Westworld (2016)

[Divide by Zero]

Good points and yes warnings.

Seeing the violence in a scary manner which reminds me of Children of Men and other dark movies seems better than the status quo though.

We have plenty of PG13 movies that show violence unrealistically, people blow up and die, but no carnage. But because there is no carnage, they can fill the show with it and still have a good rating.

My nephew regularly plays video games that show this and it's not the same like watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

I think the desensitization is not from the violence itself, but the cleaning up of it.

I am reminded of how some aspects of the work requires honesty. Honesty about war, violence, sex, and so on is indeed lacking in modern society. After all, they don't even get to see the true carnage in Syria in the western media, it is sanitized as just "hollywood" explosions and such.

I just wanted to say this because it is not so much clear cut that violence in shows is bad, it all depends on the message conveyed. The Walking Dead, other horror films, or some Tarantino film overdo it. Children of Men, The Road, and I feel- Westworld, show it in a darker more realistic manner that makes you NOT WANT to hurt others, by the horror of it.

Or maybe it's just how some of us are when it comes to art/media. Some may have negative effects of dissasociation, etc.
I recall G had a similar point regarding sex, that for some they need abstinence and others a practice of it with awareness. It's all relative to how we learn, I suppose?

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Divide By Zero]
Or maybe it's just how some of us are when it comes to art/media. Some may have negative effects of dissasociation, etc.
I recall G had a similar point regarding sex, that for some they need abstinence and others a practice of it with awareness. It's all relative to how we learn, I suppose?
[/quote]

Here are some research findings on watching violence.

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/press_releases/fmri_violence.html

In a paper in the Dec. 5 on-line issue of PLoS ONE (published by the Public Library of Science), Columbia scientists show that a brain network responsible for suppressing behaviors like inappropriate or unwarranted aggression (including the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex, or right ltOFC, and the amygdala) became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular movies depicting acts of violence. These changes could render people less able to control their own aggressive behavior. Indeed the authors found that, even among their own subjects, less activation in this network was characteristic of people reporting an above average tendency to behave aggressively. This characteristic was measured through a personality test.

A secondary finding was that after repeated viewings of violence, an area of the brain associated with planning behaviors became more active (shown in Figure 2). This lends further support to the idea that exposure to violence diminishes the brain’s ability to inhibit behavior-related processing.

http://neurosciencenews.com/aggression-violent-media-psychology-1314/

Exposure to violence has a different effect on people with aggressive traits.

With the longstanding debate over whether violent movies cause real world violence as a backstop, a study published today in PLOS One found that each person’s reaction to violent images depends on that individual’s brain circuitry, and on how aggressive they were to begin with.

The study, which was led by researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the NIH Intramural Program, featured brain scans which revealed that both watching and not watching violent images caused different brain activity in people with different aggression levels. The findings may have implications for intervention programs that seek to reduce aggressive behavior starting in childhood.

“Our aim was to investigate what is going on in the brains of people when they watch violent movies,” said lead investigator Nelly Alia-Klein, PhD, Associate Professor of Neuroscience and Psychiatry at the Friedman Brain Institute and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “We hypothesized that if people have aggressive traits to begin with, they will process violent media in a very different way as compared to non-aggressive people, a theory supported by these findings.”

While watching scenes from violent movies, the aggressive group had less brain activity than the non-aggressive group in the orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region associated by past studies with emotion-related decision making and self-control.

After answering a questionnaire, a group of 54 men were split by the research team into two groups—one with individuals possessing aggressive traits, including a history of physical assault, and a second group without these tendencies. The participants’ brains were then scanned as they watched a succession of violent scenes (shootings and street fights) on day one, emotional, but non-violent scenes (people interacting during a natural disaster) on day two, and nothing on day three.

The scans measured the subjects’ brain metabolic activity, a marker of brain function. Participants also had their blood pressure taken every 5 minutes, and were asked how they were feeling at 15 minute intervals.

Investigators discovered that during mind wandering, when no movies were presented, the participants with aggressive traits had unusually high brain activity in a network of regions that are known to be active when not doing anything in particular. This suggests that participants with aggressive traits have a different brain function map than non-aggressive participants, researchers said.

Interestingly, while watching scenes from violent movies, the aggressive group had less brain activity than the non-aggressive group in the orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region associated by past studies with emotion-related decision making and self-control. The aggressive subjects described feeling more inspired and determined and less upset or nervous than non-aggressive participants when watching violent (day 1) versus just emotional (day 2) media. In line with these responses, while watching the violent media, aggressive participants’ blood pressure went down progressively with time while the non-aggressive participants experienced a rise in blood pressure.

“How an individual responds to their environment depends on the brain of the beholder,” said Dr. Alia-Klein. “Aggression is a trait that develops together with the nervous system over time starting from childhood; patterns of behavior become solidified and the nervous system prepares to continue the behavior patterns into adulthood when they become increasingly coached in personality. This could be at the root of the differences in people who are aggressive and not aggressive, and how media motivates them to do certain things. Hopefully these results will give educators an opportunity to identify children with aggressive traits and teach them to be more aware of how aggressive material activates them specifically.”

Watching violence has unconscious effects beyond any conscious intention if present.

Regarding warnings, some people may choose to heed the warning labels and stay away from certain shows. Some other people can go ahead and watch the show anyway in spite of the warning. We can ask the question is there a difference in the brain networks of people who choose to stay away versus go forward to watching shows depicting violence? I do not know if there are studies looking to answer this question. I would speculate that those who are attracted to gory and violent shows, even with the conscious intention of learning something from them, may be driven by unconscious motivations justified by conscious narratives.

 

[Divide by Zero]

So, on the same coin of seeing violence, we can say that we should stop reading about the atrocities that go on in the world because that can affect some people to get violent or angry.

I don't see it as so clear cut. This world is a pretty messed up place, so how exactly do we give ourselves this "perfect environment" to "thrive"?

I think it's more about intent.
I could be unaware of something here, but in general I am not attracted to violence. In fact, the Matrix with it's obsession on the war in zion annoyed me. Maybe when I saw it as a kid I'd have liked it. Back then, I used to watch wrestling for the hope storylines and yes, I enjoyed "the bad guy" losing. But sometimes I noticed that the good guy everyone was cheering for was really the bad guy. It made me feel confused why people would cheer on someone just because they had the label of good, instead of based on who their character really was.

With Westworld I watch it because I wonder how the AI robots become self-aware. I could care less about who gets killed or who has sex with so and so. Is that self calming about it? I don't know.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Divide By Zero]So, on the same coin of seeing violence, we can say that we should stop reading about the atrocities that go on in the world because that can affect some people to get violent or angry.[/quote]

TV shows that depict heavy violence is something people choose to watch. Watching the horrific state of the World of the World isn't a choose because it's a matter of conscience to do something about it.


One doesn't has to become desensitized to be able to deal with the horrific state of the World.

In fact, it becomes counterproductive because people can become numb about pathology and lose the ability to correctly perceive it as that.

OSIT. :)

 

[Arwenn]

<snip>

but, what I am concerned is that many youngsters from 16 - 25 watching that, and actually I got captivated to check on Forum your thoughts on show, after I got recommendation from one of my students around 23, and than my daughter, 19, told me how she got strange feeling about what is really going on in the world after watching that .. we don't talk at home about Work and G. and STO STS and human been machine and etc, but they can see I am researching that topics through my professional work too, and that can make them even more confused ... and now I am concern that maybe I need to watch that in order to know how HBO present that topics, and what kind of influence that can do on a young person who still has no idea about the reality of the world like we do ... and who probably is not even ready for that yet?


thank you ...

Well I am glad to have read comments posted here about the show. My nephew recommended & he is all of 16! :O I am not interested in more gore, violence & sex, so we will not be watching it. It does appear to have gone viral, and especially with the 16-25 year olds though. Not sure that there is an answer to that.

 

[Oxajil]

but, what I am concerned is that many youngsters from 16 - 25 watching that, and actually I got captivated to check on Forum your thoughts on show, after I got recommendation from one of my students around 23, and than my daughter, 19, told me how she got strange feeling about what is really going on in the world after watching that .. we don't talk at home about Work and G. and STO STS and human been machine and etc, but they can see I am researching that topics through my professional work too, and that can make them even more confused ... and now I am concern that maybe I need to watch that in order to know how HBO present that topics, and what kind of influence that can do on a young person who still has no idea about the reality of the world like we do ... and who probably is not even ready for that yet?

On the other side my student get conclusions from shows like that, how today many young people already know everything ... uhm ... I felt that as a very dangerous trick played on their minds, as I know how blind I was just a year ago ... and how confident I was how I know everything ...

What do you think on that? How we shall approach that? ... Are we on a way obliged to follow what is going on at that pool, in order to be able to serve better development of our own kids and students and our own approach to that when they come up with those topics they see in the show?

thank you ...

Hi solarmind, I don't think it's necessary for you to watch the show itself. You can read reviews about the show (for example on IMDB), and that will give you a good overview I'd think about the show itself. On IMDB, there is usually also a 'Parent Guide' that you can check, see here for example.

As a teacher, it probably isn't your call what students should watch or not, but if a student comes up to you and recommends this show, I'd personally say that I have read about it, and that I don't think it's any good at all, but thank her for the recommendation. Regarding your daughter, I don't know how strict you are, but since she's 19, I'm not sure if there's much you can do, except for maybe saying that the scenes are a bit too much for your taste. Perhaps you could recommend the Matrix (added: or Stranger Things) if she hasn't watched it already.

If however your daughter lives at home and watches it in the living room, and you have younger children at home as well, I'd probably forbid it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this: "but they can see I am researching that topics through my professional work too, and that can make them even more confused", why are they getting confused?

 

[Chu]

[quote author= Divide By Zero]So, on the same coin of seeing violence, we can say that we should stop reading about the atrocities that go on in the world because that can affect some people to get violent or angry.

TV shows that depict heavy violence is something people choose to watch. Watching the horrific state of the World of the World isn't a choose because it's a matter of conscience to do something about it.[/quote]

Plus, one is real, the other one isn't. One is what IS, and the other one is just for show. Staying in touch with what IS, and not letting it be influenced by "shows", allows us not to be desensitized by it, not to normalize it. OSIT.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

[quote author= Divide By Zero]So, on the same coin of seeing violence, we can say that we should stop reading about the atrocities that go on in the world because that can affect some people to get violent or angry.

TV shows that depict heavy violence is something people choose to watch. Watching the horrific state of the World of the World isn't a choose because it's a matter of conscience to do something about it.

Plus, one is real, the other one isn't. One is what IS, and the other one is just for show. Staying in touch with what IS, and not letting it be influenced by "shows", allows us not to be desensitized by it, not to normalize it. OSIT.
[/quote]

I think this is an important difference. Our reaction to real violence is different because we know this is happening to real people with real pain and real consequences, forcing our empathy and anger to activate with a desire to do something about it. With a show you know it's just a show so while the violence and sex may have artistic or explanatory value it ultimately registers differently in the brain. Nver once do we truly think or believe it to be real, we don't have the same urge to help/fix/change the situation, as it's not real and there is no action being demanded of us by the violence, no action that would even make sense, so some brain channels are completely not activated. And even when the brain is fooled, we ultimately remember this is fake, but no such solice exists in real life.

As an example, I really hate movies like Saw which are just violence porn. It's really uncomfortable to watch, even knowing it's fake. But I've seen an Isis head-chopping video, I actually made myself watch it, and I've had a reaction I've never had to any fake violence - I got nauseous, faint, covered in cold sweat, and basically had to stop because I was literally sick. The reality of what was happening to actual people viscerally registered and affected me at a level that fake violence never could. Kids don't get PTSD from war video games, but real soldiers do. Real soldiers tend to really dislike war. Kids watching violent movies and violent video games don't develop a visceral fear and dislike of violence - because it registers differently. If anything, it has the opposite effect.

If we are used to seeing fake violence and comfort ourselves that it's fake, we literally rewire the brain to create an association between violence and entertainment and self-calming. If all violence we were exposed to was real, and one day someone decided to make a violent movie out of the blue, people would take to the streets. There is a reason that movie violence increased slowly over the 20th century instead of starting out at the level it is now. It took a few generations of "pushing the boundaries" with sex and violence in film to allow the population to be ok with the current levels and see it as entertaining. Especially after world war 2 and during when humans were sooo exhausted and tired of violence.

Maybe this is the reason that people in the 70's took to the streets to protest a controversial war like Vietnam, and today the common sentiment is "nuke the ragheads! Murica!"

Ironically while ignoring true human suffering inflicted by us, the new generation is brainwashed to think being offended is violence and hide in their safe spaces while legislating gender pronouns. This is the most spoiled, self-centered, twisted and apathetic bunch of adult children humanity ever produced. I guess the programming is really complete.

 

[obyvatel]

So, on the same coin of seeing violence, we can say that we should stop reading about the atrocities that go on in the world because that can affect some people to get violent or angry.

I don't see it as so clear cut. This world is a pretty messed up place, so how exactly do we give ourselves this "perfect environment" to "thrive"?

I don't think it is clear cut either. But we are not talking about a perfect environment. We are talking about choices with intended and unintended consequences. Questions to ponder is of all the possible options of spending time and energy, why do I choose this specific thing.

[quote author=DBZ]
I think it's more about intent.

I could be unaware of something here, but in general I am not attracted to violence. In fact, the Matrix with it's obsession on the war in zion annoyed me. Maybe when I saw it as a kid I'd have liked it. Back then, I used to watch wrestling for the hope storylines and yes, I enjoyed "the bad guy" losing. But sometimes I noticed that the good guy everyone was cheering for was really the bad guy. It made me feel confused why people would cheer on someone just because they had the label of good, instead of based on who their character really was.

With Westworld I watch it because I wonder how the AI robots become self-aware. I could care less about who gets killed or who has sex with so and so. Is that self calming about it? I don't know.
[/quote]

I think one's age and past experiences are a couple of factors among others that can play a role in clarifying intent. It may also be important to check for one's instinctive reaction to extreme scenes. There is a shared (collective) instinctive substratum for human species. This substratum drives certain reactions which are deeper than "I like"/"I do not like" narratives formed out of education and other forms of social conditioning. There are certain things from which the we instinctively recoil. Now the process of desensitization carried out over a long period can override these normal instinctive reactions. It is not always bad - for example firefighters are trained to overcome the instinctive reaction of getting away from fire but move towards it. But the point is that these instinctive reactions are there for a good reason. Trying to desensitize oneself deliberately is a risky enterprise and should be undertaken with due caution.

In the context of particularly gory violence or sex being depicted in shows, usually there is an instinctive revulsion for normal human beings. This reaction can be overridden with progressive exposure and desensitization, and such a process is promoted actively within the culture. In 4th Way terms, it is a conditioning of personality which can put to sleep or even kill parts of essence nature. Sure there are hooks in each such show - something that would arouse intellectual curiosity for example. Then there are intentions of "thickening one's skin". I think there are ways to satisfy such requirements or intentions without exposing oneself to serious pathological elements. For example, a show which picturizes how a lion hunts prey can bring out very clearly the reality of violence that exists in nature. It is brutal. But somehow it does not desensitize one's instinctive sensibilities. Why that is so is a matter of speculation. Maybe because it is a different species than us. Seeing similar things being done by humans to humans is perhaps far more damaging. And like was said earlier in this thread, it is quite possible to bring out the reality of violence perpetrated by humans on humans through ways which are far less likely to desensitize. It needs skill and sensitivity on the part of the artists and directors to bring out the reality in ways which inform without damaging the normal instinctive reactions. And we can learn to distinguish which is which - osit.

 

[Jenn]

[quote author= Divide By Zero]So, on the same coin of seeing violence, we can say that we should stop reading about the atrocities that go on in the world because that can affect some people to get violent or angry.

TV shows that depict heavy violence is something people choose to watch. Watching the horrific state of the World of the World isn't a choose because it's a matter of conscience to do something about it.

Plus, one is real, the other one isn't. One is what IS, and the other one is just for show. Staying in touch with what IS, and not letting it be influenced by "shows", allows us not to be desensitized by it, not to normalize it. OSIT.
[/quote]

I agree, and would add that another difference is that the violence, sex and brutality in movies is purely for entertainment (bar a few that want to try and depict something for learning purposes-none that I can think of off the top of my head)

Entertainment: the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment.
synonyms: amusement, pleasure, leisure, relaxation, fun, enjoyment, interest, occupation, refreshment, restoration, distraction, diversion, divertissement, play;

The horrors that are going on in the world today are probably only entertaining to psychopaths eg. 'We came, we saw, he died'. By exposing ourselves to these shows/movies for entertainment purposes are we aligning ourselves with this kind of thinking, and shutting down certain activities of the brain? So when we then go to watch the news or read SOTT it appears like a movie too and it is more difficult to connect with emotionally because we have been so desensitized by the crude, sensory overloaded media world we live in.

I think it's hard to judge what our real motivations are for watching something, we could tell ourselves one thing but our true motivations could be base level, primal urges imo.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Yeah, it's really hard to tell what exactly is underneath. I guess the only sign would be to tell what one observes from the past in what attracted them to like a movie.

The violence porn movies like Saw always bore me. I tend to avoid them because I don't enjoy them, they bore me and don't make sense at all- full of plot holes and illogical/irrational/ignorant choices by both sides! It reminds me of this Syria thing now. Sure, Russia is more logical, but I can feel annoyed that things are not truly resolved, like I get this feeling like we're being sold a "story".

With the world events, some of it we can change, but A LOT OF IT we cannot. So, reading sott sometimes makes me more angry than seeing a good guy get hurt in a movie or show. Sometimes I skip articles that just keep parroting the obvious. It's just too draining to keep seeing a repeating dynamic. Example: Trump's recent "save of Carrier" gets on my nerves nowadays because I know its a story missing the details such as what did they give back to the company to make this PR soap opera show?

It's so hard to figure out what is genuine versus what is programmed/subconsciously entertaining and interesting? Maybe nothing is completely white or black, does that mean we don't try? I guess in this phase of my life and these trying times, I'm starting to find comfort in grey areas- where I feel a lot less of this past perfectionism program kicking in.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Some interesting developments in the season finale, named "The Bicameral Mind".
The reason why I love this show is the parallels with out own existence. Growing up I had always a heart for robots or other characters that would start to be self aware. On the other hand, I hate how a lot of humanity seems to have just been infected with a Zombie virus, regressing into something more destructive than a machine- a weapon of STS? I could see where Arnold one of the creators lost hope in humanity and felt more hope with the AI robots.


Spoilers below with some thoughts.






We have a flashback of Arnold explaining the purpose of the maze, a path to self awareness.
Arnold is one of the original creators who wanted to give freedom, free will, which requires self awareness- consciousness.

What does it mean?
When I was first working on your mind,I had a theory of consciousness.
I thought it was a pyramid you needed to scale, so I gave you a voice, my voice, to guide you
along the way. Memory, improvisation, each step harder to reach than the last.
And you never got there. I couldn't understand what was holding you back.
Then, one day,I realized I had made a mistake.
Consciousness isn't a journey upward,
but a journey inward. Not a pyramid,but a maze.
Every choice could bring you closer to the center or send you spiraling
to the edges,to madness.
Do you understand now, Dolores,what the center represents?
Whose voice I've been wanting you to hear?

I'm sorry.I'm trying, but I don't understand.

It's all right. You're so close.

Journey inward, which reminds me of the inner locus of control. Our reality is what it is, but where we have free will is not in the outer world, but inside us. The outer world seems to have always been limited and controlled to some extent. The inner, consciousness, could very well be the door or seed of 4d?! But with our linear cause/effect time addiction, it's not so cut and dry what is what. Fragmented soul unit?


A few episodes back we learned that Bernard, one of the programmers/troubleshooters is a robot modeled after Arnold.
Dr. Ford speaks to him:

Do you want to know why I really gave you the backstory of your son, Bernard?
It was Arnold's key insight,the thing that led the hosts to their awakening...suffering.
The pain that the world is not as you want it to be.
It was when Arnold died, when I suffered, that I...
began to understand what he had found. To realize I was wrong.

But you kept us here in this hell.

Bernard, I told you, Arnold didn't know how to save you. I do.

What the hell are you talking about?

You needed time. Time to understand your enemy. To become stronger than them.
And I'm afraid in order to escape this place, you will need to suffer more.

Ford was kind of obsessive and a control freak, he even fought against Arnold's attempts at giving the bots self awareness.
Reminds me of the gnostic gods story, where some of the gods wanted free will and some did not.
Here Ford changes his tune after Arnold died, because he suffered a loss of a longtime partner and friend.

Interesting that suffering is the key to awakening, like in the work, conscious suffering can shock us out of being a machine.
Another key theme in past episodes is that evolution has done all of it has done with the use of one tool- THE MISTAKE!

The enemy is humanity, that Ford later says is the way it is because of complacency and not wanting to change or get better. He sees in the robots what Arnold saw, they will inherit this planet.

Ford then talks about the famous Michelangelo painting:

Michelangelo
did tell a lie.
See, it took 500 years for someone to notice something hidden in plain sight.
It was a doctor who noticed the shape of the human brain.
The message being that...the divine gift does not come from a higher power..but from our own minds.

The seed of consciousness which is "us". The C's are us in the future, right? They didn't create us. Monotheism is where STS claims credit for creating, seeding us. But STO doesn't need to create I think, it just IS. And that is why what is said here is not materialism, but the true seed of free will.

Honestly, if the C's or STO did create me, I have a right as the bots do to call them a fake. If you are all knowing, all complete, why create "us"?
If that is the case, we essentially are on the same level of the creator. That's why I don't think STO makes physical life, STS does and consciousness "infects" it, to say in a joking manner. Consciousness which is STO?


Delores realizes what Arnold intended- self awareness, to go to the center of the maze:

It was you...talking to me...guiding me.
So I followed you. At last, I arrived here. The center of the maze.
And now I finally understand... what you were trying to tell me.
The thing you've wanted since that very first day.
To confront...after this long and vivid nightmare...myself...and who I must become.

I see that analogous to us growing a soul by following our own higher self, not the group think, religion, etc.

 

[Ruth]

The seed of consciousness which is "us". The C's are us in the future, right? They didn't create us. Monotheism is where STS claims credit for creating, seeding us. But STO doesn't need to create I think, it just IS. And that is why what is said here is not materialism, but the true seed of free will.

Honestly, if the C's or STO did create me, I have a right as the bots do to call them a fake. If you are all knowing, all complete, why create "us"?
If that is the case, we essentially are on the same level of the creator. That's why I don't think STO makes physical life, STS does and consciousness "infects" it, to say in a joking manner. Consciousness which is STO?

There's no reason why either STO or STS shouldn't create life, or have an interest in all its forms, because in many ways they are opposite sides of the same coin. After all, 7th density (the creator?) comprises of both, in it's entirity.

As for 'infection' well, that's what STS does. As for free will, that's how we make choices and navigate the world. STO doesn't impinge on on free will, STS does.

If you're going to call one side 'fake' then you must include the other. The difference might be their reaction. One will just laugh at you and say... 'whatever dude, you're just exercising your free will', the other might decide to 'punish' or make your life difficult.

Besides, I think that both are intertwined in this world. They can't be separated and it is very difficult to 'see' the difference. Oh, and STS just 'is' as well and it just does what it does too.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Excellent analysis DBZ. The season finale definitely made me glad I stuck with this show. Suffering indeed.

As far as the controversy of the last few pages of this thread, I've been trying to consider it from the broader perspective of the types of media currently available to the general population. Some sort of warning certainly seems justified, particularly with this series and Game of Thrones. Some may do better than others with them and there is not really anything so substantive that it can't be gleaned from other sources, if one is motivated enough. But didn't the C's say movies like Independence Day and The Matrix were some sort of amalgamation of STS and STO influences? They have messages in them that can awaken portions of the population, but STS balances those out with violence and other lower FRV elements that can hinder other or even some of the same portions of the population. With all of the various talent necessary to make a modern, big-budget series like this, maybe the only way it is really going to get made and find a wide audience is to cancel out just about an even amount of 'good' stuff with 'bad' stuff.

 

[Divide by Zero]

This last episode had quite a bit of violence with the rebellion/escape, but also tons of nuggets of philosophy and psychology!

I see earth as the STO STS balance when looking at nature.
Death happens, life happens- they cannot be separated. Competition is the way of life.
Predator, prey. Humanity was tricked to think it was any different when the psychopaths took over.
And then there's us, who I liken to Delores, trying to figure out what's missing along with facing the dark past memories.

A little more on the bicameral mind from a NY Times review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/arts/television/westworld-season-finale-recap.html

The key to unlocking “Westworld” has been sitting around since the third episode, “The Stray,” when Dr. Ford discusses Julian Jaynes’s radical theory of the “Bicameral Mind,” which gives this episode its title. Other sites explained the theory as far back as mid-October — but here’s the gist: In “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind,” Mr. Jaynes suggests that the human brain has not always functioned in the same way. His theory speculates that 3,000 years ago, men and women were capable of a great many things, but they lacked the linguistic tools for self-awareness and introspection. Instead, their actions were determined by a back-and-forth between one part of the brain that’s “speaking” and another part that listens and obeys. Mr. Jaynes describes the communication between hemispheres as a kind of hallucination where a commanding, external “god-voice” intervened when they had a decision to make.

It's also known to be connected to visions people have of dead ones in stressful times. Is schizophrenia related to this, a regression of the mind but without the healthy societal context in this hectic world?