Blade Runner Blues -- Who are you?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-02 10:04pm

I'm watching Blade Runner right now, and the issue of identity and the self is an integral part of this movie. The idea that the replicants have false memories and, for some, would therefore strive to understand who they are is ludicrous to me.

Who you are is a matter of your experiences -- your memories. Without those you are noone, nothing to shape your opinions or emotional responses, nothing. Yet the main replicant, the woman whos name i forget, seems torn over the fact that her memories are the same as Tyrells neice. Now, this seems like total bullshit, because she IS Tyrells neice, a mental clone in a new body who grew up a different life, not some person who had her life stolen and replaced.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-02 10:08pm

I would like to kindly disagree by saying that basically in this bladerunner situation one would be nothing more than a mockery, an imitation of the original person. That person/replicant wouldn't be unique.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-02 10:16pm

Twins sometimes experience the same memories, even if one is on the opposite side of the country from the other, IIRC.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-02 10:24pm

--That person/replicant wouldn't be unique.--

Incorrect. They are unique in so much as beyond the extent of their early pre-existance memories they are completely unique. Once the memories are complete to a certain point, the person is unique from then on.

And besides, what is the problem with being a replication? You are your mind and your memories not your physicality. Granted, she is nothing but a memory copy, but she didnt loose any identity, she was given one.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-02 10:42pm

kojikun wrote:--That person/replicant wouldn't be unique.--

Incorrect. They are unique in so much as beyond the extent of their early pre-existance memories they are completely unique. Once the memories are complete to a certain point, the person is unique from then on.

And besides, what is the problem with being a replication? You are your mind and your memories not your physicality. Granted, she is nothing but a memory copy, but she didnt loose any identity, she was given one.

Those memories are a copy, hence they're not unique.

Personally I would like it if I could make my own identity, not be handed one and told, "Here's you. Now go do whatever."

This is still a thread for subjective opinions yes, or are you trying to turn this into a moral debate?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-02 10:48pm

the memories are a copy, but the stuff that happened afterwards are not. And its not like youre handed an identity and told to go with it, you ARE the identity.

--This is still a thread for subjective opinions yes, or are you trying to turn this into a moral debate?--

I like to see others takes on the subject, but discussing is never out of the question

Drewcifer · Post by **Drewcifer** » 2003-01-02 10:48pm

The female lead, Rachel (Sean Young), is a different model of replicant than Roy, Pris, Leon et al. The latter, IIRC, are the Nexus 6 model, but Rachel is the next generation of replicant. The N6 models were not given any implanted memories, which is the given cause for their socially deviant behavior; they are full grown 'humans' without the emotional experience necessary to temper their reactions to situations.

I believe their habit of collectiong photos and such was a way for them to have an emotional cushion, so to speak, and a extension of the inherent curiousity most humans have about life - why am I here? etc. (which would be expected from an accurate simulation of a human).

As far as Rachel being Tyrell's neice, she isn't. She may have been at the time of her inception/birth, but from then on she was her own person, living and experiencing her own life, creating her own memories. As well, Rachel had no prior knowledge that she was a replicant. The N6 models were aware that they were simulations, so to speak, but Rachel didn't. It seems quite reasonable to me that she would be upset to find out that the life she had lived was essentially a lie, like the old SF stories were a person injured their arm only to find wires underneath.

Imagine if you woke up in the Matrix tomorrow, in that tub thing Neo wakes up in after swallowing the pill. Imagine the shock of finding out that your whole life was a lie; your mom and dad and girlfriend and brother never existed, they were merely what someone else had experienced or dreamed up for you. None of your experiences that you draw on to live your life were ever real, just figments of someone else's imagination.

Drewcifer · Post by **Drewcifer** » 2003-01-02 11:05pm

gah, so to speak, so to speak

I understand why we can't edit in this forum, but sometimes I wish we could. Posts sometimes read different between Preview and when they 'go live'. Oh well

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-01-03 04:02am

Yeah I second what Drewcifer said. Rachel was the only replicant that was given fake memories, and also was the only replicant that wasn't completely fucked up in the head.

The others, Roy, etc, simply collected photographs and made up stories about them. "This is my mom", etc.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-03 03:00pm

Yanno, that raises another question, are humans REALLY naturally curious about who they are and why they exist, or is that something thats arisen from the Plato-Socrates-Aristotle type philosophical history the (western) world? Does curiosity about such things come about because we get these thoughts put into our heads or because theres some instinct that drives us to wonder where we come from and why? Could it be a mix of fear and curiosity? Fear of the unknown, fear of the pointless and useless nature that we would take on if we came to the conclusion that we have no purpose, kind of like how the Catholic church hated the idea of other worlds with other people on them because that would devalue humanity in "gods plan"?

Drewcifer · Post by **Drewcifer** » 2003-01-03 06:57pm

I think that curiousity is innate. Spend some time with a young child sometime... "Why this? why that? whyforhowcome?" I suppose it's a natural extension of this curiousity that leads to pondering existence and such things. Too, in some instances, fear can breed curiousity, but I think it has more to due with cause/effect evaluations than fear of the unknown.

While religions have probably evolved (punsnicker) to the states they are in today from fear of the unknown (although far down the list from political motivations), most early religions and myths were explanations of the natural world, answers to curious questions.