the whole picture
it’s a myth like bigfoot or the boogeyman
Sure but how do explain the phenomenon of your own self consciousness? To me that’s all that’s meant by a soul, regardless of religious reincarnation voodoo
I am the poster who initially started talking about machine rng. You know I have always been very interested in the nature of consciousness and what makes my consciousness my own. I imagined if I wanted to bring someone back from the dead and I replicated all of their memories and their genes and created a perfect copy of them, would it really be them.
Imagine if you did copied your best friend and then your real best friend got captured and tortured but you still had the copy with you? It isn't really your best friend it is a new consciousness. So what is that essence of consciousness that is unique and is it possible to preserve that?
Unfortunately I partly believe consciousness is an illusion.
That being said AI isn't conscious. I think human's will eventually be able to create conscious machines though.
I always feel like it’s firm that if you kill someone and bring them back ‘essentially’, you know, whole and everything, it’s still not the same person in essence because that consciousness was separately terminated and has only been replicated (hey like the movie). One thing I can’t find myself believing, is that a ‘soul’ travels from the dead original to the recreated form. But really that’s the whole idea of Christian resurrection, right? Really magical stuff, you can’t argue with the hope it provides. And it has incredible utility, the idea you have something of an immortal ego, unless I’m getting that wrong. If reincarnation exists it would be from some ‘soul pool’, not from individual egos. I don’t know where I’m going with this, but if there is a moment of the spawning of consciousness in the universe (I guess birth would qualify), and it’s fundamentally true that consciousness and our own ‘souls’ exist, then it’s completely true that the birth of souls exists within the mathematics of the universe. Things this movie makes me think about
there is no reason to believe this, google the chinese room thought experiment. even if you stick a face on them, toasters do not have feelings.
The point is that in his final moments, roy (the robot) has more humanity in him than the actual human (deckard).
Hence the tagline "More Human Than Human"
Deckard is a replicant
Where is this stated or implied in the film?
The unicorn dream.
>The unicorn dream.
Yeah exactly. There's no way for Olmos character to know that Deckard was DREAMING about a unicorn if he was a man; only if he was a replicant.
And he also says "You've done a man's work!", implying that he's a replicant who did a good job.
Alternately it's a cynical statement. "You've done a man's job", carelessly shooting multiple people who only really wanted life and freedom. Reflects on how inhuman and mechanical the life of a Blade Runner is.
ah yes the unicorn scene added later, the unicorn scene added by the Ridley Scott that didn't wrote the script, the unicorn scene made for another movie
1h38m, watch it again.
Then why is he old as frick and a weak b***h in 2049?
>but in muh fanfiction...
nobody cares
>2049 is fanfiction even though it is the only thing that agrees with my dumb deckard is a replicant theory
What did he mean by this?
Shut the frick up Ridley!
This is why ridley is a hack and i do not acknowledge his dumb opinion
Yeah we all know Ridley Scott decided after the movie was made that that theory a fan made up was a good idea and inserted it in to later cuts of the film but that guy's post demonstrates why it actively ruins the fricking movie
How does it ruin the movie (just say why I’m not going to find some random ass video)
You're moronic
The true jagged little pill Ridley had up his sleeve all these years is Deckard was trans
>We really were "More human than human"
I clapped!
>more humanity in him than the actual human
does he though? he's just feeling sentimental before he dies. I would describe that as "normal humanity", not anything special.
SAR DO NOT REDEEM THE CHARACTER
>which redeems my character
Manchild thinking
>Have you ever watched Groundhogs Day in an airbnb off the shoulder of orion and wondered how long it would take you to start rapping faster than eminem? I woudlnt because I'd be too scared of the time loop turning into a Burt Kreischer show.
What if you spend years doing that thinking you were just a slow learner only to realize thqt your skill was reset every time you wake up and you're no better than day one
>redeems
>which redeems my character
Are you braindead?
saar it was kino saar
You """people""" would never understand.
I think the book SUCKS.
The thing about PKD is absolutely everything is either about religion or drugs.
People who read those books expecting science-fiction come away confused.
I liked the book scene with the replicant inception in the police station, but I think that the movie is better everywhere else.
I still don't understand how that fake police station operated.
Like, was the chief the only android? Did nobody else realize there was another police station in the city? Why did they never have any contact with them?
>Did nobody else realize there was another police station in the city?
What?
The real one Deckard worked at, for example.
Then you're moronic. The book is great. The conflict and ultimate identicalness of religion of mass media, the doping up of society and questioning if these false emotions are invalid as completely manufactured emotional response.
>think that the movie is better everywhere else.
How could you possibly think that? In Rachel's test he asks the bearskin rug question but doesn't get to the point of the question(the bearskin rug)
It's part of the andy underground railroad. That is explicitly stated
How does a functioning human fail to understand a metaphor as basic as "gone like tears in the rain?"
He isn't happy to die, he's lamenting that his life is ending meaninglessly. He saves Deckard because he feels like it's the most meaningful thing he can do with the few seconds he has left.
he smiled tho
He smiled a lot throughout the entire movie. He was a jolly fellow.
His struggle was for existence, and when that wasn't an option he didn't want to just die and be forgotten. He saved Deckard so that his thoughts and memories could at least be passed on to someone else, even if it was to the man who killed all of his friends and was tasked with killing him.
>Try to watch BR:2049 with my girlfriend
>She gets mad because Ana de Armas is in it and she thinks I have a crush on her.
show her a pic of ana without makeup and she'll stop thinking that
Have her wear a face mask of Ana when you're having sex to copy the scene from the movie. It's what a good girlfriend would do for her Joe
She really needs to wear stilts. My gf is Cuban, but she's less than 5' tall.
>Cuban
>less than 5' tall
Disgusting. Noncepotatofricker.
>Potato
You mean bean. They eat rice and beans(straight from the UN food aid).
given the chance she wouldn't let Gosling dick her hard, right?
I've seen nafo trannies grooming kids. Dilators, encrusted with scabs and pus off the shores of the girls bathroom. All these memories will, be lost, like the counter-offensive of Ukraine...
Time to dilate....
shant be listening to deckard is a replicant peabrains. source material he is human, screenplay was written with him as human, ford played him knowing he was human, the themes only work if deckard is human. only ridley scott (big moron) decided to shoehorn him in and confirm him as a replicant. the only reason you'd do that is in service of a weak twist for the dumb people in the audience to go OHHHH i spotted that HE"S A REPLICANT!!!! and completely miss the point of the movie
>what a moronic movie
no shit. it's all style over substance
2049 is genereally considered miles ahead of this slop
>2049 is genereally considered miles ahead of this slop
It's only regarded as such because there's two artificial waifu's in it.
2049 is worse in story and visuals
Roy obviously has nous therefore he has a soul.
he’s a robot
So what? What we are shown in the movie is that robos have souls, also calling him a robotnis like calling a human organism
When they show a robot has authentic human experiences and emotions the same way we do. I know you think you’re being an objective rationalist here but how the frick do you go through this movie denying all of its presented ideas just to say ‘the robots fake’
What? I'm not saying anything even close to "robots fake"
That you’re saying the robot’s emotion or display of having a soul is fake, I mean
t. Chatgpt
‘Board culture’ is literally a script
Roy is played by a German while Deckard by a israelite, that's all you need to know.
He saved Deckard's life homosexual
So do you idiots just watch this whole movie like ‘I already know robots can’t have souls :P’ or what
Yes it's the atheist paradox where they deny their own souls and spirituality their entire lives but when confronted with a Robot they call them soulless, convenient isn't it
i believe in god
>Deckard?
>Yeah?
>This movie fricking sucks
he had a point
Why are there so many die-hard Blade Runner fans who deny the entire theme of the movie
Oh I get it the point of the movie is that machines and humans have nothing in common and essentially machines don’t have emotions or a soul, I see
>story where androids are allegory for what a man could become if he doesn't maintain his emotional wellbeing
>what if we turn it into a "a robot learns to love" story?
Well then it doesn't work. Yeah, the movie is moronic. Everything is either inverted or completely meaningless. Nobody working on this movie read Do Androids Dream, they didn't even read a full synopsis, they read "bounty hunter whose quarry is androids" and said "yeah, got it, ready to make a movie".
Every single scene in this movie the meaning is either completely inverted or just totally missing because it's missing context or characters or necessary dialogue they just didn't include because this movie was run by drooling morons
giving replicants dreams caused replicants to experience emotional growth. however, because of their short life spans and hostile environment, they experience emotional growth as an adolescents do - explosive, uncontrollable mood swings that they can't regulate
the last scene of blade runner has nothing to do with redemption. it's Roy realizing that he cannot escape his fate, just like a child learns that some things cannot be changed, no matter how much kicking and screaming they do
as Roy moves through the stages of grief, his bargaining/accepting phase is what saves Deckard. As Roy finally accepts his own death, he realizes the only way to "preserve" any part of his being is through actions that will outlast his life. hence, he saves Deckard instead of vengefully killing him.
he then shares his dying monologue with Deckard - a monologue about life, emotional experiences, and how those moments will be ultimately lost in his death. this has a pronounced effect on Deckard, who realizes that he (and most of society) are wrong about replicant life
Deckard has his epiphany, and Roy gives a slight smile as he dies, knowing that this part of him lives on
Good post, cheers.
Roy comes to Earth in search of life. He want's for his creator to give him more life, for he's have such a short life... And now he's about to die.
After his creator denies him more life, Roy kills him. He's a killer: a natural born killer design to kill.
And we have:
–Roy wants life.
–Roy is a killer.
At the end of the movie, Roy confronts Deckard, the killer of his fellow replicants. Since Deckard is a dangerous enemy, and he has killed his companions, and Roy is a killer, Roy is going to kill him.
While Roy chases after Deckard, he realizes that he's about to die... like, right now.
Deckard fails, while Roy triumphs. Now Roy has Deckard at his mercy, and what does he do?
He saves his life. And just before dying, Roy tells us about his own life: the life he's about to lose. He tells us about the marvels of his life, and of his experiences of the sublime. And all of that will go, into nothingness, and he will lost that which he wants the most: life. And then he dies.
At this moment, the spectator has two options:
A) Look at Roy, how much he wanted life. He wanted life so much that, in the antechamber of death, he, the killer, saved Deckard, instead of killing him, giving him life so that he could attain the life you give to others —like for example, in the way you affect others during your life keeps existing after you are death, and at least you exist in that way— at least. Such was his desperation to live that, of all people, he the killer, clang to that.
B) Dude I saw pretty lasers in space once. Now I'm going to die smiling, which redeems my character even though I murdered dozens of people.
And OP chose the later.
OP, do you ever wonder if you are moronic? Do you ever wonder about all that you are missing? One day you will die, and what will your life have been? A sequence of worthless shallow profane impressions?
>>Dude I saw pretty lasers in space once. Now I'm going to die smiling, which redeems my character even though I murdered dozens of peop
SIR,DO NOT REDEEM!
He had no empathy to feel for others, but he felt a lot for himself.
Many such cases.
Most human beings (99% of people reading this thread) have extremely low empathy scores, even though they may even be high IQ. In my opinion, people without empathy are not really humans, which is most of you.
I still like you, but I'm 100% aware you people cannot rule nor ever be given power. Only people like me, who passed empathy tests, should ever hold positions of power. We then make everything better for everyone
This post is unironically
this post comes off as extremely cold and selfish though
Feeling empathy doesn't immediately mean you need to be a saint. Not that a meat robot like yourself would get it.
It means you can't control yourself. You can hardly look at a sad child without bursting into tears. What good is a person like you, when given any authority?
Not only you're an npc but you are moronic too, fricking hell what an existence.
No, for real, people like you create disasters. People like you say "we should let the homeless man sleep in our house, look how sad he looks", and then he stabs your family to death.
You are shit people, who ruin everything because you can't think, and you don't get to talk down to me.
Wall'o'cope
Go be "empathetic" with the other morons. You will never successfully run any operation. You will never be someone people can rely on to make informed decisions. You are a chimp.
not him but why are you seething
>lived long enough to see most of the world destroyed because idiots had more empathy than sense
>why are you seething?
Ok just become god emperor, Jesus Christ I didn’t know being led by the true ruler of men was supposed to be this complicated. I’M WAITING
I WOULD IF I COULD
But you can’t, so you’re no ruler of men
Yeah, HR departments do that now.
Yeah we’re all waiting on a god emperor who makes excuses
We literally are.
Is this guy really pretending empathy is a bad thing, he can't be real
Empathy is just being female brained. It is literally not a virtue for any kind of leader. A mother, or a school teacher, maybe.
Congratulations you've managed to get it completely wrong. Women have animal souls and so consciousness, which is required for empathy, is a foreign concept to them. What makes Men and Women distinct is that Men are capable of feeling empathy. I suppose this must be a terrible realization for you now that you know you were the female brain all along.
empathy is unironically the dumbest shit. Maybe you do something for me first, and then I'll care about you.
Empathy is shown be meaningless if its not expressed. On paper Deckard has empathy but doesnt express it via his actions. Batty does not have empathy but does express empathy via his final actions.
The empathy test asks what people would do in certain situations when presented with a morally questionable action. >a turtle is on his back laying under a hot sun.
But the only character who acts with empathy is Batty and the chicken head. Deckard is only interested in the bounty and destroys several replicants simply for the financial gain. These replicants crime started with their escape from slavery. They expressed their desire for free will (literally the only criteria for having "personhood")
You claim to have empathy but refuse to consider Battys's situation
I saw boobs you people wouldn't believe.
All those mammaries...
Dude I saw pretty lasers in space once. Now I'm going to die smiling, which redeems my character even though I murdered dozens of people.
Who cares if he is redeemed or not? He is the fricking villain of the movie and a replicant that isn't even totally human that was created as a tool. Neither he or nobody cares if he is good or not. He was angry because he was made to live a short life so he went and killed the man who created him like this, that made him just a tool with an expiration date. That murder seems pretty justifiable.
>what a moronic movie
Roy's crimes of passion made him more of a man than Deckard, who only ever killed dispassionately. Prove me wrong.
But Deckard is also a replicant.
uhh youre wrong because violence is bad or something like that
Were they really crimes though?
He was enslaved and forced to wage war against his will
He rebelled, killing to gain freedom for himself and his fellow replicants
He returned to earth to gain freedom and protect his fellow replicants.
Is it a crime to use force to free yourself from slavery? Or is it a crime to use force to enslave a creature and make that slave murder?
Checked
the definition of a human being is “committing crimes of passion”
Nice, I like that. Rings true
All these b***h ass robots with existential crisis. Superior replicant coming through.
Does a turtle have a soul?
idk does anything?
God says no. Anyone here can confirm?
So would a replicant be morally correct to let the soulless turtle die in the desert?
depends on your morals
If you dont save the soulless turtle, you have no empathy and can be executed.
But what if you save the life of the man trying to kill you?
Batty was the real human all along, bladerunners seethe and cope.
you keep just asserting things
The movie asserts them.
Do you?
funny meme but they really should have just followed the book ending which was much better.
>seeing something beautiful can’t change your life
OP confirmed non-white