Talk:Voight-Kampff machine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Hang on a sec...
I thought the Voight-Kampff test was a last minute attempt to give a false sense of security to humans who live in a world where no one can be sure of what is real and what is synthetic (replicated). Don't forget, this is from out the mind of Phil K Dick who was himself never too sure what is real or not and who loved to play on that aspect. Now, the test doesn't work, it's complete bull (much like the polygraph test many may say) and if there is any test, it's not the Voight-Kampff box that will tell the truth but the interviewer himself (sounds familiar?). It's pretty obvious in the book but less so in the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.205.102.214 (talk • contribs) 14 February 2006.
- Well, my copy of the book is boxed up, but I recall pretty clearly that the reason the VK could detect an android (replicant, in the film) is that the robots could not produce the usual iris contraction, capillary dilation (blush response) as quickly as a human. Something like, humans react can within 20ms, but the androids can't do it faster than 45ms,.... As adapted to the film, the questions are to produce emotional responses, so the VK could "read" these ... like a tricorder, I guess. Arguably, a sophisticated device could track, record, and tabulate the timings ... or maybe (as the prop was made) the operator had to do that, rather like reading a rudimentary radar. Take Leon's reaction to the turtle question. Hello, couldn't Holden smell trouble with that one? Ah-ha-ha.... --David Spalding | Talk 03:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Questions Themselves
I do notice that the vast majority of the questions have something to do with animals and living creatures....it seems to be based on the fact that in the novel, "real" animals are now so scarce that people in general do not like the idea of seeing one harmed or killed..thus the references to the tortoise, the calfskin wallet, the butterfly collection, the wasp, the banquet that serves boiled dogs, etc.
- I think that the reason is that animals are considered "lesser" creaures advancement wise. When you think about it, to a replicant, humans must be seen as fairly basic as any primal animal. Also there are ironic leanings to the questions. A tortoise is relatively helpless, therefore signifying a stress responce due to haplessness. A calfskin wallet means that you have the ability to visualize, and materialize a responce because you need to know what a calf actually looks like, to feel sorry for it. The wasp. Now, I know that if I saw a wasp on my arm, I'd probably freak out, wildly flailing my limbs. Thats what they're looking for in a responce. Finally, the dog. Dog is man's best friend, right? Therefore, a dog is seen as a companion animal equal to a man. So, it's sort of like cannabalism in a sense. It would be like eating another human being, empathically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.117.1041 January 2007 (talk • contribs).
- In the novel, "real animals" are very, very expensive collectors' items. I recall that Deckard takes on the job to earn money to buy one (he carries a price list, as one of us might carry a Star Trek memorabilia price list). Also, in the film, free will is a consistent major theme, and the tortoise question directly points this up. "You're not helping it, Leon. Why is that?" "Whaddya mean I'm not helping it?" "I mean you're NOT helping it." Look for elements of "free will" or choice in the other questions, I think you'll find more to think about. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
