3 ms·

Blade Runner was vague about how much of a replicant was synthetic. My interpretation was that they were biological. We are at the cusp of creating life forms

Blade Runner was vague about how much of a replicant was synthetic. My interpretation was that they were biological. We are at the cusp of creating life forms that can suffer (biological and digital). It will be irrelevant if they are made from neurons or transistors. We will still be responsible.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
They were totally biological, which made less sense to me in both movies. Oh, this thing's not a humanoid computer. It's a clone. You've grown these bio clones with superhuman abilities and artificially limited lifespans. So... why would they not have consciousness? Did you take the consciousness out? It doesn't seem like it. Also, why not give these mutations to regular people? (Ghost in the Shell contemplates this, btw. Major is a brain in an experimental synthetic body, and they tell her that someday everyone will have one as cybernetics become more common.) That they can self-replicate like humans is a nice feature, but why not have inorganic robots in all those offworld colonies, given the scarcity of food, water, and air in space and the havoc radiation wreaks on cells? It's like some colonial dystopia where a company can grow humans and own them as non-personed property rather than machines sneaking their way into personhood by degrees. Or it's some hyperliteralist Searle shit where anything that isn't of the human species isn't a person. Instead of taking the path of least resistance and using human DNA to grow the androids, maybe they used some proprietary ersatz DNA, and since it's sufficiently different from natural human DNA the organisms it produces aren't seen as people even though they approximate them almost indistinguishably. Or maybe they're afraid. The androids are superior; if not for their artificially limited lifespans, they'd take over.
- troyvit 3y ago
  My take was that the artificially shorten their lives so that consciousness can't develop. That's the piece that, when you combine it with their powerful specializations, would enable replicants to take over. Until then they have the consciousness of a toddler at best and are easier to manipulate. By the time consciousness starts to dawn "accelerated decrepitude" kills them off naturally.
low_tech_love 3y ago
I always considered them mostly synthetic, with some external human-like features. That would change things for me, but I think probably the most interesting you said was the final sentences. My question to you then would be: how would you know for sure that a transistor/digital ”being” is actually suffering, and not just mimicking human suffering in order to fulfill whatever internal cost-minimizing process it follows? And by the way what does it even mean to suffer, concretely and unambiguously? For example, a breakup or a job loss causes people to suffer, but certainly we are not going to prohibit them. And what if we make them unable to feel pain, would it then be acceptable…?
- mcculley 3y ago
  I don't know that we will be able to tell the difference. I know animals can suffer. Suffering is not limited to what we consider intelligent. I have no idea where that line is. I do not see why the capacity to suffer should be dependent on biology. re: Blade runner replicants being electronic versus biological: I think it is clear that the bodies are bio-engineered, but not clear to me if they had implants in their brains.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

They were totally biological, which made less sense to me in both movies. Oh, this thing's not a humanoid computer. It's a clone. You've grown these bio clones with superhuman abilities and artificially limited lifespans. So... why would they not have consciousness? Did you take the consciousness out? It doesn't seem like it. Also, why not give these mutations to regular people? (Ghost in the Shell contemplates this, btw. Major is a brain in an experimental synthetic body, and they tell her that someday everyone will have one as cybernetics become more common.) That they can self-replicate like humans is a nice feature, but why not have inorganic robots in all those offworld colonies, given the scarcity of food, water, and air in space and the havoc radiation wreaks on cells? It's like some colonial dystopia where a company can grow humans and own them as non-personed property rather than machines sneaking their way into personhood by degrees. Or it's some hyperliteralist Searle shit where anything that isn't of the human species isn't a person. Instead of taking the path of least resistance and using human DNA to grow the androids, maybe they used some proprietary ersatz DNA, and since it's sufficiently different from natural human DNA the organisms it produces aren't seen as people even though they approximate them almost indistinguishably. Or maybe they're afraid. The androids are superior; if not for their artificially limited lifespans, they'd take over.

troyvit 3y ago
My take was that the artificially shorten their lives so that consciousness can't develop. That's the piece that, when you combine it with their powerful specializations, would enable replicants to take over. Until then they have the consciousness of a toddler at best and are easier to manipulate. By the time consciousness starts to dawn "accelerated decrepitude" kills them off naturally.

low_tech_love 3y ago

I always considered them mostly synthetic, with some external human-like features. That would change things for me, but I think probably the most interesting you said was the final sentences. My question to you then would be: how would you know for sure that a transistor/digital ”being” is actually suffering, and not just mimicking human suffering in order to fulfill whatever internal cost-minimizing process it follows? And by the way what does it even mean to suffer, concretely and unambiguously? For example, a breakup or a job loss causes people to suffer, but certainly we are not going to prohibit them. And what if we make them unable to feel pain, would it then be acceptable…?

mcculley 3y ago
I don't know that we will be able to tell the difference. I know animals can suffer. Suffering is not limited to what we consider intelligent. I have no idea where that line is. I do not see why the capacity to suffer should be dependent on biology. re: Blade runner replicants being electronic versus biological: I think it is clear that the bodies are bio-engineered, but not clear to me if they had implants in their brains.