In this last review, I intend to wrap up my refutation of the film and short story’s thesis, “Nobody knows what ‘real’ really means.” I’ve already discussed how the word ‘real’ is being conflated with value, and I also brought up that, whether this was done intentionally or not, the point behind this maneuver was to make the audience believe that ‘real’ meant objective truth rather than realize that the thesis assaults their own value as human beings. I broke the argument down as follows: “Real” is unknowable. Because “real” is unknowable, the value of one thing from another is irrelevant. Therefore, objective human value does not exist. I’ve already dealt with premise A, and that by itself is enough to make the argument collapse, but there are additional issues with premises B and C. When it comes to premise B, another way to describe the problem would be to say that since no one knows what “real” really means, value has no discernible characteristics. But I’ve already shown that ‘real’ is distinguishable enough as …

What is “Real?” In the previous review, I finished my thoughts on the movie, but I wanted to spend some time refuting the thesis of both the short story, Super Toys Last All Summer Long, by Brian Aldiss, and the movie. The statement is as follows. “Nobody knows what ‘real’ really means.” There are numerous ways to approach this statement, but for the purposes of this article, I’m going to focus on refuting the question as it applies to humanity because, in the context of the story, “real” is being conflated with humanity and human value. In other words, “What makes a life valuable?” So, the story is not talking about how to determine reality as a whole; it’s really attacking human exceptionalism, claiming that if a robot can replicate a human’s behavior, then the robot’s and the human’s value are interchangeable, and, if one wants to be uncharitable, they could claim that a human life isn’t worth preserving if a robot can perform the same purpose. This is one of the reasons I believe the Flesh …