I hate "the Matrix"

[Yahweh]

Every few days or so, at least one of my students will ask me the question "How do we know we're not in the Matrix?".

So far, I've just been saying "Well, 'The Matrix' scenario is Philosophically valid. But if you were to look at the question closely, you would see that the question is logically ambigious, and its a negative statement." I've already gone over ambigious claims and "proving of negatives" with the kids. But the answer I give sounds extremely evasive and dodgey, I dont like to resort to that kind of "debating". (Note: I try to use smaller, simpler words, its no help if I talk over the kids' heads.)

I'm afraid if I dont respond in just the right way I'll inadvertantly brainwash a kid into forever believing that our entire lives are merely computer generated illusions.

How do I say "No, we are not in the Matrix" in a meaningful way.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Yahweh

How do I say "No, we are not in the Matrix" in a meaningful way.

Have you tried laughing and saying "You watch too many movies, kid, now beat it."?

[Jet Grind]

Daniel Dennett dealt with this in his book Conciousness Explained. It's also known as the "brain in a vat" scenario, it's a reiteration of Rene Descartes "evil demon". I would tell your students that such a thing is possible in principle, but that it is also possible in principle to build a ladder to the moon. Whoever built the computer system which generates the illusion would have to figure out how to feed sensory information into the brain. The difficulties of such a thing are discussed in detail in any cognitive science text.

Of course, your students could say that since it is all an illusion anyway such things could be specifically programmed in to confuse us. Of course, your retort should be that that claim is a circular and unfalsifiable. Just like the common theist claim that we can't know god because he's supernatural and we live in the natural world.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


I'm afraid if I dont respond in just the right way I'll inadvertantly brainwash a kid into forever believing that our entire lives are merely computer generated illusions.

[/B]

How do you know it's not?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I would say "There is absolutely no way to show that we are not merely clever computer programs. Another example of why ontology is incoherent and meaningless. Now beat it, kid."

~~ Paul

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


How do you know it's not?

Whenever I have heard similar questions thrown around I have always had the same thought. My thought is always: What does it matter?

If you have a "fake" reality that is indistinguishable from "real" reality then that "fake" reality IS "real" reality, for all practical purposes, until such a time as a means presents itself of distinguishing between the two, if ever. If we were in the Matrix, the Matrix would be the reality with which we have to deal with until such time as someone offered us the red pill. So until that pill was offered, it wouldn't matter one iota whether we were in the Matrix or not.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


How do I say "No, we are not in the Matrix" in a meaningful way. [/B]

Yahwah,

Explain about the notion of a common material world and how it explains our sense experiences. Point out that people traditionally thought it's more simple to suppose there is a common chair out there which is responsible for our common sensory experiences, than to suppose we live in a super sophisticated computer game, or that God organises everything.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jet Grind
Daniel Dennett dealt with this in his book Conciousness Explained. It's also known as the "brain in a vat" scenario, it's a reiteration of Rene Descartes "evil demon". I would tell your students that such a thing is possible in principle, but that it is also possible in principle to build a ladder to the moon. Whoever built the computer system which generates the illusion would have to figure out how to feed sensory information into the brain. The difficulties of such a thing are discussed in detail in any cognitive science text.

Of course, your students could say that since it is all an illusion anyway such things could be specifically programmed in to confuse us. Of course, your retort should be that that claim is a circular and unfalsifiable. Just like the common theist claim that we can't know god because he's supernatural and we live in the natural world.

But if instead of having computers create the "illusion", why cannot an omnipotent God just feed us all our sensory experiences?

[ShottleBop]

I'm afraid if I dont respond in just the right way I'll inadvertantly brainwash a kid into forever believing that our entire lives are merely computer generated illusions.

Did you see the July "Scientific American"?

Information in the Holographic Universe: Theoretical results about black holes suggest that the universe could be like a gigantic hologram (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF&catID=2)

Remarkably, recent developments in theoretical physics answer some of these questions, and the answers might be important clues to the ultimate theory of reality. By studying the mysterious properties of black holes, physicists have deduced absolute limits on how much information a region of space or a quantity of matter and energy can hold. Related results suggest that our universe, which we perceive to have three spatial dimensions, might instead be "written" on a two-dimensional surface, like a hologram. Our everyday perceptions of the world as three-dimensional would then be either a profound illusion or merely one of two alternative ways of viewing reality. A grain of sand may not encompass our world, but a flat screen might.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But if instead of having computers create the "illusion", why cannot an omnipotent God just feed us all our sensory experiences?


Then I would answer that the same as Franko's deterministic fate argument.
If we're being 'fed' these experiences the sole blame for all that's wrong in the universe lies with the transmitter, all the receivers are off the hook so far as 'mens rai' is concerned.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Because if the Matrix were real, its creators would have killed all the humans and used electric eels instead.

[T'ai Chi]

I would tell the student to explore the goods and the bads of such a philosophy.

[Marc]

Can't actually use the argument some of us realy want to make. For anyone claiming the world is an illusion or the product of our conciousness, tie the person to a tree just as a very big storm is rolling in. That might cure them of thinking their mind controls reality, maybe of thinking this is an illusion too. If that doesn't work try a baseball bat.

[ImpyTimpy]

Rather then try and disprove that you're inside a Matrix, why not simply ask, what does it change? Or better still, ask them how do they know they're simply not hallucinating their entire life in a mental institution?

The answer is it doesn't matter whether you are or you're not. Since you can't prove it either way, simply accept what is before you. Your life won't suddenly change if for a split second you realise you're just a computer illusion - unless some a-hole pulls the plug :p

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But if instead of having computers create the "illusion", why cannot an omnipotent God just feed us all our sensory experiences?

I already conceded that such was possible (at least in principle).

[Roadtoad]

My question would be: If we were in a "matrix," how do you account for the diversity of opinion in the world community? Would there not be a far more subtle means of mind control than what exists now?

Now beat it...

(Yahweh, your students watch too many movies...)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Rather then try and disprove that you're inside a Matrix, why not simply ask, what does it change? Or better still, ask them how do they know they're simply not hallucinating their entire life in a mental institution?

The answer is it doesn't matter whether you are or you're not. Since you can't prove it either way, simply accept what is before you. Your life won't suddenly change if for a split second you realise you're just a computer illusion - unless some a-hole pulls the plug :p

Well it might have implications for our free will, the existence of paranormal phenomena, the existence of a life after death, the existence of a God, the ultimate purpose of life the Universe and everything and so on. But on the surface it makes absolutely no difference :)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well it might have implications for our free will, the existence of paranormal phenomena, the existence of a life after death, the existence of a God, the ultimate purpose of life the Universe and everything and so on. But on the surface it makes absolutely no difference :)

Exept that an ultimate purpose in the universe might detract from free will, or that the existence of an omniscient God would contradict that, or that the Matrix in the movie didn't imply any of the things Ian is talking about, suuuuuuuuuure.

[SquishyDave]

What you need might be the following quote from INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/) web page.

We just can't buy the explanation of why the computer system bothers to maintain not only the simulation but humanity. Supposedly, the computer system needs people as a power source. This makes no sense. The food fed to humans would have far more energy content than the meager power available from humans. It would require even more energy to run the food delivery system not to mention maintain the slime tubs. Why would the machines bother? Surely there'd be a more effective way to extract energy from the food. But wait! It gets worse. Liquefied dead humans are fed back to the living ones. The movie comes dangerously close to implying that the computer/energy system is a giant perpetual motion machine. This is clearly impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics and likewise impossible for us to dismiss lightly.

To cover itself, the movie throws in a quick mention that the human energy source powering the machines is combined with a source of fusion. This is like getting on a 747 and having the captain explain in great detail that the plane is rubber band powered, then add that it also has four jet engines. Guess which power source gets it off the ground, duh.

[calladus]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
Because if the Matrix were real, its creators would have killed all the humans and used electric eels instead.
They could have used COWS instead! (http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20030512)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Marc
For anyone claiming the world is an illusion or the product of our conciousness, tie the person to a tree just as a very big storm is rolling in. That might cure them of thinking their mind controls reality, maybe of thinking this is an illusion too. If that doesn't work try a baseball bat.

Perhaps our consciousness just creates quantum events, not big things like storms or baseball bats, but, you know, small things the size of atoms, etc. Maybe we create the building blocks, but we can't control them.

Who knows!

Oh, I do, and the answer is: 18.

Coincidently the soon to be age of the Olsen twins. (Quagmire)Alllll riiight!(/Quagmire)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well it might have implications for our free will, the existence of paranormal phenomena, the existence of a life after death, the existence of a God, the ultimate purpose of life the Universe and everything and so on. But on the surface it makes absolutely no difference :)
I like to write down a series of vague notes throughout my day. Of the several ones which I wrote today, one said "Would the idea of Ultimate Purpose in life defeat the concept of free will?". Your post just reminded me of that...

[elliotfc]

I saw the first Matrix I guess it was a few years ago. I liked it a lot. I saw the second Matrix, and I wanted to start breaking things and screaming. I guess I hated the second one?

So, did I change, or did the Matrix change?

-Elliot

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I saw the first Matrix I guess it was a few years ago. I liked it a lot. I saw the second Matrix, and I wanted to start breaking things and screaming. I guess I hated the second one?

So, did I change, or did the Matrix change?

-Elliot

So the second isn't very good then? :( Not a lot of martial arts in it and violence?? :( That's what I like to see. Oh well, should know in a few weeks time when it comes out on dvd. I absolutely loved the end of the first film where he stopped the bullets! :D I wonder if such a thing is possible in our world???

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


So the second isn't very good then? :( Not a lot of martial arts in it and violence?? :( That's what I like to see. Oh well, should know in a few weeks time when it comes out on dvd. I absolutely loved the end of the first film where he stopped the bullets! :D I wonder if such a thing is possible in our world???

There was a guy in the movie who looked like the Kentucky Fried Chicken colonel. There was a scene where a bunch of hippies jumped up and down for five minutes. I lost count of the number of stereotypes. You could predict how a "type" of character would look like.

The martial arts was hardly inspirational. The actions scenes were cool though.

Maybe I should see the first Matrix again. It's very possible that I will not like it as much as I did a few years ago. That will mean I have changed, and not the Matrix.

Anyhow I'm tired of the whole dressing in black fashion deal, and the slick hair and sunglasses and boots and attitude. And the music is annoying. I'd have them in jeans and soccer shirts, Teenage Fanclub in the background. I'd find that more compelling by far. No wonder the Matrix wants them out of commission, those people would get on anyone's nerves.

-Elliot

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Yahweh


How do I say "No, we are not in the Matrix" in a meaningful way.


Tell the student, "You are absolutely wrong. Do not think this way."

Then, have some of your friends dress in dark suits, follow him around, and menace him.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I absolutely loved the end of the first film where he stopped the bullets! :D I wonder if such a thing is possible in our world???


Even though there are probably a few posters here who would be interested in seeing you attempt it, don't try this at home!

[Dancing David]

It is good to question reality, a very interesting dialouge ensues.

Nylarthotep said it well, What does it matter? Is there any real reason to care if a computer or god makes this all up. (I would hope god has better thgings to do than feed people experiences like torture and rape)

But most of what people call reality is an illsuion, the world of word created by human to describe reality has many wholes and holes in it. Concepts of race are taken as real when in fact they are social contructs.

Question reality, learn from the answers.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Every few days or so, at least one of my students will ask me the question "How do we know we're not in the Matrix?".

So far, I've just been saying "Well, 'The Matrix' scenario is Philosophically valid. But if you were to look at the question closely, you would see that the question is logically ambigious, and its a negative statement." I've already gone over ambigious claims and "proving of negatives" with the kids. But the answer I give sounds extremely evasive and dodgey, I dont like to resort to that kind of "debating". (Note: I try to use smaller, simpler words, its no help if I talk over the kids' heads.)

I'm afraid if I dont respond in just the right way I'll inadvertantly brainwash a kid into forever believing that our entire lives are merely computer generated illusions.

How do I say "No, we are not in the Matrix" in a meaningful way.

I would tell the students that the Matrix comments are aking to refuting a god concept which is something that cannot be done because by definition gods exist outside of our knowledge and it is impossible to refute something that is can never be known.

For example:

Believer: "Everything we say, we do, and we experience is due to the influence of pan-dimensional hyper-intelligent invisible rabbits!"

Skeptic: "Oh yeah? Where is your evidence?"

Believer: "Well you would admit that there are a vast number mechanisms that are outside of human control that we humans need to maintain the needs for our existence such as evolution, laws of gravity, speed of light being a constant, and so on, yes?"

Skeptic: "Yes, that is quite true."

Believer: "Well, there you have it! The PDHI bunnies made things that way just for us?"

Skeptic: "I see. So where is your evidence for these god bunnies?"

Believer: "Since they are so clever, they designed our universe in such a way that know full well about us, but we cannot even detect them."

Skeptic: "But if you cannot detect them, then how do you know about them?"

Believer: "Well there was a really cool movie about this concept, many other people have thought and wrote about such things, and sometimes in my dreams/drug-induced highs I can escape the confines of my physical brain and interact with them."

Skeptic: "Well, since your evidence is entirely subjective I would have to say that it is inconclusive. I mean that one could just as easily say that the universe is some sort of neural interactive Matrix that is operated by an artificial intelligence that is designed to keep us locked down and under control while providing a power source for their machines. You know, I think that there was a movie or two about this concept too!"

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But if instead of having computers create the "illusion", why cannot an omnipotent God just feed us all our sensory experiences?

That would be an extremely “ loving, mature, compassionate “ god. Playing games, inflecting suffering on innocent beings, starving, torturing, allowing or facilitating great abuse and suffering.

Would you really consider this being “ all powerful” ? Loving?

In human terms he would be considered a abuser of the worst kind and placed in a facility where he could not inflict such pain on other.

[rustypouch]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I saw the first Matrix I guess it was a few years ago. I liked it a lot. I saw the second Matrix, and I wanted to start breaking things and screaming. I guess I hated the second one?

So, did I change, or did the Matrix change?

-Elliot

I agree with these sentiments.

The first matrix was a great movie, but the second one blew chunks.

I think the reason the first movie was so much better is because of the tension in the movie. The agents were actually scary, and there was a very good chance that the main characters would die. Killing of some of the supporting characters will do that.

The second movie completely lacked this tension. There was little to no plot, and the action sequences were meaningless. They looked great, but they were nothing more than eye candy, as we already knew that Neo is invincible. If we know the outcome of a fight, it gets boring, right?

I could go on, but I hope I have made myself clear.

And T'ai Chi: Do you know nothing? The answer is forty-two.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But if instead of having computers create the "illusion", why cannot an omnipotent God just feed us all our sensory experiences?

If he wanted to create physical beings with senses, and he wanted those beings to only sense what he fed them, then we would be that way.

I think, to some extent, that sensory experiences are overrated. They are definitely real things. To draw conclusions based on sensory experiences, like feeling pain or pleasure and what not, might not be the way to approach things. That doesn't minimize how they feel of course.

-Elliot

[Underemployed]

Bluegill said:

Tell the student, "You are absolutely wrong. Do not think this way."

Then, have some of your friends dress in dark suits, follow him around, and menace him.

LMAO!!! Please do that one day Yahweh....I promise to come round in my suit and shades and interrogate him afterwards.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think people that make such statements misinterpret The Matrix. I don't think the movie is saying "Truth is relative" at all, or "reality is an illusion."

I think it is saying the opposite: reality is not just some subjective experience. Not always at least. This seems evident in two ways 1) Morpheus made a comment to the effect that "What is real? What you can see, touch, hear? Then it is just electrical signals." Implying reality was objective, not just what one percieves.

And 2) the villain, Cyphor, was a relativist. He stated "I think the Matrix can be just as real as this world. "

I think what The Matrix was not saying that truth is relative, or reality is an illusion or we are seriously living in a Matrix (i.e. advancing soilpsism/idealism), but the Matrix instead represents false beliefs we confuse with reality. In this sense its more like Plato's Allegory of the Cave then the brain in the vat scenerio.


Also The Matrix indicates the importance of self-correction. When the characters are in the Matrix they accept the construct as reality, until they have good reasons to think otherwise. When they discover that the Matrix is a construct, they accept the post-apocalyptic world as reality-until they have reason to think otherwise.

It demonstrates self-correction via parsimony then, posit as little as necessary. It's just that as new evidence and data comes in, more and more becomes necessary.


So what would I say to the kid? I would say that "I don't know this isn't the Matrix 100 percent, but chances are that unless I find evidence to indicate this is the Matrix, that this is reality. That's using parsimony." That is how one avoids the problem of infinite regress and I think The Matrix was trying to show that, to a limited extent.

Though the film makers were likely somewhat religious in their realism, as I heard both are Gnostic and have an interest in Eastern philosophy. (It should also be noted that they claim to be fans of evolutionary psychology.)

[Jet Grind]

I have to take issue with the posters who are trashing on the Matrix Reloaded.

I think that the reason a lot of people really didn't like the second movie as much as the first was the fact that the first was something new. It has an original story line, great action scenes, and awesome special effects to top it off (those are the same things that made Terminator 2 a great movie IMO). In the second one you kind of knew what to expect, and that took a lot away from it.

I definitely disagree with those who say that there was "little or no plot" in the movie. There was most certainly a plot, and IMO, a well developed one. The philosophical focus of the second movie was also a nice touch. The action scenes were still there, much larger in number and much better done than in the original movie too.

I will admit that it wasn't overall as good of a movie as the original. I'm just saying that many of the criticisms of the movie are unfounded IMO.

[Silicon]

How do we know we're not in The Matrix?


Because any intellegent entity smart enough to build such a thing wouldn't pattern it after such a crappy bunch of movies!


Hhehehehe.


Seriously, ask them this:

If you were designing a world, anything you could dream of, and everyone would see the world just as you designed it...


Is THIS what you'd make?



Just say that, ask it that way. See if they don't snort and agree with you.

[Darwin]

I really hated the movie.Anyone else?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Darwin
I really hated the movie.Anyone else?

I did too. Ther are three major reasons. The first is thay no one in the movie could so much as tie their shoelaces without stopping and making a three-minute speech first, in fact I think the Architects speech was an attempt to bore Neo to death since guns and bullets weren't working. The second was the stop motion thing (i.e. where Neo would dodge bullets), it was kind of cool used sparingly in the first movie, but they WAAAAY overdid it this time around, it just got irritating after a while. The third reason is that by making Neo so powerful, they made him boring, I half expected see him reading a book with one hand while beating up on bad guys with the other, come to think of it, if he had done that it would have at least inject some humor into the movie and maybe it wouldn't have sucked as bad.

[Silicon]

Yeah.

The first movie was a pretty good diversion.

The second one was like sitting in a philosophy class for 3 hours.

Wait. Not a philosophy class.

A philosophy study group led by an extremely verbose stoner.



The whole thing seemed pointless. They were always running or driving to ... somewhere... for something... not sure what. Just so they could get to the LITERAL deux ex machina, the designer, and even HE couldn't explain the whole thing.

What was with that rave scene? What was with the vampires that didn't do anything? What was with that matrix crotch-shot? (Did an effects guy ACTUALLY model genetalia made of numbers? Did he put that on his resume?)

It was all just so, so stupid.

Here's a better version of the script, that explains everything wrong with the second film:


THE MATRIX RELOADED: THE ABRIDGED SCRIPT

http://ter.air0day.com/index.php?script=matrixreloaded





KEANU enters a white room, the walls of which are covered
in monitors. A chair spins around to reveal THE EXPLAINER.

KEANU REEVES
Who are you?

THE EXPLAINER
I am The Explainer. I designed the
matrix screenplay. Unable to
decently explain the convoluted plot
well, I have resorted to putting
myself here in the final act and
having you ask all of the questions
the audience wants to ask.
(dramatic pause)
You must begin by asking your own
questions then gradually switch to
asking those of the audience, in
order to not make this scene any
more awkward than it already is.
Concordantly, while your first
question may be the most pertinent,
you may or may not realize it is
also the most irrelevant.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Silicon
Yeah.

The first movie was a pretty good diversion.

The second one was like sitting in a philosophy class for 3 hours.

Wait. Not a philosophy class.

A philosophy study group led by an extremely verbose stoner.

Yup. I had visions of "Waking Life" dancing in my head. If hell exists, it surely incorporates a constant replaying of Waking Life over and over and over again.

Matrix 2 is not as stultifyingly monotonous and banal as Waking Life, but it does have Keanu Reeves in it, surely the most breathtakingly wretched actor going today.

-Elliot

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Perhaps our consciousness just creates quantum events, not big things like storms or baseball bats, but, you know, small things the size of atoms, etc. Maybe we create the building blocks, but we can't control them.

Who knows!

Oh, I do, and the answer is: 18.

Coincidently the soon to be age of the Olsen twins. (Quagmire)Alllll riiight!(/Quagmire)

No, no, NO! The answer is 42!

[DialecticMaterialist]

I liked Reloaded more then the original Matrix. IMO it added a lot of depth and variety. It replaced the simplistic two factions war with at least four, perhaps five different groups.

It replaced a sure win which I was expecting (the prophecy scenerio) with an almost certain loss and a revelation that the whole thing was bunk.

It replaced a mystical Oracle with an AI construct.

It gave the mystic Morpheus a huge pie in the face at the end. That was my favorite part.

IMO it didn't have enough dialogue, though I didn't much care for the action scenes. Also I expected Neo to do some really cool spell time things, like if he could move stuff with his mind or shoot lightning from his hands.

Overally I felt the Matrix Reloaded was much better then the original.

I was actually surprised by this one at two points. In the first I knew the Matrix was something weird, so I wasn't that surprised by the whole revelation. In the second, the revelation concerning the Oracle and Zion was a surprise I did not see coming.


I suppose some people may consider it to be like a philosophy lecture or study group but I personally like those things.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Marc
If that doesn't work try a baseball bat.

Hey! I got a patent AND a trademark on that!

:D

It's hard to explain to people who don't understand computers, but there are simply limits to digitalization. The universe is itself digital: you either have a quark or you don't. So to simulate the universe digitally, you'd need a computer with at least as many bits as there are quarks. This computer would thus be bigger than the universe, since each of its bits would be made up of many quarks. In fact, just simulating an apple would probably require a computer bigger than the known universe.

The alternative is to assume that matrix only approximates the universe, instead of completely simulating it. But then, why can't we see the grain, like if you stare at a tv real close you can see the little dots that make the picture?

Of course the smart ones will say we can, it's called the Planck limit, but if they are that smart they don't think we are in the matrix.

But ultimately it comes back to the baseball bat test. We believe the universe is real because we have no choice: the bat compels us to acknowledge its realness.

[DialecticMaterialist]

What I wondered though is why they don't use shot guns or "buck shots" in the Matrix. I mean they can dodge bullets, but a couple thousand pellets? Perhaps not.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
What I wondered though is why they don't use shot guns or "buck shots" in the Matrix. I mean they can dodge bullets, but a couple thousand pellets? Perhaps not.

Only obliquely related...

I've often wondered why, in horror movies, characters don't construct suits covered with large sharp spikes and/or knives.

Surely that would discourage zombies and vampires and those with mad kung-fu skills.

Thanks for listening.

-Elliot

[Sindai]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
What I wondered though is why they don't use shot guns or "buck shots" in the Matrix. I mean they can dodge bullets, but a couple thousand pellets? Perhaps not.

Your question has been posed and answered as one, grasshopper. Go and meditate on the nature of the universe.

[joyrex]

Anyone seen Animatrix? I think it's better than the movies.. I like the way it presents the Matrix world in short story manner - it suits better. More variety in it too.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I liked Reloaded more then the original Matrix. IMO it added a lot of depth and variety. It replaced the simplistic two factions war with at least four, perhaps five different groups.

It replaced a sure win which I was expecting (the prophecy scenerio) with an almost certain loss and a revelation that the whole thing was bunk.

It replaced a mystical Oracle with an AI construct.

It gave the mystic Morpheus a huge pie in the face at the end. That was my favorite part.



OK OK don't tell me everything that happened! I haven't seen it yet.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[But ultimately it comes back to the baseball bat test. We believe the universe is real because we have no choice: the bat compels us to acknowledge its realness. [/B]

Nobody has ever disputed that it is real. But that doesn't mean that it is material.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Whenever I have heard similar questions thrown around I have always had the same thought. My thought is always: What does it matter?

If you have a "fake" reality that is indistinguishable from "real" reality then that "fake" reality IS "real" reality, for all practical purposes, until such a time as a means presents itself of distinguishing between the two, if ever. If we were in the Matrix, the Matrix would be the reality with which we have to deal with until such time as someone offered us the red pill. So until that pill was offered, it wouldn't matter one iota whether we were in the Matrix or not.

Thank you. This has always been my argument against many of those "philosophical" questions that come up in here all the time - "do we have free will?" "is the material world real?" "do we exist?? and so on. The presumption in all of those sorts of questions is that there is some sort of alternative, more ultimate reality. In as much as the only reality we can have is the one we experience it is meaningless to talk about a reality beyond it.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by billydkid


Thank you. This has always been my argument against many of those "philosophical" questions that come up in here all the time - "do we have free will?" "is the material world real?" "do we exist?? and so on. The presumption in all of those sorts of questions is that there is some sort of alternative, more ultimate reality. In as much as the only reality we can have is the one we experience it is meaningless to talk about a reality beyond it.

Unless, of course, you do in fact find meaning in the discussion.

-Elliot

[billydkid]

Originally posted by rustypouch


I agree with these sentiments.

The first matrix was a great movie, but the second one blew chunks.

I think the reason the first movie was so much better is because of the tension in the movie. The agents were actually scary, and there was a very good chance that the main characters would die. Killing of some of the supporting characters will do that.

The second movie completely lacked this tension. There was little to no plot, and the action sequences were meaningless. They looked great, but they were nothing more than eye candy, as we already knew that Neo is invincible. If we know the outcome of a fight, it gets boring, right?

I could go on, but I hope I have made myself clear.

And T'ai Chi: Do you know nothing? The answer is forty-two.

Well, and one of the fundamental great things about the first movie which absolutely couldn't be added to the second is the fact that we didn't know what was going on at first. The whole matrix thing was slowly being revealed to us in the first. We were discovering the matrix just as Neo was and we were just as in the dark as he was.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by billydkid


Thank you. This has always been my argument against many of those "philosophical" questions that come up in here all the time - "do we have free will?" "is the material world real?" "do we exist?? and so on. The presumption in all of those sorts of questions is that there is some sort of alternative, more ultimate reality. In as much as the only reality we can have is the one we experience it is meaningless to talk about a reality beyond it.

I don't see that presumption. The main use of such philosophical questions seems to be as a critique of skepticism. If we only accept what we have evidence to prove, how do we arrive at a belief in our senses? Since sense is by defintion how one interacts with the world, it is logically impossible to arrive at such a belief without using sense itself, and that would be circular. It would be not unlike saying God exists because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is trustorthy because God wrote the thing. Without some sort of assumption somewhere the whole thing collapses into solipsism. Questioning a line of thinking is different from positing a alternate reality.

The above strikes me as being an argument from personal incredulity. It may be practically irrelevent to wonder about these questions, but that isn't in and of itself an answer, rather just an attempted exuse for allowing a belief without evidence.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I don't see that presumption. The main use of such philosophical questions seems to be as a critique of skepticism. If we only accept what we have evidence to prove, how do we arrive at a belief in our senses? Since sense is by defintion how one interacts with the world, it is logically impossible to arrive at such a belief without using sense itself, and that would be circular. It would be not unlike saying God exists because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is trustorthy because God wrote the thing. Without some sort of assumption somewhere the whole thing collapses into solipsism. Questioning a line of thinking is different from positing a alternate reality.

The above strikes me as being an argument from personal incredulity. It may be practically irrelevent to wonder about these questions, but that isn't in and of itself an answer, rather just an attempted exuse for allowing a belief without evidence.

Maybe I wasn't clear or maybe I am just unable to understand you. You can say, for example, that all we have is the illusion of free will. However, that presumes that there is such a thing as "real" free will. But if that "real" free will is indistinguishable from our illusion of free will then, from our perspective (the only perspective we have) they are one in the same. But even that is not really my point. Our notion of free will comes from our experience of free will. The capacity we have that we experience as our freewill is the source of our conception of free will. We have given the name "freewill" to that experience so, by definition, it is freewill.

There may be the possibility of some other sort of conscious activity that is somehow distinguishable from our "freewill" but mimmicks it (a free'er freewill or something, I don't know), but we have decided to call our experience of thinking, choosing and deciding, our sense of volition "freewill", so that IS "freewill".

Freewill may not operate the way we commonly suppose it does, but what is that to the question? Or maybe that really is the question - not "do we have freewill?", but does freewill operate in the way we think it does? and not is freewill and "illusion". Like wise, when Interesting Ian like to claim, for example, that a tree (or anything material) is an illusion - well, we have defined as real our experience of the tree. Even if it is an "illusion" in some ultimate sense, it is still what we have defined as real and as a tree.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid
Like wise, when Interesting Ian like to claim, for example, that a tree (or anything material) is an illusion - well, we have defined as real our experience of the tree. Even if it is an "illusion" in some ultimate sense, it is still what we have defined as real and as a tree. [/B]

I have never claimed that trees are illusions. And why do you think the external world is material?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have never claimed that trees are illusions. And why do you think the external world is material?

Why do you think it isn't. I am not criticizing, I am genuinely interested in your answer.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have never claimed that trees are illusions. And why do you think the external world is material?

I thought we did specifically have a discussion about trees. Maybe it was someone else. If so I apologize. Well, my argument is that we define the external world as material. "Material" is the name we have given to what we experience as the material world. My experience of this desk I am sitting at is what we have defined as material. There may be some other concept you can think of the properties of which this desk does not fulfill, but it is definately material by definition. We get our conception of materialness from the world and it is not the case that we have a preexisting conception of materialness and have decided that the world fits that conception.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And why do you think the external world is material?
This is just my abridged answer:

I believe the external world is material because I believe its not necessary for me to experience reality, whether I experience it or not it will still be reality (reminds me of that Phillip [b]K.[/i] Dick quote from Zep's signature).

I believe other people exist. (Personally, I feel that I would be a bit arrogant if I considered myself to be the only one to exist in reality, and all others to be illusions.)

I believe other people are made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions (material).

I find the "its all an illusion inside your head" to be a very "convenient" and somewhat evasive answer.

I know my way around Physics and Chemistry.

I find it unusual that in an immaterial world, so much of science could have materialistic explanation (chemistry, hydrogen bonds, biology, etymology).

The list goes for quite a while... (I'd continue, but I'd rather eat dinner before it gets cold right about now...)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by billydkid


Maybe I wasn't clear or maybe I am just unable to understand you. You can say, for example, that all we have is the illusion of free will. However, that presumes that there is such a thing as "real" free will. But if that "real" free will is indistinguishable from our illusion of free will then, from our perspective (the only perspective we have) they are one in the same. But even that is not really my point. Our notion of free will comes from our experience of free will. The capacity we have that we experience as our freewill is the source of our conception of free will. We have given the name "freewill" to that experience so, by definition, it is freewill.

There may be the possibility of some other sort of conscious activity that is somehow distinguishable from our "freewill" but mimmicks it (a free'er freewill or something, I don't know), but we have decided to call our experience of thinking, choosing and deciding, our sense of volition "freewill", so that IS "freewill".

Freewill may not operate the way we commonly suppose it does, but what is that to the question? Or maybe that really is the question - not "do we have freewill?", but does freewill operate in the way we think it does? and not is freewill and "illusion". Like wise, when Interesting Ian like to claim, for example, that a tree (or anything material) is an illusion - well, we have defined as real our experience of the tree. Even if it is an "illusion" in some ultimate sense, it is still what we have defined as real and as a tree.

Apparently you misunderstood. I say nothing about freewill, and don't really think about it as an issue. I'm just being skeptical about skepticism. If you start from zero and believe only things for which there is evidence, what is one's grounds for accepting sense input? It's sort of a reverse tautology. Somewhere we just accept that reality exists without evidence. We have to, because where are we going to get that evidence from? We can't get it from reality as this would be circular. Defending sense input because it always works, or because it hurts real bad if someone hits you with a baseball bat, that is circular, like the God/Bible thing I laid out above.

I just seem to often hit an "if not reality, then what?" objection. It seems a poor objection. It's a version of the "god of the gaps fallacy." I voice a disbelief in god. A believer objects by pointing out some sort of physical phenomena that seems absurd by our present understanding of reality, and says since I have no better explaination he is justified in believing in god. This is a fallacy, but I get the same whiff from arguments used here to justify a belief in senses, the scientific method, etc. Just as there is some expalination for the phenomena raised by the believer, there is by definition a reality. However, does the lack of a better explaination justify the believer's god or my belief that the reality I seem to experience is in fact the "true" reality? We seem to be on some level making similar assumptions that inform our belief systems.

I'd agree totally that this is in a practical sense irrelevent. We live in the world we live in and are justified in doing what we can. I'm more interested in the philosophical details, as it seems to me if brute pragmatism is the only basis for belief, well, yikes. Pragmatism seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

As an aside, I took about a decade off from closely examining my beliefs and have recently gotten back on the philosophical horse. I'm a recent born-again skeptic and athiest and I'm doing the best I can. I just wanted to mention that I'm not trying to be difficult and ram some weird theories down anyone's throats. This question has been bothering me of late and for some reason I think it's important in some barely explainable way.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Apparently you misunderstood. I say nothing about freewill, and don't really think about it as an issue. I'm just being skeptical about skepticism. If you start from zero and believe only things for which there is evidence, what is one's grounds for accepting sense input? It's sort of a reverse tautology. Somewhere we just accept that reality exists without evidence. We have to, because where are we going to get that evidence from? We can't get it from reality as this would be circular. Defending sense input because it always works, or because it hurts real bad if someone hits you with a baseball bat, that is circular, like the God/Bible thing I laid out above.

I just seem to often hit an "if not reality, then what?" objection. It seems a poor objection. It's a version of the "god of the gaps fallacy." I voice a disbelief in god. A believer objects by pointing out some sort of physical phenomena that seems absurd by our present understanding of reality, and says since I have no better explaination he is justified in believing in god. This is a fallacy, but I get the same whiff from arguments used here to justify a belief in senses, the scientific method, etc. Just as there is some expalination for the phenomena raised by the believer, there is by definition a reality. However, does the lack of a better explaination justify the believer's god or my belief that the reality I seem to experience is in fact the "true" reality? We seem to be on some level making similar assumptions that inform our belief systems.

I'd agree totally that this is in a practical sense irrelevent. We live in the world we live in and are justified in doing what we can. I'm more interested in the philosophical details, as it seems to me if brute pragmatism is the only basis for belief, well, yikes. Pragmatism seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

As an aside, I took about a decade off from closely examining my beliefs and have recently gotten back on the philosophical horse. I'm a recent born-again skeptic and athiest and I'm doing the best I can. I just wanted to mention that I'm not trying to be difficult and ram some weird theories down anyone's throats. This question has been bothering me of late and for some reason I think it's important in some barely explainable way.

I will have to digest this for a while to see if I can understand it. I guess you could replace "freewill" with "reality" in my former post. I would have to argue, well, maybe there is something beyond what we call reality, but that doesn't change the fact that what we experience of the external world, ultimate or not, is what we have defined as reality. For us it is as real as it gets.

[homunculus]

I think the impossibility of proving negatives is a good approach. Just retort with, "How can you prove that we are?"

If they can't prove that, then it's kind of a moot point.

But one interesting argument against solipsism (not quite the same, but you could adapt it) goes like this. Even solipsists have to concede that whatever the source of their experience, it remains largely autonomous, in the sense of it being beyond their conscious control. So solipsism is really just realism with some unnessesary complications...

Coupled with the first argument, hopefully they're realise they don't have much choice but to be realists.

Paul.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'm just being skeptical about skepticism. If you start from zero and believe only things for which there is evidence, what is one's grounds for accepting sense input?
The most practical "start from zero" approach is to start from logic (or Philosophical reasoning). Before science, great philosophers such as Socrates and Plato began conceiving the world of Philosophy.

"And Yahweh said, Philosophy begat Mathematics, begat science."
- The Good Book (... to prevent confusion, that quote doesnt appear in the bible, thats a quote from myself humoring the bible and my own "I wanna be god" ego...)

How do we be begin formulating logic from zero logic? If you want to go that far, we begin formulating logic from our observation of the world around us.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Yahweh

How do we be begin formulating logic from zero logic? If you want to go that far, we begin formulating logic from our observation of the world around us.

What grounds do we have for accepting our observations as reliable grounds to formulate anything?

I just think at some point you have to throw up your hands and scream "Stop doing that!!! It just IS!!" The scientific method seems a basis for belief consistent with what I percieve to be reality. The scientific method also has the benefit of appearing to be internally coherent in that the scientific method can be applied to itself. However, internal consistancy isn't proof, and what I percieve can be faulty. So we go down the ladder to the question of perception with the almost impossible temptation to go back "up" to science or logic to build some kind of foundation.

Most arguments in this regard are "god of the gaps" arguments such as "if not reality, then what"; burden shifting arguments such as "give me a good reason to disbelieve my senses"; sneaky ways of making an assumption like "we start from zero, only using logic..."; and of course argument from incredulity like "how can there be nothing? What if I hit you with a stick?"

I still think we at some point must assume something, which is accepting belief without evidence.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What grounds do we have for accepting our observations as reliable grounds to formulate anything?
Are you making this assumption because you question the nature of facts, or the nature of "self" (regarding the way we percieve fact)?

I'll make a guess (based on my comprehension of your post) and assume the latter...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Are you making this assumption because you question the nature of facts, or the nature of "self" (regarding the way we percieve fact)?

I'll make a guess (based on my comprehension of your post) and assume the latter...

What "self?" (Just kidding.... sort of)

I'm questioning how one can arrive at a belief system where only beliefs supported by evidence are valid. It seems to work really well, but how does one arrive at the core belief without violating same?

What I'm getting at is hard to put into words, so I can assume it is either really deep or really stupid. Probably both.

I ask the above question, and the answer is that scientific method can be arrived at through logic and experience. Only then it appears logic is derived through experience and experience through logic. This is circular. To illustrate this consider two 3-bong-hit type questions: "Is there really a table over there?" and the classic "How do we know 2+2 really is 4?" We can't justify the first without other experience (circular) or logic. We can't justify the second without math/logic (circular), or experience. While it would be OK to justify logic with experience, it is then circular when we then justify experience with logic.

We just have to assume one of the two (or if we're feeling froggy, both). The above is a simplified account, as we could break logic and experience into myriad sub-sets, but I'd think that everything can be broken down into logic and experience, kind of a deductive/inductive thing.

[swstephe]

How do I say "No, we are not in the Matrix" in a meaningful way.

You are tired of trying to disprove a negative, but you need a meaningful way of proving a negative?

I thought the Matrix was okay, the philosophy grated on my nerves a bit because they were all over the board there just to sound deep and thoughtful. They should have stuck to something short and consistent. I was troubled with why Neo had to fly around, (or even go through doors -- or even ask for directions). He should be able to simply change his X,Y,Z co-ordinates in the simulation and appear anywhere he wanted. I guess the Matrix OS was somehow constrained in that way. By the way, my pick for the big plot twist of the 3rd installment is, (use rot13 if you don't mind spoilers):

Mvba vf n fvzhyngvba sebz n uvture ernyvgl.

You might also want to read the articles at http://www.simulation-argument.com/ -- they have one article that says that the odds of us living in a simulation are quite high -- but I think they get distracted too easily by actually thinking about how to write the program with currently feasible technology.

What kind of subject are you teaching? If it is philosophy, then you shouldn't cut short any investigation into this question. You could use the Matrix movie as an analogy. If I can not perceive something, does it exist? I can see colors on my can of pepsi, but my dog sees only shades of gray. Which of our realities is correct? My dog can hear a sound from his dog whistle which I can't. Does the color or the sound exist if I can't perceive it? If my perceptions can be fooled by clever illusions, can I trust my perceptions to reveal reality? I think these are certainly valid questions, even for the most skeptical mind. Our brains play tricks on us or are limited to what we can perceive or are told. What is the "a priori" reality?

Even in practical science, it is useful to consider things we can't directly perceive, like superstring extra dimensions or gravitons.

I would say that it is much more likely that we *do* live in a simulated reality, at the very least, one that is being simulated by our brains.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by swstephe
You are tired of trying to disprove a negative, but you need a meaningful way of proving a negative?
I just dont want the kids to think that we are in the Matrix. No, I'm not telling them to be closeminded, I just dont want them to have the "If I can concieve it, then it could exist, and if it could exist, I shouldnt deny it" mentality. That kind of logic is a bit flawed (its similar to actualism), its not exactly "deductive (or for that matter reductive) reasoning".

You might also want to read the articles at http://www.simulation-argument.com/ -- they have one article that says that the odds of us living in a simulation are quite high -- but I think they get distracted too easily by actually thinking about how to write the program with currently feasible technology.
Cool, I'll take a read of them tonight, maybe the next time I have a free day, I'll go through the entire "Matrix" scenario.

What kind of subject are you teaching?
I'm Philosophy Teacher (I also coach the Debate team and I sometimes teach Science).

If it is philosophy,
:cs:

then you shouldn't cut short any investigation into this question. You could use the Matrix movie as an analogy.
I use the Matrix as an analogy for the "brain in a vat" scenario, the "what if we were in the Matrix" scenario, its an analogy for the "sleep reality" scenario, and I compare it to Immaterialism (I dont see it as a very good analogy for Immaterialism). I also reference the Matrix when going over Connectionism, Actualism, Physicalism, and a whole mess of other stuff. (Note: Its not required that I talk about Connectionism, I just think its good for the kids to know... for reference connectionism is related to the idea of Artificial Intelligence).

If I can not perceive something, does it exist?
Neat! Questions!

First, I have to define reality, perception, and existence (I'm just remembering off the top of my head, my definitions are or should be pretty close to what you would find in any college Philosophy course... no need to drag out the heavy books):

Reality (Philosophical): Reality is the totality of all things that exist objectively.

Perception (Philosophical): Refers to how you understand reality.

Existence (Philosophical): The state of objectively "being" in reality. (Note: Existence is one of the most hotly debated topics in Philosophy, I'm just using the "shorthand" definition, I dont feel like writing a thesis in existence).

Now I can answer the questions...

If you do not percieve something, it means you are unaware of it. It does not mean it has stopped existing. Your perception cannot alter reality.

I can see colors on my can of pepsi, but my dog sees only shades of gray. Which of our realities is correct?
Color does not exist as a physical property of matter. By all techicalities, color does not exist (I'll explain...).

Stimpy explained in another thread that "fart smells" dont exist objectively, the same applies to color.

I like what dictionary.com has to say about color (I like dictionary.com because not only does it give defintions, its almost like an encyclopedia):
The sensation of color depends upon a peculiar function of the retina or optic nerve, in consequence of which rays of light produce different effects according to the length of their waves or undulations, waves of a certain length producing the sensation of red, shorter waves green, and those still shorter blue, etc. White, or ordinary, light consists of waves of various lengths so blended as to produce no effect of color, and the color of objects depends upon their power to absorb or reflect a greater or less proportion of the rays which fall upon them.

When light from the "red" frequency enters our eye, the eye sends information (note my lack of scientifical sounding words) to the brain, the information is processed and we experience the sensation of color.

(Ian, does that help clarify the whole "Materialism cant explain qualia" issue?)

"Which of our realities is correct" is a bit mixed up, you both exist in reality, there is no seperate reality for every perception. Your perception is directly related to how much you are able to percieve, if you are unable to perceive color, you simply dont percieve color. (I know that explanation sounds almost too simplistic, only because there is nothing complex to explain.)

One of the questions in Philosophy is that whole perceiver-relative approach to color: "Is the red I see the same as the red you see?". I think because humans are more or less built the same, all human brains are almost exactly alike, the cerebral cortex of the brain (section of the brain responsible or related to the sensation of perception, consciousness, and other "high" cognitive processes) are almost exactly alike, its safe to say that there is more evidence weighted upon "Yes, the red I see is the same as the red you see" rather than the Arguement from Ignorance question of "How do you know?".

My dog can hear a sound from his dog whistle which I can't. Does the color or the sound exist if I can't perceive it?
No, it means your hearing capacity is more limited than your dog's. Like I said earlier, if you cannot percieve something, that does not suggest it doesnt exist (Note how I defined "exist", technically sound isnt a physical property of matter either and doesnt exist objectively, but for lack of better words I mean "didnt or doesnt occur"). Perception and reality are not the same.

If my perceptions can be fooled by clever illusions, can I trust my perceptions to reveal reality?
A real Philosophy 101 type question. And again, another hotly debated subject in Philosophy.

That single question is how the entire Matrix scenario is held upon. It rests upon the epistemological issues regarding perception.

I'll try to answer that as best I can...

The human brain has evolved to percieve reality. For that reason, there is at least some evidence to justify "my perception of reality is accurate". Of course, that reason is easily refuted with "How reliable is perception", and then you go in a circle of "Is my perception really reality, or am I in the Matrix" which is itself an arguement from ignorance. (Do you see why this is such a hotly debated subject in Philosophy?)

I see the particular question as ambigious, there is no evidence that can be said to support belief or disbelief in the particular question.

The problem arises from the fact that humans are only aware of reality through perception (internalism).

To give my not-so-Philosophical, common sense-like answer, your senses are plenty reliable to reveal reality, perception doesnt alter reality, common sense tells you we are not in the Matrix. (I'm sorry if I in no way answered the question...)

I think these are certainly valid questions, even for the most skeptical mind.
Perfectly valid questions... until they hurt the brain from thinking about them too much...

Our brains play tricks on us or are limited to what we can perceive or are told. What is the "a priori" reality?
(I might be wrong but) I think a an "a priori" reality is in Philosophy roughly defined as "men are responsible for their own actions, we dont run around like mindless brainless automatons, any action performed by man is only guided by man, no actions can escape the world of cause and effect".

Heres a reference: http://www.mises.com/ufofes/ch1~4.asp

Even in practical science, it is useful to consider things we can't directly perceive, like superstring extra dimensions or gravitons.
Yes, its very practical to try to consider some of those things, but sometimes (like in the case of multiple spatial dimensions) those ideas only exist on paper.

I would say that it is much more likely that we *do* live in a simulated reality, at the very least, one that is being simulated by our brains.
I thinks is much more likely we live in a material reality (I dont really feel like going about the "what if you're sleeping" thing... if in the very least I'm suggesting one of the many pieces of advice I would never accept myself "you should know what I mean" :D). Our brains perceive reality, its not an illusion.

(Note to all: If you think I've made an error in my Philosophizing, feel free to inquery and correct me.)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
What I wondered though is why they don't use shot guns or "buck shots" in the Matrix. I mean they can dodge bullets, but a couple thousand pellets? Perhaps not.
The only decent horror movie ever was "Phantasm." When the kid finds out something spooky is going on down at the local graveyard, the first thing he and his brother do is get guns.

Big ones, like a shotgun and a .45.

They don't help, of course. But at least they tried.

[a_unique_person]

You can't tell me there wasn't an easier way to generate electricity.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Yahweh

(Question was: If I can not perceive something, does it exist?)

First, I have to define reality, perception, and existence (I'm just remembering off the top of my head, my definitions are or should be pretty close to what you would find in any college Philosophy course... no need to drag out the heavy books):

Reality (Philosophical): Reality is the totality of all things that exist objectively.

Perception (Philosophical): Refers to how you understand reality.

Existence (Philosophical): The state of objectively "being" in reality. (Note: Existence is one of the most hotly debated topics in Philosophy, I'm just using the "shorthand" definition, I dont feel like writing a thesis in existence).

Now I can answer the questions... Except that you have already answered the question, in making the definitions of "reality" and "perception" different. The point of the question seems to be whether or not there is a reality seperate from perception. Your answer begs the question in that it assumes what it sets out to prove.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist
Because if the Matrix were real, its creators would have killed all the humans and used electric eels instead.

Not to mention, if the machines are using humans as an energy source ( a very inefficient means of generating energy by the way) why do they need a matrix to keep their brains occupied anyway? Our bodies would be able to generate energy just as effectively if we were in comas or brain dead. Besides that, running a system like "the matrix" would consume massive amounts of power, far more energy than the people it was connected to could put out. The whole system would operate at an energy deficit.

Stupid movie.

[swstephe]

You mean I couldn't run a playstation off my little brother's energy? dang. If you can't suspend your belief for a blockbuster movie, it's time to read books instead of going to the movies.

If they are underground, feeding people off the remains of other people, then the total energy of the system is rapidly decreasing. If they have some other source of energy or nutrients then they should just tap into that source instead. Sticking people into the equation only wastes a lot of power for nothing.

So in the end, the logic doesn't work, but it was just an excuse to create the Matrix in the first place, so maybe that is the whole point. The Matrix is really just a big deception machine. It doesn't have to replicate reality, just stimulate the perception of a world to the victims. Just like a magician who creates a perception that he is sawing a woman in half.

There sure were a lot of Buddhists in that movie. From a Buddhist standpoint, the "real world" is no more real than the Matrix world, just not as cool looking.

[TheMashiah]

The truth is out there.:eek:

[spejic]

> The whole system would operate at an energy deficit.

I happen to like the Matrix movies very much, although I agree the idea at the heart of them is very poor. I think it would be far better idea if humans were being kept as computer processors in a gigantic parallel computer to further the power of the machines. The only other valid reason for the machines to keep people is sentimentality, which doesn't make much sense either, but is in keeping with some of the AI behavior in the second movie.

To answer a student who asks, "How do we know we are not in the Matrix?" you should answer: "What do the actual people connected to the Matrix do?"

The student's response should be "Live their lives as if it was real."

And then you say, "There you go."

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
If you have a "fake" reality that is indistinguishable from "real" reality then that "fake" reality IS "real" reality, for all practical purposes, until such a time as a means presents itself of distinguishing between the two, if ever. If we were in the Matrix, the Matrix would be the reality with which we have to deal with until such time as someone offered us the red pill. So until that pill was offered, it wouldn't matter one iota whether we were in the Matrix or not.

Well, it would if we're talking about a p_reality. ;)

Yahweh, next time they say something stupid like that ask them:

A. Have you ever known a computer to run without faltering at some point?
and
B. How are you sure you're not living on a giant TV production lot ala the Truman Show?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
---------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
If you have a "fake" reality that is indistinguishable from "real" reality then that "fake" reality IS "real" reality, for all practical purposes, until such a time as a means presents itself of distinguishing between the two, if ever. If we were in the Matrix, the Matrix would be the reality with which we have to deal with until such time as someone offered us the red pill. So until that pill was offered, it wouldn't matter one iota whether we were in the Matrix or not.
---------------------------------------------------

Well, it would if we're talking about a p_reality. ;)

Yahweh, next time they say something stupid like that ask them:

A. Have you ever known a computer to run without faltering at some point?
and
B. How are you sure you're not living on a giant TV production lot ala the Truman Show? [/B]
Holy poo, where did Nyarlarthosomething's post come from...

I actually missed that particular post, I have a habit of reading only the last few posts in a thread everytime I view it, so I tend to come back to every thread at least a few times a day. If a whole mess of (long) posts happen to come by, I might skip a few... I went through again and I just noticed I missed a question that Ian had asked me...

(I dont tend to correct people by calling them stupid...)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Whenever I have heard similar questions thrown around I have always had the same thought. My thought is always: What does it matter?

If you have a "fake" reality that is indistinguishable from "real" reality then that "fake" reality IS "real" reality, for all practical purposes, until such a time as a means presents itself of distinguishing between the two, if ever. If we were in the Matrix, the Matrix would be the reality with which we have to deal with until such time as someone offered us the red pill. So until that pill was offered, it wouldn't matter one iota whether we were in the Matrix or not.
Its a perfectly fine approach to go with "What I'm experiencing is reality, until I have reason to believe otherwise". Of course, its not hard to see the flaw in that approach, its too much like an Arguement From Ignorance which is an invalid form of judgement (oh, and its based on ontological reasoning... that's bad also :D...).

To say "How do you know, you dont really know"... that sounds a bit like Pascal's Wager to me. If you dont really know, its not rational to believe anyway "just incase".

Evildave posed a scenario a while ago:
I can simulate things that exist in reality in a computer, and since it behaves like reality, the simulation must be real, and therefore killing a simulated character is murder.

I forgot how I was going to relate evildave's post to what I was talking about... oh well...

[Rayn]

elliotfc said: Yup. I had visions of "Waking Life" dancing in my head. If hell exists, it surely incorporates a constant replaying of Waking Life over and over and over again.

I can see your point of not enjoying being lectured to, but I really enjoyed "Waking Life." I thought the animation was great (every frame is a work of art), the score was quite good, and they touched upon quite a few philosophical questions that I've posed to myself at one point or another, plus brought different views on the subject that I hadn't considered.

Personally, I think the holographic universe theory is quite interesting, especially David Bohm's which I've mentioned in other posts. Shottlebop's link to the Scientific American article is quite good, and any interpretations of quantum mechanics are rather interesting. Anyways, to the question of "Are we in the Matrix?" nothing you answer will satisfy your students Yahweh. It's an extreme skepticism viewpoint that will either end up in solipsism or nihilism. Or else they'll go through those in stages and reach a point where they decide to place their own value on the world, which is what they should be doing in the first place. Reality is overrated.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Rayn
Personally, I think the holographic universe theory is quite interesting, especially David Bohm's which I've mentioned in other posts. Shottlebop's link to the Scientific American article is quite good, and any interpretations of quantum mechanics are rather interesting.
This is my personal opinion, but sometimes I really question those Scientific American articles when they speak of a "holographic universe"... yeah, I know Philosophy likes to explore all possible whatsmahoosits, but Jesus Christ, that article has probably poisoned the mind of at least a few good people :p.

Anyways, to the question of "Are we in the Matrix?" nothing you answer will satisfy your students Yahweh.
Honestly, I dont think any of them are convinced the life they lead is part of a computer simulation, I think they are just trying to piss off the teacher. If anything, its nothing more than wishful thinking.

It's an extreme skepticism viewpoint that will either end up in solipsism or nihilism.
If it ever comes to the point where one of my students claims to be a nihilist, I'll die laughing.

Nihilism is roughly equivelent to a skeptic donned in Nazi attire... then eats glue. Nihilism and intellect are non-compatible in my opinion.

Or else they'll go through those in stages and reach a point where they decide to place their own value on the world, which is what they should be doing in the first place. Reality is overrated.
Reality is overrated because for some reason, people seem to expect more. They really really want reality to be something magical, remarkable, or some kind of riddle that can only be explained in terms of god... stupid optimists :D...

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I would say "There is absolutely no way to show that we are not merely clever computer programs. Another example of why ontology is incoherent and meaningless. Now beat it, kid."

~~ Paul

bump

[Rayn]

Don't discount the "holographic universe," although the label of it makes it seem like some "Matrix-esque universe" the hologram is just a metaphor.

As for nihilism, I agree, the poor schmuck that decides to tread down this slippery slope is destined to be laughed at once in his life ("Where's the money Lebowski?!?)

Anyways, I hope you look at the holographic universe in more than a cursory fashion (not saying you have, but an in depth look is well worth it). It's an interpretation of quantum mechanics, not anything set in stone, but fascinating as to its implications.

[sorgoth]

You know what? I really, REALLY enjoyed the Matrix movies. I went to see High Powered Ass Kicking, and that's what I got.

Also, one part I really liked was that the Prophecy was WRONG! That was friggin awesome. For once, the whole prophecy is false.
I loved that part.

Oh, if you listen really closely to the Architect, he seems to imply that Neo is just living in another Matrix...or something like that...I need to watch that scene again =/.

Anyway, it's a SF movie. It's not SUPPOSED to make perfect sense.

As for many of the philosophical questions so far...Isn't parsimony great?