Westworld

[Palatine]

So spparently Westworld was at least partially inspired by the Bicameral Mind Theory. Some dude at Princeton in the 70s posited that until about 3000 years ago, human brains functioned fundamentally different than we know they do today; the Left helisphere was the "executive" giving commands for the Right hemisphere to execute. The two hemispheres then started working together as a cohesive unit, bringing forth our ability to introspect, which in his opinion is true consciousness. Humans previously plugged along, following their "inner voices" as if they were external commands, and were unable to execute any kind of meta-cognition.

The "evidence" dude cites is shoddy at best, and as someone with more than zero neuro background, I can say it is not at all grounded in the reality of our current understanding of neurobiology, neruophysiology, and evolution. But it is definitely an interesting idea that spawned a great show.

I don't buy it. 3,000 years ago the Greeks were writing poems. 2,000 years before that the Egyptians were building pyramids.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I don't buy it. 3,000 years ago the Greeks were writing poems. 2,000 years before that the Egyptians were building pyramids.

The timing is off. The "great leap forward" hypothesizes to have started around 50,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens was nearly extinct, and there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and some hobbit like humanoids on a few islands (Java, Indonesia) called Homo floresiensis. Neanderthals were larger and had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Yet from a low population of around 2,000, Homo Sapiens took over and Neanderthals and Denisovans became extinct.

Some theorists suggest that something happened, and we suddenly became a lot smarter in a short span of time. Others say it was a gradual change. Neanderthals lasted for many thousands of years after. So if this Bicameral Mind change occurred, it could explain how Homo Sapiens Sapiens came from near extinction to dominating the planet, but it certainly wasn't 5000 years ago. Add a zero.

 

[Rocktheworld]

The timing is off. The "great leap forward" hypothesizes to have started around 50,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens was nearly extinct, and there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and some hobbit like humanoids on a few islands (Java, Indonesia) called Homo floresiensis. Neanderthals were larger and had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Yet from a low population of around 2,000, Homo Sapiens took over and Neanderthals and Denisovans became extinct.

Some theorists suggest that something happened, and we suddenly became a lot smarter in a short span of time. Others say it was a gradual change. Neanderthals lasted for many thousands of years after. So if this Bicameral Mind change occurred, it could explain how Homo Sapiens Sapiens came from near extinction to dominating the planet, but it certainly wasn't 5000 years ago. Add a zero.

The temporal aspect really is the key fault. Dude's evidence mostly centered around the lack of introspective language noted in literature up until roughly the time of the Illiad. Like I said, shoddy at best.

I also just don't see how that shift could have happened based on what I know about brain lateralization and connectivity. Do other animals who obviously show no overt signs of the ability to perform metacognition have brains where two hemispheres interact as they allegedly did for humans a few thousand years ago? This is really a larger brain issue with implications for (and which flies in the face of) our unserstanding of how all animals who have brains operate; not a human evolutionary issue.

 

[ZooCougar]

The timing is off. The "great leap forward" hypothesizes to have started around 50,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens was nearly extinct, and there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and some hobbit like humanoids on a few islands (Java, Indonesia) called Homo floresiensis. Neanderthals were larger and had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Yet from a low population of around 2,000, Homo Sapiens took over and Neanderthals and Denisovans became extinct.

Some theorists suggest that something happened, and we suddenly became a lot smarter in a short span of time. Others say it was a gradual change. Neanderthals lasted for many thousands of years after. So if this Bicameral Mind change occurred, it could explain how Homo Sapiens Sapiens came from near extinction to dominating the planet, but it certainly wasn't 5000 years ago. Add a zero.

I thought we interbred with the Neanderthals? Supposedly we're all part Neanderthal.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The temporal aspect really is the key fault. Dude's evidence mostly centered around the lack of introspective language noted in literature up until roughly the time of the Illiad. Like I said, shoddy at best.

I also just don't see how that shift could have happened based on what I know about brain lateralization and connectivity. Do other animals who obviously show no overt signs of the ability to perform metacognition have brains where two hemispheres interact as they allegedly did for humans a few thousand years ago? This is really a larger brain issue with implications for (and which flies in the face of) our unserstanding of how all animals who have brains operate; not a human evolutionary issue.

Based on the more crackpot theories I've looked at (and I'm no expert), some postulate that is was similar to Autistic Savanats, except at a wider level. Thus resulting in people of vastly superior capabilities, at least in some respects. It's a bit "X-men", but isn't entirely unrealistic. If we don't use much of our brain capacity, what would it look like if genetic markers started triggering and unlocking larger portions of our brains in greater numbers over several generations. Might we see a spike in something like Autism? Just spit-balling, but it is interesting.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I thought we interbred with the Neanderthals? Supposedly we're all part Neanderthal.

Something like 5% of people have Neanderthal DNA and a slightly smaller percentage Denisovan. But yes, Homo Sapiens Sapiens could breed with them.

 

[businesslawyer]

I don't buy it. 3,000 years ago the Greeks were writing poems. 2,000 years before that the Egyptians were building pyramids.

If I make up a newspaper story from the building of the pyramids agreeing with him, then presumably you'll accept it as fact?

 

[CTMike]

Let's just say that the bicameral mind theory is my smallest quibble with how "realistic" this all may be.

 

[Rocktheworld]

Dude posits everyone lived their lives as if they were schizophrenic (in the pure clinical sense, not like the picture in your head of a raving and ranting lunatic when you think of "schizophrenia").

If we don't use much of our brain capacity, what would it look like if genetic markers started triggering and unlocking larger portions of our brains in greater numbers over several generations. Might we see a spike in something like Autism? Just spit-balling, but it is interesting.

Actually that disorganized and over-firing of he brain, the lack of an executive dispersing cognitive faculties efficiently and effectively, is a part of the hypothesis behind the behavioral manifestations of Autism. Because their cognitive processes are disorganized, because the brain does not limit what it tries to process and thus tries to process all incoming stimuli equally, the brain is overwhelmed, and we see autisitc behavior manifest as they try to self-regulate.

The whole concept of "we only use 10% of our brains" is true, but it's not taken to the proper conclusion for lay persons. We only use a fraction of our antire brain topography AT ANY GIVEN TIME. That is the key distinction. We all use 100% of our brains, but we HAVE to only use a small portion of it at a time or else all cognitive processes would take forever and the brain would be thoroughly overwhelmed. The brain can really only perform one task at a time (no true "multitasking") but is good at ignoring irrelevant stimuli like background noise/visual stimuli to improve processing efficiency. There are no allegedly dormant parts of the brain. And I don't know of any proposed means to somehow make the brain able to process faster and/or become able to multitask.

 

[August_West]

Dude posits everyone lived their lives as if they were schizophrenic (in the pure clinical sense, not like the picture in your head of a raving and ranting lunatic when you think of "schizophrenia").


Actually that disorganized and over-firing of he brain, the lack of an executive dispersing cognitive faculties efficiently and effectively, is a part of the hypothesis behind the behavioral manifestations of Autism. Because their cognitive processes are disorganized, because the brain does not limit what it tries to process and thus tries to process all incoming stimuli equally, the brain is overwhelmed, and we see autisitc behavior manifest as they try to self-regulate.

The whole concept of "we only use 10% of our brains" is true, but it's not taken to the proper conclusion for lay persons. We only use a fraction of our antire brain topography AT ANY GIVEN TIME. That is the key distinction. We all use 100% of our brains, but we HAVE to only use a small portion of it at a time or else all cognitive processes would take forever and the brain would be thoroughly overwhelmed. The brain can really only perform one task at a time (no true "multitasking") but is good at ignoring irrelevant stimuli like background noise/visual stimuli to improve processing efficiency. There are no allegedly dormant parts of the brain. And I don't know of any proposed means to somehow make the brain able to process faster and/or become able to multitask.

So you are saying that move "Lucy" with scarjo and Morgan Freeman is bogus?


Bummer

 

[ZooCougar]

If the bicameral mind theory means that our minds work like congress then that explains quite a bit about humanity.

 

[Deadrody]

Spoiler: Glenn

That's not gonna happen, as his skull has been completely flattened by a barbwire baseball bat named Lucille. His eye even popped out.

And it was gross. As described by at least one person.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Finally caught up. My first reaction to this show was that I felt I had seen it before in Bladerunner and other movies, and that there wasn't a lot new to say about it. I am warming up to the show now.

I figured someone would be an unexpected host, and Dr. Bernard was a nice twist.

Some issues/plot holes:

1) It is totally unrealistic that any technology company would allow its IP to not be backed up offsite. I could let that go if someone had just mentioned it in passing, but that is a huge plot point, and it is ridiculous. Might as well have the hosts fly or perform magic. I will get past it, but it will also bug me until it doesn't matter in the plot.

2) Why do some characters think Arnold might still be alive? Elsie thought that. It is possible I simply missed why they think this.

3) Struggling with the rules of Westworld. Guests can't be killed, but they can be assaulted by the hosts, right? If some guests can just slaughter the hosts, wouldn't that interfere with other guests' experience? I would expect more guest vs. guest showdowns. I have seen people ready to throw down at Disney, imagine what it would be like at that place.

 

[businesslawyer]

Finally caught up. My first reaction to this show was that I felt I had seen it before in Bladerunner and other movies, and that there wasn't a lot new to say about it. I am warming up to the show now.

I figured someone would be an unexpected host, and Dr. Bernard was a nice twist.

Some issues/plot holes:

1) It is totally unrealistic that any technology company would allow its IP to not be backed up offsite. I could let that go if someone had just mentioned it in passing, but that is a huge plot point, and it is ridiculous. Might as well have the hosts fly or perform magic. I will get past it, but it will also bug me until it doesn't matter in the plot.

2) Why do some characters think Arnold might still be alive? Elsie thought that. It is possible I simply missed why they think this.

3) Struggling with the rules of Westworld. Guests can't be killed, but they can be assaulted by the hosts, right? If some guests can just slaughter the hosts, wouldn't that interfere with other guests' experience? I would expect more guest vs. guest showdowns. I have seen people ready to throw down at Disney, imagine what it would be like at that place.

"I will get past it ....". Dude -- not much on self-awareness, are we?

 

[ZooCougar]

Finally caught up. My first reaction to this show was that I felt I had seen it before in Bladerunner and other movies, and that there wasn't a lot new to say about it. I am warming up to the show now.

I figured someone would be an unexpected host, and Dr. Bernard was a nice twist.

Some issues/plot holes:

1) It is totally unrealistic that any technology company would allow its IP to not be backed up offsite. I could let that go if someone had just mentioned it in passing, but that is a huge plot point, and it is ridiculous. Might as well have the hosts fly or perform magic. I will get past it, but it will also bug me until it doesn't matter in the plot.

2) Why do some characters think Arnold might still be alive? Elsie thought that. It is possible I simply missed why they think this.

3) Struggling with the rules of Westworld. Guests can't be killed, but they can be assaulted by the hosts, right? If some guests can just slaughter the hosts, wouldn't that interfere with other guests' experience? I would expect more guest vs. guest showdowns. I have seen people ready to throw down at Disney, imagine what it would be like at that place.

1. LOL ok dude. It's not like they aren't defying convention in many other ways.

2. The ghost in the machine.

3. It seems that some guests are more equal than others. The man in black gets whatever he wants, there was another scene where someone was killing lots of hosts and they pondered intervening. Maybe when you waste a host, the damage gets added to your tab.

The hosts have a guardian capability, like when the Man in black took out a knife and threatened to use it on Ford. I also think that the Man in Black doesn't take for granted people who are supposedly human.

 

[CTMike]

One of the show runners made reference to the park being roughly 500sq miles. If it's circular, that's about a 25 mile diameter. You could design two Tier 4 data centers on opposite ends of the park, have data mirrored to both locations in real time along with periodic backups in case of large scale data corruption... putting aside whatever ulterior motives Delos corp may have to exfiltrate the data, it's not that far fetched. 25 miles is a little close but there are very few scenarios where everything in a 25 mile diameter is a disaster.

I think it's more unrealistic that they have 87 subterranean floors or whatever it was they went down in the first episode.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

One of the show runners made reference to the park being roughly 500sq miles. If it's circular, that's about a 25 mile diameter. You could design two Tier 4 data centers on opposite ends of the park, have data mirrored to both locations in real time along with periodic backups in case of large scale data corruption... putting aside whatever ulterior motives Delos corp may have to exfiltrate the data, it's not that far fetched. 25 miles is a little close but there are very few scenarios where everything in a 25 mile diameter is a disaster.

I think it's more unrealistic that they have 87 subterranean floors or whatever it was they went down in the first episode.

25 miles is a little close? Most natural disasters would impact both data centers , even if they were at opposite ends of the park.

Again, this wouldn't be a big deal if they had just casually mentioned it, but it is the centerpiece of the plot and it is ridiculous that a multi-billion company would have no offsite backup for its data. HBO comedies like Silicon Valley or Entourage wouldn't allow a plot hole like this.

 

[HuskyHawk]

25 miles is a little close? Most natural disasters would impact both data centers , even if they were at opposite ends of the park.

Again, this wouldn't be a big deal if they had just casually mentioned it, but it is the centerpiece of the plot and it is ridiculous that a multi-billion company would have no offsite backup for its data. HBO comedies like Silicon Valley or Entourage wouldn't allow a plot hole like this.

You miss the whole point of that. Delos didn't build the park. Ford and Arnold did. Ford may well have all of his code mirrored somewhere else (and this is the future, so that could take many forms). Delos bought the park, or at least a big chunk of it, and Ford hasn't let them get access to the IP. They had to try to steal it and transmit pieces of it via satellite links in the hosts. Delos isn't blind to it, but can't access the data.

The place is a fortress. What are they going to do? Ford could crash the whole thing down or kill them all via his control of the hosts. He's said as much. Delos had to try to do it in clandestine fashion because they fear he will put the code even further out of their reach.

By the way, I love how they are setting up Ford as the bad guy. We'll see if that holds up. He could be the stalwart hero thwarting Delos' nefarious plan. Certainly uploading human consciousness into the hosts is pretty problematic. Imagine if the rich and powerful don't die? When their body stops working their mind is uploaded into a new body and they become effectively immortal. I've got some problems with that.

 

[jleves]

Really enjoying this series and last Sunday's episode is really fantastic. The acting from the major roles is fantastic. One of the things I haven't seen discussed here or the ew.com review - when Maeve is telling the techs that she is going to escape, one of the them says everything has been designed to keep them in the park including 'the skin on your back.' I'm guessing that the skin does something really bad if they try to leave the park - like inferno bad from exposure to the outside. My next guess is Dolores is going to be the first one to experience it. Maybe future seasons will be a hunt to find a way to deactivate the protocols that keep them in the park.

 

[FluxTZ]

Well, now I have no idea WTF is going on.

 

[Robertelamin]

Can someone explain to me why Whyatt's men cannot be killed by gunfire? They should be unless they are actually human according to the rules right? If they are hosts then William and the Man in Black could also be hosts too since they have also been shot with no affect. Also Ford looks the same from the picture with him and Arnold and all the multiple timelines that the story is going through so I would guess he is a host as well. The line between host and guest has been blurry since the premiere but now it seems almost impossible to differentiate the two and it is only season 1. Anyways I've enjoyed it so far but hopefully there are more answers coming the next two weeks. If there are no rules then I might have to punt on this one.

 

[ZooCougar]

Can someone explain to me why Whyatt's men cannot be killed by gunfire? They should be unless they are actually human according to the rules right? If they are hosts then William and the Man in Black could also be hosts too since they have also been shot with no affect. Also Ford looks the same from the picture with him and Arnold and all the multiple timelines that the story is going through so I would guess he is a host as well. The line between host and guest has been blurry since the premiere but now it seems almost impossible to differentiate the two and it is only season 1. Anyways I've enjoyed it so far but hopefully there are more answers coming the next two weeks. If there are no rules then I might have to punt on this one.

Maybe Wyatt's men are a failsafe. They'll kill everyone that opposes Ford if it gets down to it.

 

[John]

I still like the series, but I'm getting to the point where I'm going to have to start watching episodes more than once, because I think I'm missing a lot. The EW write-ups made me realize this.

 

[CTMike]

I still like the series, but I'm getting to the point where I'm going to have to start watching episodes more than once, because I think I'm missing a lot. The EW write-ups made me realize this.

I went back and started again "knowing what we know now"... notice a ton more the second time through. Although it is a time commitment.

 

[Rico444]

Heard an interesting theory that I think might very well be true.

Spoiler: Potential spoiler

The theory says that William and the Man in Black are the same person, and that their stories are happening in different periods of time. When William is walking through the original facility, the Westworld logo on the wall is different from the ones you see throughout the facility everywhere else; that would be consistent with it being an old logo from 30 years ago. The MiB says that he and Dolores have been through a lot, when her and William are clearly getting pretty close. William also has the same knife and shirt as the MiB.

I'll definitely be looking for more clues next week.