403 replies to this topic

[Charlemagne19]

So, how evil is the Dollhouse? What is justifiable and what's not?

Theoretically, these people are volunteers and they are compensated for it. How evil is it really to engage in this sort of behavior and how much could/should they be allowed to get away with it.

Personally, there's some very bizarre moral conundrums that this technology raises.

[While A Coyote]

Except logic says the Dollhouse is lying to these people. So whatever consent they got at the beginning would probably be based on false promises.

While on one level it seems like the DollKeepers are very protective of the Dolls, on another they are clearly very ruthless.

Consider this.

A Doll would never know when (or if) their five years are up. The only people who might know (outside of the people who run the Dollhouse) are the run of the mill employees--who could be rotated out every few years. Or the Dolls themselves could be moved to other Houses, letting the employees of the one think they're being let go. Or the Dolls could be "disappeared" into a nice quiet grave.

But lets assume more than greed, the ability to keep their assets indefinitely without any kind of payout, is motivating the DollKeepers. Even still, letting the Dolls go seems incredibly unlikely. How would you explain the five year absences? The answer is, you couldn't, and that's a danger any organization of this power wouldn't see as acceptable. Ergo, they are almost certainly lying about the Endgame for these people.

[Charlemagne19]

Maybe.

OTOH, we're also dealing with an organization that can manipulate memories. It's possible that they're left with no memory of the Dollhouse "deal" and only a bank account with the money or so on. They could also have fake memories too.

But yes, there's no reason why the Dollhouse SHOULD pay these people and let them go.

[While A Coyote]

Maybe.

OTOH, we're also dealing with an organization that can manipulate memories. It's possible that they're left with no memory of the Dollhouse "deal" and only a bank account with the money or so on. They could also have fake memories too.

But yes, there's no reason why the Dollhouse SHOULD pay these people and let them go.

Plopping someone down with a memory of, lets say, having lived in Africa for the past five years, isn't a perfect solution. And it would be even worse if they tried to give them memories including people from that fake five years who they might want to check back with.

But it's not THEIR memories or lack thereof of the five years that's the primary danger. It's the rest of the world's.

No man or woman is an island. Even if we accept some premise that only orphans are used (and that's a stretch), there are still friends, former neighbors, public records, the possibility that some criminal investigation might look into their pasts, etc. There are just too many ways for it to go wrong, and all it takes is one time and the wrong person checking into things. Because no matter what your moral decision on the Dollhouse is, there's zero doubt that it's massively illegal, and so won't want to risk anything they don't have to.

[Charlemagne19]

True,

I suppose "Coma Victim" is about the only thing you could do and that might get noticeable after awhile.

[Homo_Sapien]

I surprised that most reviewers have chosen to ignore the fact that 'Dollhouse' is pretty much analogous to Whorehouse. The 'clients' pay for the 'dolls' to be whoever and do ~whatever~ they want -- money being the deciding factor.

In the book Neuromancer, there was a female character who made money by 'turning off her brain' and letting clients use her body with a different character 'memory chip' installed. She knew she was prostituting herself, but did not have to deal with the memories of the ick-factor. Her clients were not always interested in perverse sexual 'engagements' -- but yeah, they mostly were...

"A house full of hot chicks" who are basically programmable meat puppets? I'm not seeing how Echo can the hero in this scenario. And a very strange premise by Joss (girl-power) Whedon...

Edited by Homo_Sapien, Feb 14, 2009 @ 11:14 AM.

[Charlemagne19]

"A house full of hot chicks" who are basically programmable meat puppets? I'm not seeing how Echo can the hero in this scenario. And a very strange premise for Joss (girl-power) Whedon...

I think that it's interesting to note Variety was the one who questioned why Joss Whedon had the Pretender-like premise when they stated that this seems pretty much tailored to being something that would work best as a sex industry.

And, true to form, the first assignment is "A rich man gets his dream girl."

[stillshimpy]

In thinking it over the part that truly bothers me is that Echo and the others are nearly blank in between downloads. In some ways that suggests that their true personalities have been put into cold storage for the entire time they are Dolls. I could live with the original premise that people signed up for this willingly, without being coerced, that it was done as a willing choice for financial gain. I didn't realize the premise had been altered so that people in desperate circumstances would choose this as some sort of alternative to punishment. That makes the Dollhouse itself the stand-in for the punishment, it makes their time there the punishment.

I was a lot more at peace with this concept when it was something willingly undertaken for financial gain at the end of a time period. I guess that the reaction was that people couldn't understand why anyone would do that, but it has had the result of coating the entire endeavor in a lot of slime.

A desperate young woman who seemingly committed some crime in the process of trying to make the world a better place, signs off on a contract while visibly harried and distressed just makes the entire thing currently too sinister for me.

[Fat Elvis 007]

"A house full of hot chicks" who are basically programmable meat puppets? I'm not seeing how Echo can the hero in this scenario. And a very strange premise by Joss (girl-power) Whedon...

What is stopping Echo from being the hero? She is not the one making the rules of the Dollhouse, she is just a victim of it right now. She may have signed up for it, but I have no doubt it isn't quite what she bargained for. I think it's clear that throughout the show she is going to grow more aware of what is wrong with this situation and probably rebel against it. I hope they take this slow, though, because once she is actively fighting the Dollhouse I don't see how the premise can survive. But seeing her break out of this repressive system and maybe taking some revenge and saving others from it seems very heroic and feminists to me.

[Silvers]

I'm reposting my reply from the episode thread about the mind-wipe factor since it seemed to go along more with the conversation here:

It is not Echo consenting to any particular act, but consenting to the concept of a particular act long before the act takes place. Echo has no power to revoke consent, to deem any situation unacceptable, to practice an active choice.

This. The only parallel with prostitution I can see is if prostitutes were given a date-rape drug every time they saw a john and had no memory of the event. I know women (and men) can be forced and trapped into prostitution, but the mind-wiping goes beyond that. I refer again to similarities with La Femme Nikita, where the operatives were coerced into joining Section One because of previous crimes. In that show, they might have only obeyed orders because of a fear of being killed, but at least they were cognizant of their actions.

I think Echo/Caroline was desperate to get out her trouble and didn't see any other alternative. People don't think rationally when they're scared. I have no problem believing she didn't know what she was getting herself into doing.

Also I agree with stillshimpy that the fact the actives are basically zombies in between is disturbing. Even looking at the issue pragmatically, isn't it a lot of trouble for the Dollhouse employees to constantly make up excuses why people don't remember anything. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Aunty Mib]

Part of the fairytale set up that bothers me is that it seems as if the Tahmoh Pennicut character is going to be the White Knight coming to her rescue. I had hoped that he would be one of the other dolls.

[While A Coyote]

In thinking it over the part that truly bothers me is that Echo and the others are nearly blank in between downloads. In some ways that suggests that their true personalities have been put into cold storage for the entire time they are Dolls. I could live with the original premise that people signed up for this willingly, without being coerced, that it was done as a willing choice for financial gain. I didn't realize the premise had been altered so that people in desperate circumstances would choose this as some sort of alternative to punishment. That makes the Dollhouse itself the stand-in for the punishment, it makes their time there the punishment.

I was a lot more at peace with this concept when it was something willingly undertaken for financial gain at the end of a time period. I guess that the reaction was that people couldn't understand why anyone would do that, but it has had the result of coating the entire endeavor in a lot of slime.

A desperate young woman who seemingly committed some crime in the process of trying to make the world a better place, signs off on a contract while visibly harried and distressed just makes the entire thing currently too sinister for me.

But we SAW Caroline voluntarily sign up. Coerced by circumstances, no doubt horribly lied to about what would happen afterwords (as discussed elsewhere I'm SURE the Dolls never actually get "out") but yes it was voluntary.

And I have to ask what you mean by "live with" when you discuss the concept. Do you mean "live with" in terms of accepting that someone would choose to write a story about it? Or do you mean "live with" as if you are also holding Joss Whedon responsible for disreputable things people do IN his stories?

I ask because the choice here obviously seems to be to show the Dollhouse owners and handlers as bad guys. So I don't think we are supposed to be able to "live with" it. We are supposed to be outraged. At the Dollhouse. Whether or not you carry that outrage over to Whedon for deciding to write about it is an entirely different issue.

[bluefish]

All this talk on rape and prostitution, well you're not going to like what Whedon said in Salon.

http://www.salon.com...11/joss_whedon/

I believe that prostitution is not, in concept, repulsive. I believe that people are gonna want to have sex for a long time. Eventually, I think that computers and TVs will become so awesome that they'll stop wanting to ...

Besides the fact I don't like that statement where it's okay for prostitutes/women to give up their body/health, their pride and their dignity for money as if that's an aspiration for women. I don't think he really explore the whys of a Doll/prostitution that would have been grey, that for some it's not just having "something else", it's "something" it's a level of basic intimacy (companionship) that some people turn to that they can't seem to find with people around them. And I don't think Echo signed up for supposedly five years of her life for her body to be used in that way. That's suppose to make a difference? And does this show actually explain what will happen if five years later, Echo accidentally meets up with clients who remember her but she has no idea who or what she did with them or that skeevy knowing looks that will have the empowering and dehumanizing edge over her. This is basically slavery and I don't find anything awesome about that. She's stripped of her humanity (walking around like a drunk zombie) and identity at their whims and isn't even allowed to react. How can anyone character develop from that? She'll be the constant victim that needs to be "helped." She'll need another five years of showers for that.


It's a weird that when Echo/Caroline faced a down period in her life her first decision is to sign over life to some unknown organization. What does that say about women?

I don't know how Echo is suppose to be the hero character or overcome this when every time she might get defiant or questioning they just blank her out and the only flashback memories are the ones in the Dollhouse, not even the memory of her own childhood.

Edited by bluefish, Feb 14, 2009 @ 1:18 PM.

[EPThompson]

At this point, the Dollhouse looks like a pretty monstrously amoral organization. They have the power of identity, determing the beliefs, thoughts and actions of people. Given their paranoia and ruthlessness I heavily doubt they get out at the end, and there does not seem to have been full awareness of what they were getting into initially.

It's even worse than that, though. Everytime a girl goes on a mission they have a new personality, new memories, new sense of self. Regardless of whether those memories came from people that are dead and gone, and the body didn't have them naturally, at that point they are a certain type of person. And, at the end of each mission, they're mind-wiped without their knowledge or consent, and effectively killed. Every mission is then involves the murder of the person, to any real capacity.

The whole thing is like the 'Perky Pat' dolls and drugs from Philip K. Dick's The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, except far less consensual and much more disturbing.

Besides the fact I don't like that statement where it's okay for prostitutes/women to give up their body/health, their pride and their dignity for money as if that's an aspiration for women. I don't think he really explore the whys of a Doll/prostitution that would have been grey, that for some it's not just having "something else", it's "something" it's a level of basic intimacy (companionship) that some people turn to that they can't seem to find with people around them. And I don't think Echo signed up for supposedly five years of her life for her body to be used in that way. That's suppose to make a difference? And does this show actually explain what will happen if five years later, Echo accidentally meets up with clients who remember her but she has no idea who or what she did with them or that skeevy knowing looks that will have the empowering and dehumanizing edge over her. This is basically slavery and I don't find anything awesome about that.

Honestly, in an ideal situation where it's not coercive, prostitution would be money earned for time/energy/skills applied. Provided it's done with empowerment and relative choice, there's nothing inherently immoral about prostituing. It's part of the function of a competitive capitalist economy. Is it inherently worse to provide sex for money than to work eleven hour shifts in dangerous, unsanitary factory conditions for minimal pay? Is it worse than being squeezed by limited employment fields into the National Guard and being shipped overseas to risk killing/dying?

Of course in most real-world scenarios there are a huge line of abuses, from physical battering, coercion, rape, socio-economic pressure, fear, disease, death. A lot of that comes from the field being beyond the law in most countries, hence activities that occur will be regulated by criminal forces rather than legal ones. There are major problems in this field and in the overwhelming set of circumstances prostitution is degrading, dissempowering, coercive and destructive. But inherently? No.

I'll also note that in his commentary Whedon wasn't saying that the high-tech slavery was awesome, he was applying it to independent technological processes that would make sex obsolete. The tone of the interview is to characterize the Dollhouse as a very sketchy, Wolfram and Hart esque, murky, illegal venture; I don't think the moral questions are lost in this show.

[Fabrisse]

At this point, the Dollhouse looks like a pretty monstrously amoral organization. They have the power of identity, determing the beliefs, thoughts and actions of people.

I'm going to take issue with your wording. EPThompson. Amoral means neither moral nor immoral. I think the Dollhouse is immoral. It is actively removing free will from the dolls, and we still have no idea how it gets the personalities it uses as basis for its imprints. The technology is amoral because it's human users who make the choices, but the organization itself is firmly immoral and, I think, counterproductive socially.

On the social side, this is definitely a case of the rich sticking it to the poor or at least the "poorer than they are." It's highly unlikely that a rich kid, even one in trouble with the law, would choose or even be approached about Doll status.

But I may have to kiss you for this:

And, at the end of each mission, they're mind-wiped without their knowledge or consent, and effectively killed. Every mission is then involves the murder of the person, to any real capacity.

because I hadn't grasped that implication yet. Since they've established that the imprints are amalgamations of other personalities, the person being erased with each wipe is a unique entity which makes it murder indeed.

[Charlemagne19]

The FBI agent says that the personalities being overwritten are being effectively murdered. So it's not so much subtext in the story that each time a person is erased by the Dollhouse that they're being murdered, it's in fact actually text. If you're an atheist, it's interesting to think about the concept of "life" as formed by a collection of memories and one's personality. The Dollhouse actually has the power of God.

They can resurrect the dead, for all intents and purposes. The hostage negotiator woman was a suicide victim but, for all intents and purposes, reborn while Echo was channeling her.

[Homo_Sapien]

In the current Dollhouse scenario, Echo is the victim of the week. Every week.

Even if she becomes more aware of her situation, she doesn't really become the hero until she starts rebelling against the Dollhouse or goes rogue. The only potential hero is her 'personality of the week', who can accomplish the mission. And that personality is wiped/killed at the end of each 'engagement'.

Seriously, didn't anyone note the ick factor of this concept before green lighting it? This is more in the territory of socially awkward nerd boy fantasy of having unattainable hot girls unwillingly do his bidding. It doesn't help that the resident tech geek acts as if he is building sex-bots.

Edited by Homo_Sapien, Feb 14, 2009 @ 2:09 PM.

[Fabrisse]

My take on what the FBI guy said was that the Dolls were being effectively murdered by having their personalities erased rather than the later personality inserts being murdered.

If the Dollhouse lives up to its contract, and I agree that's iffy, then the dolls will get their personalities back? Or will they get a whole new personality akin to witness protection stories? The Dolls personality death may or may not be complete -- and it will certainly be missing a large chunk of time if the original is reinserted. The modified "perfect for the job" personalities are definitively killed -- though we don't know whether they're also erased or whether they can be re-used.

Another set of "who are we" implications. What if Sierra gets Miss Penn as personality download in a later episode? Was Miss Penn murdered in this one? Does it make it better or worse that the personalities might be recycled?

[Charlemagne19]

Even if she becomes more aware of her situation, she doesn't really become the hero until she starts rebelling against the Dollhouse or goes rogue. The only potential hero is her 'personality of the week', who can accomplish the mission. And that personality is wiped/killed at the end of each 'engagement'.

Only if the personality is wiped away totally. An interesting concept is that the Dollhouse is actually wrong and the people are sort of like Multiple Personality Syndrome victims (Disassociative Identity Disorder) and not actually basically being "killed" and "resurrected" at will.

In order words, it's brainwashing, not actually possession for all intents and purposes. Topher just makes them THINK like the person they're representing for X amount of period and gives them the skill set.

When in fact, it's not "Miss Hostage Negotiator" but Echo THINKING she's Miss Hostage negotiator. Which can show through various performances.

Edited by Charlemagne19, Feb 14, 2009 @ 2:14 PM.

[Silvers]

Part of the fairytale set up that bothers me is that it seems as if the Tahmoh Pennicut character is going to be the White Knight coming to her rescue. I had hoped that he would be one of the other dolls.

Yeah, I'm not really sure where they are going with that. It seems a bit unnecessary. I feel like they are going for some kind of reverse Jarod/Miss Parker vibe -- Echo won't realize FBI guy is trying to help her get out, but they eventually unite? It would have been interesting if Tahmoh was one of the other actives and (maybe they fought against the Dollhouse together?). I noticed that Echo didn't really seem to interact with the other actives. They all seemed to be in their own zombie-like world.

I agree with those that are skeptical the Dollhouse ever lets you go. It's like Hotel California. They are probably like, "Sure you can leave -- right after I put a bullet in your head." Of course, without any memory, the actives would never remember the original agreement. The Dollhouse could keep them until they die.

[Charlemagne19]

I think the best set up for this show is that, at some point, FBI guy contacts Echo and figures out a way for her to keep her memories of her original self during missions while also gaining the weird abilities.

That would be way too much, All Out Alias though.

Edit: Actually, does anyone think that the Dollhouse may not be immoral ENOUGH? I think it'd be much cooler if they were absolutely, totally, and utterly ruthless. Leaving the little girl in the fridge until the Dixon-Analogue persuades them that it might upset their client if he recovers and they fail.

It'd be cooler that way and more honest.

Edited by Charlemagne19, Feb 14, 2009 @ 3:46 PM.

[Aunty Mib]

Just to mention that some of the Dolls were male so the evil isn't 'gendered'.

They need to show some nonsexual Dolls or else it is merely prostitution. The father was expecting an older male authority figure so they ought to have a range of body types: Children for people who want to experience parenthood for a weekend, an elderly parent for someone with unresolved issues.

TO ME, one problem is that it isn't creepy enough.

[While A Coyote]

Honestly, in an ideal situation where it's not coercive, prostitution would be money earned for time/energy/skills applied. Provided it's done with empowerment and relative choice, there's nothing inherently immoral about prostituing.

I agree, but we have to hope that Joss, as a human being, understands what an impossible ideal this. IDEALLY a woman owns her own body and selling sex would be comparable to selling ANY other physical service. House painting. Babysitting. Whatever. In the broadest possible most enlightened case, put apart from Judeo-Christian morality, its all the same. But...

But... there's a reality that exists that's different. Selling sex is seen as a cheapening of a woman's worth, because of years of men making money on women selling their bodies. Also, because of the road, filled with violence and degradation that the vast majority of prostitutes seem to have to travel though. SOME of that exists only because its an illegal commodity, and thus usually controlled by criminals, but not all of it.

And, at the end of each mission, they're mind-wiped without their knowledge or consent, and effectively killed. Every mission is then involves the murder of the person, to any real capacity.

Yeah. I'd been thinking about that one too. The Dollhouse isn't building robots, they are building people. Thus erasing those people could be compared to murder.

Of course they probably try and rationalize the whole thing to obscure this. I bet they compare it to discarding multiple personalities, or as they call it these days, dissociative identity disorder (DID). If this issue is ever raised on the show, look for that comparison as their "excuse".

EDIT - Ah. I see Charlemagne19 already covered DID. I missed that since I was replying off the last page. Oh well. Great minds and all that...

Seriously, didn't anyone note the ick factor of this concept before green lighting it? This is more in the territory of socially awkward nerd boy fantasy of having unattainable hot girls unwillingly do his bidding. It doesn't help that the resident tech geek acts as if he is building sex-bots.

I think its somewhat acceptable if the show is willing to show this behavior as the creepfest it really is.

Really, the main thing so far undermining that are the commercials with Eliza and Summer Glau talking about girl power and making sexy kisses to the camera. Because within the context of the show itself, yes, we are seeing a programmer geek objectivity the Dolls and drool all over them. We are seeing the Dollhouse as a whole whore them out. But at the same time, the nerd is CLEARLY shown as a creep, a perv, and something of a villain. He's not the stand-in for the audience, the Dixonesque guy with problems with the situation is.

Well maybe the Eliza/Summer commercials aren't the ONLY thing undermining that message. I suppose the mere fact that Echo's "intellectual" personality, the negotiator, was still fingered by the dialogue as being sexy goes in that direction too. As a writer Joss didn't have to write that line, since in that scenario I doubt most worried fathers would take time out of their worry sessions to talk about the physical characteristics of their meat-robot-hostage-negotiators.

Edited by While A Coyote, Feb 14, 2009 @ 4:24 PM.

[nightwyrm]

I'm surprised that no one has brought this up yet, but I think that instead of using prostitution as a comparison, we should be using slavery.

I have no problem with prostitution (ie. a person selling their sex services for money) if there is full consent, but that's not the situation in dollhouse. Once they joined, the actives can't give consent, at least not informed consent. They have no free will, they have to do whatever the company wants.

I find that the act of signing into becoming an active is far more similar to selling yourself into slavery than anything. In many ways, dollhouse is worse than prostitution.

Edited by nightwyrm, Feb 14, 2009 @ 5:07 PM.

[justwatchintv]

Dollhouse's central concept seems to be one that Joss flirted with quite a bit in the last couple seasons of Angel, the question of whether a person's memories are that person. So for better or for worse, the premise feels like pure Joss.

And just like in the examples on Angel where the question was raised, I don't think there's a cut and dry answer to the question. I know it's a different universe so different rules apply, but if erasing a person's memories equates to murdering them, then what does that say about Fred's memories being preserved in her body after being inhabited by Illyria and affecting her actions? Does that mean Fred never actually died? In fact, one could say that Illyria was Joss's first stab at the Doll concept, an amalgamation of two personalities and sets of memories in one body.

Now he's taken that concept and run with it, adding the element of human control to these amalgamations and creating clear-cut and unconflicted personalities. And what does that mean for the people whose memories are being used in these situations? It almost feels like they're being exploited just as much as the Actives' bodies are, their strengths and weaknesses thrown in their face on a regular basis and never allowed to rise above what they're on record as being. Miss Penn may have inadvertently been put in a situation where she was able to confront the man who hurt her when she was young, but what happens when the next client with a kidnapped daughter needs a negotiator? Miss Penn's memories will be implanted in another Active, probably as she was when she was originally implanted in Echo. The memories of confronting her ghost will be gone, and she'll still be haunted by her unresolved childhood trauma. What's more, she'll only be allowed to exist again when they need someone to be afraid of that very same ghost. They're using her for her fear, and will never allow her to conquer it.

[Charlemagne19]

I'm curious, do you think the Dollhouse ever provides people with permanent Dolls? Like, it is possible to purchase a $10,000,000 one time only fee for a Doll? That would flat out turn the Dollhouse into a slave marketing organization, but that's already what its close to being and I could really see people shelling out the big bucks for the perfect trophy wife/mistress or whatnot.

The way the owner operates, I'm not sure she's entirely of the mind they're slavers yet.

[clack]

A person is not her memories, as a simple thought experiment demonstrates. Let's say that, while you're alive, your memories are downloaded into a "doll". She now has your memories and personality, which you also retain for yourself. Is that doll "you"? Then why are you still behind your eyes, looking at her?

If you were threatened with death, would you feel, that's ok -- that other person has my personality and my memories, so my consciousness will just somehow transition into her head after my body dies?

More an ontological issue than a moral one, but identity will obviously be a key thematic concern with this show, as Echo fights to remain herself whatever memories or personality she is issued.

[Tricksterson]

Nightwyrm, ITA on slavery being a better analogy than prostitution. In fact it's the worst possible form of slavery. A normal slave can at least hope to escape or rebel or be freed, the Actives can't because they're not even aware they're slaves.

[While A Coyote]

More an ontological issue than a moral one, but identity will obviously be a key thematic concern with this show, as Echo fights to remain herself whatever memories or personality she is issued.

Identity is also a key factor in this even being a viable show OUTSIDE of whatever moral complexities it introduces. I say that because EVEN if they mostly stick to a "mission of the week" format, the only way to make a show interesting is for problems to regularly develop on missions. And it seems to me that an "average" Doll would be bound by whoever they were imprinted as. Ergo, if a normal person, even a specialist, would fail, so will the Doll. Which would seem to lead to a lot of dead Dolls sooner or later.

Echo can't be one of those, since she's our protagonist. So Echo HAS to be special to remain in play and "viable". She's GOT to bring more to each mission that what's been imprinted on her, or else there wouldn't be any believability to her surviving.

[justwatchintv]

A person is not her memories, as a simple thought experiment demonstrates. Let's say that, while you're alive, your memories are downloaded into a "doll". She now has your memories and personality, which you also retain for yourself. Is that doll "you"? Then why are you still behind your eyes, looking at her?

I think that yes, that doll is you, up until the doll starts learning things and thus growing into a different person. At the moment of creation, that doll is you. It has all of your memories and emotions. It has experienced everything you have and thinks exactly the same way you do.

And what if it's the other way around? What if you're the doll? If all your memories of having grown up and gone to school and made friends and fallen in love and lost family members and formed value systems and learned how to view the world all turned out to have only been imprinted into your brain yesterday, does that change the fact that you have, in fact, learned everything about the world through those experiences, even if you've only physically had them for a day?