The entire intro sequence is one of the reasons we are watching ryan :D EDIT: i believe no other game made Ryan think so much like SOMA. You can see and HEAR the game eating him from the inside.
The beautiful thing about this game is it doesn't tell you what the "right" answer is for any of the situations you encounter. It presents you with a situation and asks you the player to make a judgement call based on your own beliefs and experiences. And sometimes there isn't a right choice at all, but simply one you perceive to be the lesser of two evils. This game really challenged me when I played it to take a look at my preconceived notions of "What it means to be alive" and really think about it in ways I hadn't before. And it will always hold a special place in my mind for it.
its also simons conciousness desperately fighting for himself. He knows on some level that he is a robot, just like any of the people we meet in the game. So if he views their life as something disposable or temporary, how does he justify that for himself? He struggles with accepting his own reality, trying to hold onto his past human life, so he views these robots he meets as something different, this is what catherine uses to try and make him move along with her plans. Deep down though simon is fighting a horrible battle.
Okay, yeah, I'm convinced - I would LOVE for you to play Talos Principle. (Both the first game and its sequel.) They're puzzle games. I know puzzle games aren't your usual for this channel, but the writing and dialog are just too good for you NOT to cover them. Without spoiling anything, their stories are EXTREMELY philosophical, and involve interactive Socratic dialogue as a regular gameplay mechanic between puzzles. (I also mentioned this to you in your stream today, but I'm saying it on here as well just to help it stick into your memory 😜)
I love that you take the time to think through and talk through all of the dilemmas, decisions and philosophies in this game. Your playthroughs are always unique and enjoyable because of it! look forward to more, my dude
I made this decision by considering potential future suffering. The K8 doesn't really have a consciousness. It just exists, forever. The other bot with a human mind does, though. Currently he's deluded and believes that he is still human and content, but there is a lot of potential for something to change. He could realize what he actually is, something could break internally and go wrong, or any other number of things could happen that could cause suffering - and that suffering could potentially be endless. "Killing" him is more humane imo because it prevents that possibility from happening, on top of the other justifications that you gave. The same logic applies to Robin, but even more so since she's trapped there with no chance of agency if she ever does become aware or something goes wrong
Your potential suffering isnt their suffering. Anything simon kills out of his own will is never a "good choice", it might be a better one, especially for him. But ending a life, no matter what justifications you use to get there, is never the choice you should be making.
But by that standard, stuff could get better. The AI may make a breakthrough at some point, for whatever reason, and grasp onto some sort of heaven concept to bring the people it 'saved' into. Even with potential suffering, why do you feel you should get to make the decision for others 'lives'? Other than that. K8, based on it acting scared after you kill. Do that not hint that its actually know what it is doing and what is going on? There is no obvious signs of it. However if a consciousness was to be put into it. Unlike the other robots, it can not talk. It only has the capability to beep and boop.
@@mattimeikalainen6963 Although I would agree, I do not know if I would go that far. Life is a game of death. For anything to live it has to consume the life of other living beings. Today I ate 12 chicken wings. So for my meal, 6 chicken had to die. While I did not kill them myself, as I see it, me being eager to eat them makes it no different than if I had. I do agree that it is worth questioning what right you have to make the choice for others in this setting though. Especially against what seem to be their will. And it do not bring any truly needed gain. However I am not sure I can strictly say it is wrong regardless. In the case of the robot lady in this one. My issue is that, while difficult. It seemed possible to speak with her. So one could have explained the reality of the situation. Then let her make the choice, and helped her carry it out. Put it like this. If you see someone who suffer terribly and there is no end ins sight for them. If that harm is almost for sure to happen to someone in your view. If you do not then at least consider taking action to prevent the suffering. I think that would be pretty terrible. Although I would not say one should be forced to take a life for that matter. But once inaction is also a choice. And that choice in this example cause great suffering. Causing great suffering is a terrible thing to do to someone, even if it is though inaction. ... Although to be fair. I think we all, generally speaking, do cause a lot of harm though inaction. I suppose it is all about perspective. And moral stuff being subjective, there is not really a true answer.
@@zhoupact8567 there is one playthough where they talked about the fact that because simon didnt explain the reality of the situation to her, he had no right to end her life.
By the way, there's a short series of live action episodes called SOMA - Transmissions on the official Frictional Games TH-cam channel that kinda acts like a prequel to SOMA (though it would still contain spoilers if you hadn't played the game). I know you're probably a few episodes ahead by the time of me posting this, so maybe you'll read it not so long after finishing the game. At any rate I can highly recommend watching this and maybe react to it as well. th-cam.com/play/PLWjnM4fZ4U8wLxrFXjL-95ME0QJwdz8m8.html
Idk if I'm taking this wrong, but I think the Wau-made scan of Reed is essentially an HD interpretation vs the low-res rest of the 'crew' (mainly with the flat phrasing by Cathrine, iirc). I think either they're more aware of the reality in there or maybe the difference in their consciousness makes Reed feel like a higher lifeform the way you compared Simon to the robots at (Delta?). I don't think I could play this game without an emotion support something...the comment about changing the weather in the Ark threw up so many red flags with potential existential ramifications to the current Simon's world. I've never been so hooked to a game before...the next closest was Finding Grace or maybe Detroit BH
One of the most disturbing thoughts is that your consciousness could have been uploaded to a microwave, unable to communicate, show your existence, judged to be completely worthless by Simon, Cathrine, Ryan and suddenly someone shoves a cold chicken burrito bowl inside you.
I believe Mark Sarang's idea of "continuity" is the idea that the body is no more or less "you" than the ARK hardware: both of these things facilitate the "emergent entity" of consciousness to exist and percieve itself/the world it resides in. He brought up dynamic cellular replacement as a counterpoint to people who may argue that our conscious perception is inherently tied to our physical bodies. Dynamic replacement is the idea that our bodies are not static entities but rather an emergent macroscopic structure comprised of continually transforming temporary constituents. This challenges the notion that our consciousness, and therefore identity, is bound to any one static physical object. The cells within our body are dying and being replaced, their molecular components are being degraded and synthesised, the atoms within those molecules are sourced from biomatter we consume from our environment, and these same atoms will later be expelled into our environment in our waste. No part of an organism is static, really. But the organism as an emergent whole somehow is...at least on the macroscopic scale. Its a really interesting concept that I could honestly talk for hours on, and I love how its implicated in SOMA. Also, on the topic of mitochondria (my favourite thing in nature): Mitochondria are cellular organelles, shared by all eukaryotic life. This is all animals, plants and fungi, as well as protists and algae. The first mitochondrion took a very different form than the mitos we see now. It was a prokaryotic cell with a unique set of metabolic reactions which allowed it to generate energy very efficiently. This proto-mitochondrion was its own self-sufficient organism, similar to a bacterial cell. It was engulfed by another cell, and instead of being digested it kinda just stuck around. It turned out that the engulfed proto-mitochondrion's unique energy generation conferred a huge benefit to the cell that tried to eat it. This is known as the "endosymbiotic event" which started the emergence of eukaryotic life. With this added energy efficiency, life could develop more complexity and support multicellular organisms like animals and plants. Mitochondria have their own DNA, left over from when they were independent organisms. BUT they lack DNA repair mechanisms, meaning if their DNA mutates they can't correct it. This has lead to the vast majority of mitochondrial genes migrating over to the nuclear DNA (main DNA within a cell) since nuclear DNA has proof-reading and repair capabilities. Mitochondria are therefore not self-sufficient anymore, they're dependent on the cell to replicate, so can't really be classed as their own organism.
Yup, this game is pretty good at handling philosophical themes. It came out while I was studying philosophy at uni, so It was an intersting subject to talk about in class.
This was HORRIFYING! If a machine possesses self-awareness, memory, emotions, and the capacity for suffering, does it have the right to live? Is it merciful to kill to avoid suffering? This resembles real-world debates about euthanasia. Catherine strikes me as a bit of a sociopath.
Finally! I've caught up on all of my let's plays, so I had to actually play a game myself yesterday, like a pleb. I had been met with a terrible fate. Thank you, Ryan ❤
My main problem with identity duplication thought experiments is that physical existence is an inseparable part of identity. Even if you create a perfect copy and freeze time, you can compare them side by side and say “this one is on the left, this one is on the right” meaning they were never the same identity, not even in the moment of creation. People can only believe their own identity is equal to a copy’s identity by destroying the evidence that separates the two identities, and I don’t think that counts as a single continuous stream of consciousness. More than identity, this part of the story makes me think of horrible forms of parenting. “You are not allowed to be you, because I need you to be me.”
Imagine if a corporation had scans of you, they would definitely abuse that power. Which reminds there is a film coming out in Jan 25 by the director of Parasite called ‘Micky 17’ that appears to deal with similar issues, hoping it will be good.
I do value human life/consciousness over other types of life, however not for any moral reason, only because I am human and practically speaking valuing life the most similar to you is a survival tactic. Its selfish but you need to help yourself if you want to continue to be able to help others. Now that would be the default position for me, however any kind of emotional attachments could potentially override that type of logic, ie: you have a pet that you love or your child/significant other could be rationalized as even more valuable than your own self but I digress, love makes us do crazy things.
Personally I have a pretty controversial view that a baby has less 'value' than an adult. At last while not in the situation myself. Just sitting here thinking about it. I would probably click the button to save a 70 year old rather than an infant. I would say it is based in morals. I do not value life itself. In theory you can have living human dolls if we really wanted to make them. (I wonder what they would sell for in a toy store.) But even if a human body was burned alive, it would not be a big deal right? Also, one life is another's worth. An ant is just as alive in that sense. Consciousness is valuable I would agree, but only so much. No, where I truly put value is personality and personhood. As a side note, also the connections someone makes.
@@zhoupact8567 When it comes to comparing human lives such as a baby or an adult then context becomes very important for me. If I were stuck in a nightmare facility at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean for example I'd probably also value the adult life more. But in a situation where everyone was otherwise safe then definitely the baby. Thankfully we aren't really presented with these types of trolley problems in the real world, I wouldn't have time to really think about it in that case I would just need to decide after if I had made the 'right' decision or not.
@@spyfire242 Yea its only fun to think about these things. Being in it would really suck. If you do not mind me asking. Why would you save the babies life if aside from only being able to save one, everything else is fine? I would have to really think of it probably if I knew there was a mother nearby. However in a vacuum. What is lost with the death of a baby compared to an older man or woman? The 70 year old, while having less time left if allowed to live on, has a fully built personality. And very important to me I suppose. He know to fear death. Not just on an instinctual level, but he has enough mental capacity to fear it. A baby, I would imagine not to find any worry even if you held a knife dangling over their crib. I guess I view it as a far smaller loss. Is your way of looking at it more along the lines of valuing the babies potential? Or is it more about going in line with social norms? Would it change for you if we made the example with the baby being an orphan who would go to an orphanage, while the 70 year old has a happy family and a job for example?
@@zhoupact8567 Devoid of context I just think a baby is more valuable to protect probably because they are more helpless than an adult and so it feels extra cruel to harm them, also because they have more life left to experience. I don't think the example you gave would change it for me, there is nothing wrong with being an orphan, nobody chooses to be born. I would need to have a personal connection to the adult to prefer saving them or have it be a dire situation where an adult is more valuable in the short term. Another game that tackles this kind of moral dilemma really well specifically with regards to children is Frost Punk.
@@spyfire242(I am sorry for rambling on about this. I am aware that youtube comments probably is not the place people go to discuss morals and to read walls of text. Not quite sure where one goes to do that. Feel free to just ignore my blabbering.) Its really interesting to me, although not unexpected. Obviously I agree that that there is nothing wrong with being an orphan. However surely there is nothing wrong with getting old as well. I rather not age any more if I could help it. Its not really about who deserve to die. As for being more helpless, that is true. However part of why a baby is helpless is to me why it would be less cruel to harm them, at least with a permanent end. Part of why they are helpless is that they are not a developed person with a developed mind yet. My point of the baby being an orphan is simply to say that the baby do not have loved once who would feel terrible at the loss. Compared to the family who would loose a presumably loved part of their family. If one has that information I feel the impact on other people is relevant. In my mind the correct decision of who to save, although easy to change with just a few words. Its not even close even if in the vacuum, let alone if one put the added emotional pain to persons in the adult's family on top. (A mother loosing their baby probably having more weight than a family loosing their husband. Hm... why though. How odd.) To me the killing of a baby, especially one without any connections. Is a lot closer to killing a chicken than it would be to killing... Well a person. I guess that is key thing. I do not think a baby becomes a person before it has had quite some time to develop. And even when it do its not like an on off switch. I would be far, far more reluctant to pick a 70 year old over 4~5 year old as at that point the personhood ball is really rolling. Now that I think about it. It is very strange how easy the choice is changed. Because if indeed it was just about harming. Say instead of ending one of their life for x reason. Instead I would have had to decide who of the two looses an arm. Then it would be still an easy choice to me, but the choice would be to save the arm of the baby. In this case being an orphan would have minimal impact and not change anything. ... Although. What if the old guy was a surgeon who save lives every week? D: Now I would have a hard time deciding.
I dont think the pre ark digital copies and engrams are that spooky. Before they were just snapshots of someones brain recreated in a simulation, a scenario that could be replayed and/or altered. Basically the evolution of munchis theory. After the WAU cracked it and made the snapshots actually functional intelligences it completely shifted the whole concept. They were not just momentary snapshots of someones brain, they were copies of that persons brain. Hence why catherines ar capsule was just a cute little pet project but the ARK became the sole purpose of pathos.
The tv series 'Upload' made me think about this as well a while ago. I personally don't think your conscious transfers. It's just a copy. It'll be exactly like you and have your memories, but it won't be *you*. So no, you don't get to upload yourself and live forever. But a copy of you will. That's what I feel is happening.
Isn’t it amazing how we can justify something, even if it’s unpleasant or goes against typical ethics, especially when one’s survival is on the line. Imagine not getting that chip because you refused to destroy either robot, that would be it, you’d be stuck, no way to progress and no way back.
The first time I tried to play this game I thought it was just a scary underwater survival horror and then I got to Carl and I agonized over what to do and just shut off the game for a few years
Loving this play through! Apologies if this has been mentioned, but you should watch the movie "The Prestige". No spoilers, but it shares some themes explored in this episode.
"One more room" he said unknowingly, entering the Lore Room.
The entire intro sequence is one of the reasons we are watching ryan :D
EDIT: i believe no other game made Ryan think so much like SOMA. You can see and HEAR the game eating him from the inside.
Ryan going "This is a horror game alright" and it wasn't a monster part... YES! SOMA is so good!
The beautiful thing about this game is it doesn't tell you what the "right" answer is for any of the situations you encounter. It presents you with a situation and asks you the player to make a judgement call based on your own beliefs and experiences. And sometimes there isn't a right choice at all, but simply one you perceive to be the lesser of two evils.
This game really challenged me when I played it to take a look at my preconceived notions of "What it means to be alive" and really think about it in ways I hadn't before. And it will always hold a special place in my mind for it.
I love how the main character is written and acted as having compassion for things with a consciousness.
its also simons conciousness desperately fighting for himself. He knows on some level that he is a robot, just like any of the people we meet in the game. So if he views their life as something disposable or temporary, how does he justify that for himself? He struggles with accepting his own reality, trying to hold onto his past human life, so he views these robots he meets as something different, this is what catherine uses to try and make him move along with her plans. Deep down though simon is fighting a horrible battle.
Okay, yeah, I'm convinced - I would LOVE for you to play Talos Principle. (Both the first game and its sequel.)
They're puzzle games. I know puzzle games aren't your usual for this channel, but the writing and dialog are just too good for you NOT to cover them.
Without spoiling anything, their stories are EXTREMELY philosophical, and involve interactive Socratic dialogue as a regular gameplay mechanic between puzzles.
(I also mentioned this to you in your stream today, but I'm saying it on here as well just to help it stick into your memory 😜)
I love that you take the time to think through and talk through all of the dilemmas, decisions and philosophies in this game. Your playthroughs are always unique and enjoyable because of it! look forward to more, my dude
That first decision is my favorite to watch people make.
To this day, never seen someone kill our little robot friend
“This whole problem is a problem…”
Truer words, my dude; truer words. 😢
I made this decision by considering potential future suffering. The K8 doesn't really have a consciousness. It just exists, forever. The other bot with a human mind does, though. Currently he's deluded and believes that he is still human and content, but there is a lot of potential for something to change. He could realize what he actually is, something could break internally and go wrong, or any other number of things could happen that could cause suffering - and that suffering could potentially be endless. "Killing" him is more humane imo because it prevents that possibility from happening, on top of the other justifications that you gave. The same logic applies to Robin, but even more so since she's trapped there with no chance of agency if she ever does become aware or something goes wrong
how can you determine whether or not what they experience is actually suffering?
Your potential suffering isnt their suffering. Anything simon kills out of his own will is never a "good choice", it might be a better one, especially for him. But ending a life, no matter what justifications you use to get there, is never the choice you should be making.
But by that standard, stuff could get better. The AI may make a breakthrough at some point, for whatever reason, and grasp onto some sort of heaven concept to bring the people it 'saved' into. Even with potential suffering, why do you feel you should get to make the decision for others 'lives'?
Other than that. K8, based on it acting scared after you kill. Do that not hint that its actually know what it is doing and what is going on? There is no obvious signs of it. However if a consciousness was to be put into it. Unlike the other robots, it can not talk. It only has the capability to beep and boop.
@@mattimeikalainen6963 Although I would agree, I do not know if I would go that far. Life is a game of death. For anything to live it has to consume the life of other living beings. Today I ate 12 chicken wings. So for my meal, 6 chicken had to die. While I did not kill them myself, as I see it, me being eager to eat them makes it no different than if I had.
I do agree that it is worth questioning what right you have to make the choice for others in this setting though. Especially against what seem to be their will. And it do not bring any truly needed gain. However I am not sure I can strictly say it is wrong regardless. In the case of the robot lady in this one. My issue is that, while difficult. It seemed possible to speak with her. So one could have explained the reality of the situation. Then let her make the choice, and helped her carry it out.
Put it like this. If you see someone who suffer terribly and there is no end ins sight for them. If that harm is almost for sure to happen to someone in your view. If you do not then at least consider taking action to prevent the suffering. I think that would be pretty terrible. Although I would not say one should be forced to take a life for that matter. But once inaction is also a choice. And that choice in this example cause great suffering. Causing great suffering is a terrible thing to do to someone, even if it is though inaction.
... Although to be fair. I think we all, generally speaking, do cause a lot of harm though inaction.
I suppose it is all about perspective. And moral stuff being subjective, there is not really a true answer.
@@zhoupact8567 there is one playthough where they talked about the fact that because simon didnt explain the reality of the situation to her, he had no right to end her life.
By the way, there's a short series of live action episodes called SOMA - Transmissions on the official Frictional Games TH-cam channel that kinda acts like a prequel to SOMA (though it would still contain spoilers if you hadn't played the game). I know you're probably a few episodes ahead by the time of me posting this, so maybe you'll read it not so long after finishing the game.
At any rate I can highly recommend watching this and maybe react to it as well.
th-cam.com/play/PLWjnM4fZ4U8wLxrFXjL-95ME0QJwdz8m8.html
Love to have a writer give a real analysis of the writing of this game. Truly one of the best of all time.
Idk if I'm taking this wrong, but I think the Wau-made scan of Reed is essentially an HD interpretation vs the low-res rest of the 'crew' (mainly with the flat phrasing by Cathrine, iirc). I think either they're more aware of the reality in there or maybe the difference in their consciousness makes Reed feel like a higher lifeform the way you compared Simon to the robots at (Delta?). I don't think I could play this game without an emotion support something...the comment about changing the weather in the Ark threw up so many red flags with potential existential ramifications to the current Simon's world. I've never been so hooked to a game before...the next closest was Finding Grace or maybe Detroit BH
If there was one horror game that I think should be played on this channel, it is 100% Soma. Kudos to whoever suggested it.
Another incredible SOMA video!
Less than 20 minutes in and I'm greatly enjoying listening to your thoughts about the game and the questions it asks its players. 😊
One of the most disturbing thoughts is that your consciousness could have been uploaded to a microwave, unable to communicate, show your existence, judged to be completely worthless by Simon, Cathrine, Ryan and suddenly someone shoves a cold chicken burrito bowl inside you.
I love the way you play this game. I really enjoy your thoughts and insights on the story.
32:54 “This is a horror game alright.” That’s why this game really sticks with people. The monsters aren’t the real horror.
I believe Mark Sarang's idea of "continuity" is the idea that the body is no more or less "you" than the ARK hardware: both of these things facilitate the "emergent entity" of consciousness to exist and percieve itself/the world it resides in. He brought up dynamic cellular replacement as a counterpoint to people who may argue that our conscious perception is inherently tied to our physical bodies. Dynamic replacement is the idea that our bodies are not static entities but rather an emergent macroscopic structure comprised of continually transforming temporary constituents. This challenges the notion that our consciousness, and therefore identity, is bound to any one static physical object. The cells within our body are dying and being replaced, their molecular components are being degraded and synthesised, the atoms within those molecules are sourced from biomatter we consume from our environment, and these same atoms will later be expelled into our environment in our waste. No part of an organism is static, really. But the organism as an emergent whole somehow is...at least on the macroscopic scale. Its a really interesting concept that I could honestly talk for hours on, and I love how its implicated in SOMA.
Also, on the topic of mitochondria (my favourite thing in nature):
Mitochondria are cellular organelles, shared by all eukaryotic life. This is all animals, plants and fungi, as well as protists and algae. The first mitochondrion took a very different form than the mitos we see now. It was a prokaryotic cell with a unique set of metabolic reactions which allowed it to generate energy very efficiently. This proto-mitochondrion was its own self-sufficient organism, similar to a bacterial cell. It was engulfed by another cell, and instead of being digested it kinda just stuck around. It turned out that the engulfed proto-mitochondrion's unique energy generation conferred a huge benefit to the cell that tried to eat it. This is known as the "endosymbiotic event" which started the emergence of eukaryotic life. With this added energy efficiency, life could develop more complexity and support multicellular organisms like animals and plants.
Mitochondria have their own DNA, left over from when they were independent organisms. BUT they lack DNA repair mechanisms, meaning if their DNA mutates they can't correct it. This has lead to the vast majority of mitochondrial genes migrating over to the nuclear DNA (main DNA within a cell) since nuclear DNA has proof-reading and repair capabilities. Mitochondria are therefore not self-sufficient anymore, they're dependent on the cell to replicate, so can't really be classed as their own organism.
Yup, this game is pretty good at handling philosophical themes. It came out while I was studying philosophy at uni, so It was an intersting subject to talk about in class.
So interesting to see people discussing the 2 choices in this episode
This was HORRIFYING! If a machine possesses self-awareness, memory, emotions, and the capacity for suffering, does it have the right to live? Is it merciful to kill to avoid suffering? This resembles real-world debates about euthanasia.
Catherine strikes me as a bit of a sociopath.
Loving your playthrough
Phenomenal, lore-filled episode
Don't say useful man, don't go down that road haha. The absolute worst term to use to determine who deserves to be put down 💀
Finally! I've caught up on all of my let's plays, so I had to actually play a game myself yesterday, like a pleb.
I had been met with a terrible fate. Thank you, Ryan ❤
Ryan: If I named you, I cant harm you.
My main problem with identity duplication thought experiments is that physical existence is an inseparable part of identity. Even if you create a perfect copy and freeze time, you can compare them side by side and say “this one is on the left, this one is on the right” meaning they were never the same identity, not even in the moment of creation. People can only believe their own identity is equal to a copy’s identity by destroying the evidence that separates the two identities, and I don’t think that counts as a single continuous stream of consciousness.
More than identity, this part of the story makes me think of horrible forms of parenting. “You are not allowed to be you, because I need you to be me.”
You will from now on call your brain your "Justification machine" 9:00 Haha
great episode
Imagine if a corporation had scans of you, they would definitely abuse that power. Which reminds there is a film coming out in Jan 25 by the director of Parasite called ‘Micky 17’ that appears to deal with similar issues, hoping it will be good.
I do value human life/consciousness over other types of life, however not for any moral reason, only because I am human and practically speaking valuing life the most similar to you is a survival tactic. Its selfish but you need to help yourself if you want to continue to be able to help others.
Now that would be the default position for me, however any kind of emotional attachments could potentially override that type of logic, ie: you have a pet that you love or your child/significant other could be rationalized as even more valuable than your own self but I digress, love makes us do crazy things.
Personally I have a pretty controversial view that a baby has less 'value' than an adult. At last while not in the situation myself. Just sitting here thinking about it. I would probably click the button to save a 70 year old rather than an infant.
I would say it is based in morals. I do not value life itself. In theory you can have living human dolls if we really wanted to make them. (I wonder what they would sell for in a toy store.) But even if a human body was burned alive, it would not be a big deal right? Also, one life is another's worth. An ant is just as alive in that sense.
Consciousness is valuable I would agree, but only so much.
No, where I truly put value is personality and personhood. As a side note, also the connections someone makes.
@@zhoupact8567 When it comes to comparing human lives such as a baby or an adult then context becomes very important for me. If I were stuck in a nightmare facility at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean for example I'd probably also value the adult life more. But in a situation where everyone was otherwise safe then definitely the baby. Thankfully we aren't really presented with these types of trolley problems in the real world, I wouldn't have time to really think about it in that case I would just need to decide after if I had made the 'right' decision or not.
@@spyfire242 Yea its only fun to think about these things. Being in it would really suck.
If you do not mind me asking. Why would you save the babies life if aside from only being able to save one, everything else is fine?
I would have to really think of it probably if I knew there was a mother nearby. However in a vacuum. What is lost with the death of a baby compared to an older man or woman? The 70 year old, while having less time left if allowed to live on, has a fully built personality. And very important to me I suppose. He know to fear death. Not just on an instinctual level, but he has enough mental capacity to fear it.
A baby, I would imagine not to find any worry even if you held a knife dangling over their crib.
I guess I view it as a far smaller loss. Is your way of looking at it more along the lines of valuing the babies potential? Or is it more about going in line with social norms?
Would it change for you if we made the example with the baby being an orphan who would go to an orphanage, while the 70 year old has a happy family and a job for example?
@@zhoupact8567 Devoid of context I just think a baby is more valuable to protect probably because they are more helpless than an adult and so it feels extra cruel to harm them, also because they have more life left to experience. I don't think the example you gave would change it for me, there is nothing wrong with being an orphan, nobody chooses to be born. I would need to have a personal connection to the adult to prefer saving them or have it be a dire situation where an adult is more valuable in the short term. Another game that tackles this kind of moral dilemma really well specifically with regards to children is Frost Punk.
@@spyfire242(I am sorry for rambling on about this. I am aware that youtube comments probably is not the place people go to discuss morals and to read walls of text. Not quite sure where one goes to do that. Feel free to just ignore my blabbering.)
Its really interesting to me, although not unexpected.
Obviously I agree that that there is nothing wrong with being an orphan. However surely there is nothing wrong with getting old as well. I rather not age any more if I could help it. Its not really about who deserve to die. As for being more helpless, that is true. However part of why a baby is helpless is to me why it would be less cruel to harm them, at least with a permanent end. Part of why they are helpless is that they are not a developed person with a developed mind yet.
My point of the baby being an orphan is simply to say that the baby do not have loved once who would feel terrible at the loss. Compared to the family who would loose a presumably loved part of their family. If one has that information I feel the impact on other people is relevant.
In my mind the correct decision of who to save, although easy to change with just a few words. Its not even close even if in the vacuum, let alone if one put the added emotional pain to persons in the adult's family on top. (A mother loosing their baby probably having more weight than a family loosing their husband. Hm... why though. How odd.)
To me the killing of a baby, especially one without any connections. Is a lot closer to killing a chicken than it would be to killing... Well a person. I guess that is key thing. I do not think a baby becomes a person before it has had quite some time to develop. And even when it do its not like an on off switch.
I would be far, far more reluctant to pick a 70 year old over 4~5 year old as at that point the personhood ball is really rolling.
Now that I think about it. It is very strange how easy the choice is changed. Because if indeed it was just about harming. Say instead of ending one of their life for x reason. Instead I would have had to decide who of the two looses an arm. Then it would be still an easy choice to me, but the choice would be to save the arm of the baby. In this case being an orphan would have minimal impact and not change anything.
...
Although. What if the old guy was a surgeon who save lives every week? D: Now I would have a hard time deciding.
I dont think the pre ark digital copies and engrams are that spooky. Before they were just snapshots of someones brain recreated in a simulation, a scenario that could be replayed and/or altered. Basically the evolution of munchis theory. After the WAU cracked it and made the snapshots actually functional intelligences it completely shifted the whole concept. They were not just momentary snapshots of someones brain, they were copies of that persons brain. Hence why catherines ar capsule was just a cute little pet project but the ARK became the sole purpose of pathos.
The tv series 'Upload' made me think about this as well a while ago. I personally don't think your conscious transfers. It's just a copy. It'll be exactly like you and have your memories, but it won't be *you*. So no, you don't get to upload yourself and live forever. But a copy of you will. That's what I feel is happening.
Yeah this game leaves you with a knot in your stomach for oh so many reasons.
Isn’t it amazing how we can justify something, even if it’s unpleasant or goes against typical ethics, especially when one’s survival is on the line. Imagine not getting that chip because you refused to destroy either robot, that would be it, you’d be stuck, no way to progress and no way back.
"legacies" in software development means older versions. so shes saying Catherine and some older, inferior copies
Barely one minute into this video and Simon has to kill one of the little robots, noooo!! 😢
You should play road 96 if you haven’t already
The first time I tried to play this game I thought it was just a scary underwater survival horror and then I got to Carl and I agonized over what to do and just shut off the game for a few years
Loving this play through!
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but you should watch the movie "The Prestige". No spoilers, but it shares some themes explored in this episode.