Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> JimT wrote:
> > 1) Rachael was tricked out as well as the technology could to be a 'human'. If
> > Deckard was a replicant, using the same technology, he should not have been able
> > to to detect she was a replicant
>
> No, it means that if Deckard ran the tests on himself, he should have
> discovered he was a replicant.
>
>  > (See Tarski's theorem - Rachael's status
> > 'should' be undecidable using equivalent technology.)
>
> That only applies to math, i.e., formal logic.
>
> You could think of it like an NP problem - it's hard to make human-ness, but
> it's easy to check. And the closer to human-ness you create, the longer it
> takes to check.  I mean, if you want silly math comparisons. ;-)
>
Busted, at least as far as silly math comparisons go.

As far as the internal logic of a sci-fi film, I would accept that EITHER
Deckard would be able to realise he was a replicant OR he wouldn't be able to
realise Rachael was. I don't think Deckard ever realised he was a replicant. I
don't think that depends on the cut you see.

> > 2) Forgot the Hauer replicant's name, but he breaks one of Deckard's fingers for
> > each of his companion's dying at Deckard's hands. This is a gesture of infinite
> > humanity and irony from a replicant. Makes no sense unless the Hauer replicant
> > believed Deckard was human, echoing human belief that the life of a replicant
> > isn't worth the little finger of a human.
>
> Everybody believed Deckard was a human, including the cops. Why wouldn't the
> other replicants?
>
Don't know. I just thought that the Hauer nexus 6 was so superhuman that he
would know. Not very internally consistent.

> What I can't figure out is why anyone would create a replicant for this
> purpose, and where did the Decker prototype come from with the memories of
> how to hunt replicants?
>
I thought you had just provided reason 3, but for the first time since I saw the
film, I thought that the replicant hunters might be afraid to go against the
nexus 6s and set up a replicant to do so.

In the film, I got no sense of how long it took to physically make and mentally
programme a replicant - hours, days or months. If it was short enough, making a
Deckard replicant after the news of the news of the nexus 6 mutiny got to Earth
might be possible.

If Rachael could be programmed to be Rachael, Deckard could be programmed to be
a replicant hunter - maybe one that had got himself killed by replicants.

As for the unicorn at the end, the Olmos character kept making them. I
interpreted the unicorn as 'proof' that Olmos had been there, knew Rachael was a
replicant, but was prepared to allow Deckard and Rachael to go off in love into
the sunset.

Maybe this is reason 3. If Deckard was a replicant created to deal with the
nexus 6s, why wouldn't the Olmos character kill him and Rachael, given the
paranoia about replicants?

If Deckard was human, maybe the Olmos character would have the compassion to
allow Rachael to live, since a human was looking after her.

What I am still confused about is why so much fuss about the nexus 6s coming to
Earth when everyone must have known when their sell by date was? I mean, the
only reason for them to come to Earth was to try to get their date reset.

Post a reply to this message