In the movie “Bladerunner” (if you
haven’t seen the movie, don’t read this and go watch it) there are agents
called Bladerunners that are assigned to retire (kill) replicants; replicants
being artificially intelligent robots. The main Bladerunner in the movie is Rick
Deckard, who is given the task of retiring highly advanced Nexus-6 replicants.
These Nexus-6 replicants have started to obtain a high-self awareness that they
are robots and that they will die, in fact they have only a four-year lifespan.
Realizing this they acquire an intense desire to live and go in search of their
creator so that they may extend their lifespan. Since it is Deckard’s job to
retire these replicants, he must be able to detect whether or not a person is
actually a replicant. Another replicant named Rachael, who shows an unusual
amount of emotion and therefore is harder to detect, turns out to be Deckard’s
love interest. In the end, the leader of the Nexus-6 replicants, Roy, confronts
Deckard and delivers a monologue about how his memories are to be lost “like
tears in rain.” Later Deckard returns to his apartment and leaves with Rachel,
right after he realizes that he too is a replicant.
So do these advanced Nexus-6
replicants have souls? First we must ask why do we humans have souls (let us
just say we do for the purpose of this response)? Is it because we are organic
and reproduction is a natural process and we have brains that we grow with?
Perhaps, but in the movie these replicants are bio-engineered and can therefore
be considered rather organic in nature, they are just more programmed. So if
they are programmed can they not still think? Well in the movie these
replicants cannot only think, but also can get somewhat close to actually
feeling emotion. For instance when Deckard tells Rachael that she is a
replicant she storms out of the room crying. Now we must start to consider,
what are emotions? Are they more then just chemical signals and thoughts that
produce a physical reaction and lead to thoughts fitting that emotional state?
I am not sure (good question for another response), but it would appear that in
the movie true human emotions are possible for these replicants, especially
considering Deckard is one. So let us say that these replicants have the
ability to be equal to humans mentally, physically, and even emotionally. Now
the only real difference among them is who created them. For us it is not
entirely known what/who created us, besides the fact that evolution has enabled
us to be at the point we are, but why did evolution even begin and what began
it (another response question)? However, for the replicants their creators are we.
We are their gods. The replicants cannot only see us, they can interact with
those who created them, and in doing so the replicants’ “gods” are no longer a
mystery or something beyond their reality.
We humans seem to obtain our souls
from a metaphysical realm or a god, and it is in part the fact that we do not
comprehend how we came to exist that we have souls (that’s a long
conversation). If we are to create these replicants will we to be lending them
a soul? I’d like to say yes and here is why. If we are to accept that we are
human, we must admit that we have flaws since no one is perfect. Humans can be
born mentally and physically disabled, we can combat these anomalies by
creating technologies that help us to overcome these “flaws.” Now let us jump a
few steps and come to a point at which we humans are pushed to such a level to
prevent these flaws that we produce a flawless human, or let’s say a replicant.
A replicant that cannot only look and talk like a human, but one that can feel
and think just as well. If this is possible then why not lend a soul to this
replicant, as it would not just be a replicant of a human being, it would be a
next step. It would be evolution. So if a species evolved at the hands of
another species that had a soul, would they not have a soul as well? It is only
natural for humans to want to evolve, so in essence the replicants may be the
next stage of human evolution. These replicants could be resistant to disease,
faster, stronger, smarter, and perhaps even better than humans. So the next
question would be are our flaws actually flaws or do they provide something
unique to humanity?
Response:
ReplyDeleteDo Living things have Souls? What is Life Anyways?
For the purposes of this response, let's assume that all living things have some kind of essence that is independent of death. Now, right off the bat, we run into a problem. Life is not a particularly easy concept to define. Your standard biology textbook will say that "life" meets the following criteria: consists of one or more cells, contains genetic information, use genetic information to reproduce themselves, are genetically related and have evolved, can convert molecules obtained from their environment into new biological molecules, can extract energy from the environment and use it to do biological work, can regulate their internal environment. This list is not a definition as much as it is a carefully constructed set of precepts that eschews a philosophical perspective in favor of one that just makes life easier to discuss scientifically. But what if something meets some but not all of the criteria of life? Take viruses for example. They certainly evolve, and evolution is widely considered the most important factor that determines livelihood. However, they don't meet all the life criteria. So what are they, partially alive? Does that even make sense? It would seem that the language hinders our understanding of the subject (Bacon's idol of the marketplace at work). Even without the added complication of hypothetical synthetic beings (like in Bladerunner), our working definition of life falls far short of satisfactory.
I propose a change in the way we perceive what is alive or not. Instead of things simply being alive or not alive, it's better to think of all things falling somewhere in a spectrum of livelihood. It's easy enough to visualize how this might work with viruses, plants, animals, or perhaps synthetic life (one day). But all things in the universe? How could a simple rock possibly be considered alive in any sense of the word? A rock contains minerals that could one day supply life with nutrients, does it not? If not alive, a rock is certainly connected to living things by biological processes. By this new way of thinking, all life in the biosphere can be viewed as one large, elaborate process, not an Aristotelian order of distinct parts.
So should the replicants in Bladerunner be considered alive? Yes, absolutely. They are indistinguishable from humans, aside from the nature of their origin. As life, some part of them continues after the body ceases to function. The film-makers must also agree. I think the bird that takes flight towards the sky after the death of the replicant in the clip clearly symbolizes his essence departing the body, but continuing in another form.
Skeezix makes an interesting point about flaws--I think about stochastic systems and the role of the random, the role of chance. Flaws do seem to connect with free will.
ReplyDeleteHere is a post from last year's blog that addresses the soul:
ReplyDeletehttp://nmtphilfilm.blogspot.com/2011/04/fountain-immortality-and-death.html