Did you guys catch then “moist” comment a few episodes back (“I like to eat my enemies while they’re still ‘moist’” - changed to “moist” from “fresh”? I thought of STL at that moment…
I did notice that the photograph was the same as the one that sent Dolores’s dad into shock, but didn’t know what to make of it right then.
I missed the empty photograph. I’ll have to go look for it again.
Also the blonde girl who is working with Wyatt is the same blonde girl who was seducing William in Ep 2 prior to his park entry?
I noticed that (the blonde girl) but thought there might be multiple copies. It is true that MIB did say something about “Not wasting a pretty face.”
So what did you make of Dolores having a memory of herself face down dead in the river, and then back with Billy/William on the shore a moment later? Memories of the past or the future?
It’s an interesting theory about the Maze. Having just pressed up-down-up-down-left-right-left-left-left-right-OK (or something similar) to reset some functions on my Roku, I could imagine the maze being some kind of puzzle where making the turns that solve the maze resets or opens up some kind of functionality. That would be pretty interesting.
Also, is Maeve really dead now? Or is it future Maeve? Or is she just pretending. Or is the Maeve timeline completely separate from the Billy timeline and the MIB timeline.
Hmmmm
Almost certainly Maeve’s timeline is happening in the “present” along with the MiB. The biggest question remaining (at least that I can think of) is whether or not Maeve is acting as part of Ford’s plan or if Ford is completely in the dark about her intentions. I believe it’s the former…
^ Ford is a control freak. Nobody knows the Hosts better than he does, except maybe Arnold. It would be kind of a let down if they were getting away with all of this and he didn’t even have a clue.
Also, from Ford’s interaction with Bernard we know that they have had those conversations and debates in the past. It seems that Ford is aware of the host’s ability to become sentient.
But at the same time, the show keeps hinting at the fact Ford may not be the best programmer. Perhaps I’ve missed it, but the reveries are either Ford implementing his narrative or a mistake. This seems to determine if he’d know about Maeve or not. If it’s a mistake I think it’s consistent that he isn’t good at programming and Maeve could go unknown.
There could be multiple copies, but that does not seem to occur. When he said not to waste a pretty face didn’t he also say I thought you were retired long ago? It would make sense that he’s referencing the hostess in Williams narrative who helped him dress.
I’m really amazed by the acting in this show. It’s really good. I imagine the freezing and affect changes on command is much harder to pull off than it looks.
Thanks Reddit, now i have to rewatch the show again… i mean… seriosly…
is this show that good?
I don’t want to hype it up and set the bar too high. Let’s just say HBO spends ~$10 mil. an episode. Very good actors and production quality
Some people that frequent /r/westworld are pissed redditors pretty much nailed all the twists and turns so far. I don’t view it as spoiling the show though. I like the details they pick up on and when a theory comes true, it’s more of a “wow, they nailed it” moment than “bummer, they ruined it for me” type thing.
Spoilers for people not caught up. I’m positive they’ve got the below info from Reddit
BChad, watch this video:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaY-NtShbI]
And this covers all the theories:
Well, that finale was interesting. Though I’m still scratching my head on a lot of stuff.
Like I said, Ford knew exactly what he was doing. Also, MiB was William, multiple timelines existed, and Maeve was recruiting an army for the breakout but then the twist with her wanting to stay. I predicted the new narrative was the awakening and release of the robots. I didn’t think it would be with a now conscious Dolores taking charge but it was sort of inevitable I guess.
The name of the last episode is “the bicameral mind.” If your unfamiliar the theory of bicameralism,it is that early humans evolved consciousness through auditory hallucinations (hearing a voice in your head). When man finally became conscious he realized that the voice was not from a foreign source but from within, as with Dolores.
Also, Reddit sleuths have already revealed that Elsie is still alive and most likely Stubbs. It’s likely that Ford wasn’t lying to Bernard when he told him that he had not killed before if that is the case.
It seems strange that consciousness would have to be linked to hearing voices in your head. That would suggest that human babies are not conscious when awake until they have some command of language, and that animals that do not have language (so cannot hear voices that mean anything) are not conscious. Yet we generally consider something like a dog or cat to be conscious when it’s not sleeping and unconscious when it is. Moreover, emotional states like desire and fear seem to be the kinds of things we consider consciousness to be a requirement for, whether or not we have language to express those sensations in words. The dream state, does have some similarities to consciousness, but fails with respect to reasoned or emotional interactions with the outside/real world, which I think most people would require as a definition of consciousness.
I do agree that the kind of consciousness where one can have a conversation in one’s head is a special kind of consciousness, so maybe it’s enough to grant that, and say that a generic AI might arise from engineering that kind of thing to happen. In that case, the kind of feedback that would be possible by being able to observe one’s own thoughts and feelings from a standpoint that is at least semi-objective is interesting to think about. That really could be the kind of thing that Aristotle thought separates human beings from the bulk of the animal world.
Yep, that episode was over my head.
please no spoilers
The problem lies with defining what consciousness is.
I have vegan friends who think that because animals are sentient (able to feel, perceive stimuli and have subjective experiences) that they are therefore conscious or “somewhat” conscious. I think there needs to be a firmer definition. Perhaps the capacity for introspection, self awareness, imagination, and internal communication (that your brain can judge itself, an inner monologue) I’m not sure if language is really required for this type of thought. I also think that it may be more appropriate to use the the word conscience rather than conscious to further this point. Conscious is defined weakly as “the state of being awake,” while your Conscience is the “inner voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one’s behavior.” (But what is right and what is wrong? Is this a construct of our imagination?). I think this sort of fits with Julian Jaynes Bicameral mind hypothesis, he thought that the right hemisphere of the brain literally judged the left though, I’m not sure I agree entirely with this.
Here is a link to a good read on consciousness. I have not delved too deep but it is a very interesting topic.
Man! Talk about a great season. That show is so well done. . .
I actually had the Bicameral book arrive at my house the day of the finale. A podcast I listen to had described it previously as one of the more interesting he had read in his life (not that the theory is true, but just thinking about it). New it was meant to be when I saw Episode 10’s name.
I have a suspicion that what we saw is not all that it appears. I was right that the Maze was designed by Arnold to give them meaning (being based in a church and a show on consciousness, it was too obvious). I was wrong in thinking Ford had ill intentions and was using it as a trap. Really great character development on him. I really like the philosophical elements of the show still leave it to be epic! I would say more but don’t want to post spoilers
The reddit discoveries on the websites probably have some interesting hints. I wouldn’t be surprised if Westworld keeps updating some sites between now and 2018 to keep people interested.
I agree that a lot depends on how you define consciousness, which is why I distinguished the “being awake” form from “a special type of consciousness made possible by language.”
I suspect the key aspect of consciousness is an awareness of the self as distinct (though still embedded within) from the surrounding environment. For example, I’m aware that I can make my body move merely by willing it, but I can’t make a chair across the street move without actually going there and using my body to move it. So that sets up a distinction between things that part of me and things that are in my environment but aren’t. I’m aware that if I cut my hand, it hurts, but if I make the same cut on someone else’s hand, it doesn’t hurt.
Also, my awareness of the possibility of death or injury is I think pretty important to consciousness. This seems to be the basis for emotions like fear which to me would indicate consciousness. And the ability to feel pain and fear is I think a morally relevant issue in terms of what we eat. We may ultimately need or choose to eat meat (I find it hard to give up), but there are still morally better and worse ways to kill animals that we end up consuming for food.
There may be grey areas where we are not quite sure if consciousness exists, such as jellyfishes that seem run toward or away from stimuli but perhaps are just floating around with some kind of chemical reflex.
Anyway, I do think there is value in the bicameral mind idea, but I am not sure that “consciousness” is the right discriminator. “Conscience” in the sense of some factor like a superego may be a better fit.