I was browsing the Matrix site, and I was reading the floowing article and it got me to thinking:

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_pryor.html

Who wouldn't want to live in a simulation even though it's fake when the only other alternative is to live in a miserable-looking real world that has been devastated? Perhaps the machines are doing the humans a favor by making it so the humans don't have to fight for survival in the real world which doesn't look like a really good place to live anyway.
I mean, it's a bombed-out ruin. The planet is desolate, all plants and animals (except humans) are probably extinct due to the lack of sunlight, low temperatures because of perpetual twilight, and the resulting lack of food.

I belive that the machines were misrepresented in the first movie. Sure, they are exploiting people by using them as living batteries, but in return people are having all their needs met
and they don't have to fight for survival against the machines like the unplugged people have to. As far as the using humans-as-batteries exploitation goes, humans brought it upon themselves by leaving the machines with no alternative power source, so could you really blame the machines for that?

any thoughts?



------------------
Old aunts used to come up to me at weddings, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next." They stopped after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.

[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited April 11, 2004).]

I agree completely.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

99% of people living in the Matrix didn't care.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

It's just a movie?

Seriously though, it's about principle, and the human desire to rule the world. Sure they may be better off plugged in, but it's not about being better off. Mankind seems to believe we were destined to be kings of this planet, and they [people in the real world] believed the robots had taken that "right" away from them.

I havn't read that article you posted, but that was my interpritation of the film. The robots were being unreasonable in their methods to survive. But then again, the humans were unreasonable in their methods to wipe out the robots... so lets not play the blame game - it was everyone's fault.

------------------
"When all else fails, eat pie."
-¬thoughts from beyond observance

The idea behind the movies seems to be that the humans had no choice in the matter. The Architect says something related to this at the end.

------------------
"This next song is called- Where the **** is Jeordie White?" ~Maynard James Keenan

It's the principal of it, dammit. Who wants to live as a slave? Nobody, that's who.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

Just in case the final fight with Smith didn't make it obvious enough already (i'm not sure how it's possible). The films are about choice.

The premise that humans could live as brains in vats is a little too silly to entertain a real discussion, because if we really lived in a computer-controlled simulation as portrayed by the Matrix, we wouldn't have the faculties to understand it.



So..I question is sort of moot.

[This message has been edited by Sine Nomen (edited April 12, 2004).]

I'd prefer the matrix...

its not livign in the matrix thats bad. its the fact that nobody give syou the choice (in the movie) to be used as a battery source thatpissed people off

------------------
[teletubbie voice] BIG HUG!!!! [/teletubbie voice]

And in response to what Wolvie17 just posted, if you haven't, go watch The Second Renaissance. You will see that we humans made the bed we sleep in (as far as the movies go anyway).

We banished, then fought the machines until they decided to fight back. We lost.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.
HTP
babble, babble, b!tch, b!tch, rebel, rebel, party, party.

I read this neat article (which is reprinted in this book) written by a philosophy teacher who every semester, asks the same question to his students: "If you could live in a fantasy world where everything was perfect, you had lots of friends, money, and was a happy person, but there would be one catch, that it wouldnt be real, would you choose it live in it?" Every year, the majority of his students says that they would choose not to live in such a world, simply on the basis that it wasnt real. He's also done some further research on the subject, and found that the majority of people who would choose to live in such a world are generally people who are depressed or have recently experienced some trauma in their lives.

There is also the simulation argument. I'll try to explain it as best as I can, but basically it means that there is a good chance we are nothing more than artificial intelligence in a computer simulation.

First off, it hinges on whether or not you think that it will eventually one day be possible to create genuine, self-aware AI, as well as a genuine realistic virtual reality experience. I think if you ask most people, they will say yes, such things will eventually be possible.

The current population of the earth is 6 billion, and it will certainly have increased by the time such technological feats are possible. Without any scientific reasoning, I will guestimate that the population of the earth will be 50 billion by the time such feats are possible. Now if you think about it, when a self-aware conciousness comes into being at this time, it could be either a real human being or an artificial intelligence in one of these simulated worlds. If you only had 9 simulations of the earth in 2004 running, that would mean you would have 54 billion AI's (9 times 6 billion) compared to 50 billion humans - for every 25 humans, there would be 27 AIs somewhere in a machine, meaning that it would be more likely that each conciousness that came into being would be as an artificial intelligence.

Now thats only for 9 simulations of the world in 2004, if they were run in a world with a population of 50 billion. Think about how many simulations we run today, and how many would undoubtedly be run once such technology was available and widespread. It would only be a matter of time before the number of Artificial Intelligences outnumbered the amount of humans that had ever lived... if, as a conciousness, you could come into being at any time as either a human or an AI, it would be far more likely that you would be an AI.

Thats only the bare bones of the theory, and obviously there are many arguments for and against it, with valid points on both sides. But I think it is something thats worth thinking about.

------------------
And everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon...
DSettahr's Homepage | Cantina Cloud | Rally NY

^^^ wth are they teaching you over there at RIT?????

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.
HTP
babble, babble, b!tch, b!tch, rebel, rebel, party, party.

I dunno, but im glad I applied there!

------------------
Lat rocks my box with sox

DSettahr: that's interesting and everything, but in order for there to be a "good chance" we're nothing more than AI, there has to be something to demonstrate that the chances are anything other than zero. And there isn't. =p

To me it would be like being in a relationship where your spouse is having an affair. Is it really that bad if you never find out about it? As soon as I knew what was going on my whole perception of the situation would change even if the actuall circumstances didn't. I think I would rather be free and poor instead of rich and enslaved.

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." -Isaac Asimov

But that simply brings up that question of "what is real" imposed by Morpheus in the first movie. I don't really know what choice I would make. However there are times when our inquisit nature gets the better of us...