I really don't understand what you're saying. I'm saying those inside the Matrix are having real experiences, are facing real choices, and are making real decisions. — Patterner

You said:

I think living in the Matrix would be just as real as living in the real world. — Patterner

Who agrees with you?

Not Morpheus, Trinity, Neo, etc. Not Cypher. He thinks the Matrix is better than the real world, but not "just as real." Not the people who choose the blue pill - they have no way to compare the Matrix to the real world. And presumably no one at all who takes a red pill would say that the Matrix is just as real as living in the real world.

So what basis do you have to say that it is just as real?

By just as real, I mean that, although the impulses reaching the brain do not originate in physical objects, the experiences of them are just as real. Cypher certainly agrees with me. He knows there is no physical steak at the other end of the impulses hitting his brain. But the origin of the impulses isn't important. What's important is the experience. As you say, he actually prefers, and chooses, the experiences he gets from the impulses that simulate physical things to the experiences he gets from impulses originating in physical things.

99% of the Architect's test subjects also agree that the experience of the impulses is more important than their origin.

Picard lived decades of life inn a simulated environment in 23 minutes, and his experiences remained very important to him when he was out of the simulation.

Captain Pike chose the telepathically simulated life offered to him on Talos IV over the life his physical circumstances offered.

How many people play online games like Second Life and Sims, and would play them all the time if they could? How many people would pay such games if they were extreme VR, knowing they are entering a Matrix?

In all of these cases, the person faces options, makes choices, has values, has joy, has regrets, and everything else.

This argument just comes down to our definition of real. This definition of real is that anything that exists is real. Both fake and real are real because they exist. — Hyper

When you are using the definition of real as existing, you must supply what is real after the real.
For example, "Socrates was a real person." This sounds right.

It sounds ambiguous, contradictory and illogical to say, Socrates was real, or fake is real.

I am saying that since both exist as concepts, they both exist. — Hyper

What you're saying seems to vacillate between the circular statement "concepts exist as concepts", and the compositional fallacy "since concepts exist, then also what the concepts are about exist in a sense."

Yet things exist more or less regardless of concepts. For paper to exist, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to have a concept about paper. The existence of money does not depend on a concept about it but on the actual agreements and events on markets.

When we think or talk about things that don't exist, such as 'square circles' or 'nothingness', it is not the case that the things exist in a sense. What exists is our thinking and talking about them.

, you are reading too much into it. I am saying that the concepts exist. And that the target of those concepts also exists, as a concept. And they still have physical presence as neurons in our brain.

Well, it's open to read what you say: that paper and money exist as concepts, and that the target of those concepts also exist as a concept, and that they have physical presence as neurons in our brains.

But why limit the physical presence of concepts to neurons in the brain? Evidently money and paper have physical presence as market events and cellulose fibers. Talk of everything as concepts adds nothing but a veneer of old and crusty philosophical sounding jargon.

By just as real, I mean that, although the impulses reaching the brain do not originate in physical objects, the experiences of them are just as real. Cypher certainly agrees with me. He knows there is no physical steak at the other end of the impulses hitting his brain. But the origin of the impulses isn't important. What's important is the experience. As you say, he actually prefers, and chooses, the experiences he gets from the impulses that simulate physical things to the experiences he gets from impulses originating in physical things. — Patterner

Which is to say that Cypher thinks that The Matrix is more real than the real world, no? If your measurement is experience, and Cypher thinks The Matrix provides the superior experience, then Cypher thinks The Matrix is more real. That is why I said he disagrees with you (although I took you to be saying that the reality of each is equal, which may be different from what you were saying).

Which is to say that Cypher thinks that The Matrix is more real than the real world, no? If your measurement is experience, and Cypher thinks The Matrix provides the superior experience, then Cypher thinks The Matrix is more real. — Leontiskos

I disagree. I don't think Cypher thinks The Matrix is more real. I think he prefers it. I prefer chocolate cake to peas, but they are both real. I prefer chocolate cake to being slapped, but they are both real. Cypher prefers the pleasures that can be experienced in The Matrix to the misery of the constant struggle to survive and constantly being hunted in the physical world. The system you are in and the origin of the impulses that reach your brain are not as important as the experiences you have.

The experiences are equally real. To you.

The issue with the Matrix for any human is that the humans are not in control at all. Suppose the machines discover that human beings not only are less likely to wake up, but also produce more electricity if the entire 10 billion person population exists in the equivalent of a simulation of the worst Soviet gulags. What stops the machines from implementing such a plan?

I suppose the machines have some concern for humanity, since they originally make the simulation a paradise, but there is always the chance they evolve past that sentiment. Similarly, they could just find a non-convoluted source of power, and just decide to cull the whole human population.

The unreality of the "perfect simulation" of the Matrix comes to the fore when you consider that the person in the Matrix is essentially powerless because they are trapped in the illusion. It robs them of, if not all agency, then at least important aspects. Moreover, it robs humanity as a collective corporate body of agency and the ability to pursue its own freedom. What historical progress can be made if history gets reset every 20 years or so?

I feel like there are lots of ways for the metaphor to break down, but an important aspect of it is the way in which the humans of the Matrix are powerless, like an ant colony with a vindictive child's foot perched just above it, or livestock in a feedlot.

Of course, we can assume beneficent machines, and this alleviates the problem, but it would seem to resolve the problem precisely because truly beneficit machines would try to empower their subjects until they could work together to resolve the whole energy issue through some better solution.

Reality is the current dream. The choice is between uppers and downers. The red pill is meaningfully different from the blue pill. The problem is which way is up and which way is down.

- What's odd to me about @Patterner's claim is that it is diametrically opposed to the entire thrust of the movie. He is saying that the Architect and the blue-pill takers are the ones who are right. Such is a different movie than the one that was released. Could Patterner release that new movie and make it plausible and palatable? I highly doubt it.

Cypher knew what the real world was, that the Matrix was a simulation, and he chose the simulation over the real world. I don't know how you can disagree with any of that.

- Cypher was nowhere near the protagonist. He is presented as an evil character who betrays his friends and chooses a false simulation over reality. I don't know how you can disagree with that.

I don't disagree with any of that. (Maybe "false simulation" is redundant?)

I still don't know how you disagree with Wyatt I said.

And if you object to a discussion about Cypher because he is not the protagonist, you shouldn't have brought him up.

This argument just comes down to our definition of real. This definition of real is that anything that exists is real. Both fake and real are real because they exist. — Hyper

It might be good to use different words? I would say non-physical things are real, and physical things are real.

The issue with the Matrix for any human is that the humans are not in control at all. Suppose the machines discover that human beings not only are less likely to wake up, but also produce more electricity if the entire 10 billion person population exists in the equivalent of a simulation of the worst Soviet gulags. What stops the machines from implementing such a plan? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nothing. And that is a problem. I would think it couldn't work that way in this particular fictional setting. But it's a fictional setting, and there's no reason another fictional setting like that couldn't exist.

I suppose the machines have some concern for humanity, since they originally make the simulation a paradise, but there is always the chance they evolve past that sentiment. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think it was concern. I think they did that because they needed the people to stay blissfully plugged in. They didn't expect paradise to be a problem that people would want to wake up from. The Soviet gulag would be a horror, but I wonder if people would have rejected it as much as they did the paradise. not just because of the old idea that people want conflict, but because it might distract them from noticing something wasn't right. maybe paradise gives you too much free time, and all the nagging little things get more of your attention.

Similarly, they could just find a non-convoluted source of power, and just decide to cull the whole human population. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah, just leave billions of humans to starve to death and decompose in the pods.

The unreality of the "perfect simulation" of the Matrix comes to the fore when you consider that the person in the Matrix is essentially powerless because they are trapped in the illusion. It robs them of, if not all agency, then at least important aspects. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It certainly robs them of some important things. Still, they could act as they chose within the confines of the system. And most didn't ever have the feeling that it was unreal, as Neo did. Which is why 99% accepted it when given the choice.

And if you object to a discussion about Cypher because he is not the protagonist, you shouldn't have brought him up. — Patterner

But that's why I brought him up. "You are beginning to look a lot like Cypher here." "Cypher is teh best!" :razz:

If the whole premise of The Matrix is that red pills are better than blue pills, then it's odd to argue from The Matrix that blue pills are the same as red pills.

If the whole premise of The Matrix is that red pills are better than blue pills... — Leontiskos

That's not the premise of the movie. The premise is not having a choice. Most of humanity is ignorant of the fact that it is in the situation it is in; the machines won't let those who learn about it go; and they kill any who get out that they can find. The wrong is not being given a choice.

Cypher wasn't the villain because he wanted to become a blue. Becoming a blue isn't objectively wrong. It's his preference. He was the villain because he betrayed and killed others in order to become a blue.

And Cypher is not the only one. Again, Architect tells Neo that 99% of test subjects chose the Matrix if given the choice.

Also, at the end of Revolutions, Oracle and Architect meet. This is from their conversation:

Oracle: What about the others?
Architect: What others?
Oracle: The ones that want out.
Architect: Obviously, they will be freed.

Obviously, not all want out. Those who do are not 'better' than those who chose to stay plugged in. Neo didn't sacrifice himself to end the Matrix. The bargain was that, if he beat Smith, the machines would let everyone choose. Choosing to stay doesn't make one a villain.

- If you don't think red > blue then I'm not sure we watched the same movie. The goal of "freeing minds" is not to let them choose between red and blue - it is to free them from The Matrix. Sure they have to choose, but choosing is not in itself the point.

If you don't think red > blue then I'm not sure we watched the same movie. — Leontiskos

That certainly seems to be the premise in the beginning. But few things are so simple, and The Matrix is not one of them. It's not a simple prison-break story. "Red > blue" is your - and my - personal judgment. It is not the point of these movies.

Choosing to be in the Matrix is not evil. The evil is not giving people a choice. The huge majority do not know they are in pods, living in a simulation, for the benefit of the machines. That's what had to change. That's the point of the movies. We're supposed to think beyond the initial revelation that we get 20 minutes into the first movie.

Morpheus was not evil. He has a blue pill. He didn't have to have one. They didn't have to create one, and he never had to offer it. But he gives them a choice. He explains the situation as best he can, and let's them decide. How many took the blue? Should Morpheus not have permitted it? Neo might have chosen blue, and Morpheus would have lost The One. He could have slipped a red into Neo's food at any point. But he took the chance. He gave Neo the choice.

Then we learn Cypher wants to go back in. Again, he wasn't evil for wanting to go back in. He was evil for betraying and murdering those who wanted to give everyone a choice.

Then we learn that nearly 99% off all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice.

And it all ends with the Architect's assurance that those who want out will be set free.

The many who chose the Matrix over the real world are not evil for not choosing the real world. The problem is those who do not think everyone should be allowed to choose.

Well, that's sort of the crux then, being in a simulation is only good if the people running the simulation want what is good for you. It's Plato's Cave redux. Sort of like how we might think having access to the Star Trek holodecks might be disastrous for personal development if people are given free access to them from childhood on, but that they also could be a powerful tool for education, therapy, etc., if used correctly. Or, at the extreme end we could imagine an AI that rules over humanity with the heuristic "goodness is the maximization of pleasure," which in turn keeps people as mental infants lying in a "feel good" coma.

I have thought about this before in the context of Nozick's "experience machine." If the machine is built with classical principles of the "good life" in mind, then it will essentially be a rigorous training program in the virtues that will encourage you to leave the machine when you're ready.

I don't think it was concern.

Certainly not Smith's, he is not a fan of humanity lol. I seem to recall that there was a "faction" for humans' rights in the later movies though, which would suggest some conflicted beneficence. I don't really recall the later movies very well; I didn't think they really measured up.

It would be interesting if Cypher was portrayed more sympathetically. I think he could be, but he isn't. He goes back and wants to be rich, they show him being lured by his appetites, he's sort of a creep, he's vindictive and cruel at the end, and by the time he gets shot with the lightning gun we're supposed to cheer.

I think it would be hard to portray him completely sympathetically though because, having made his choice, he is now burdened with knowledge and responsible for giving others the same choice. We might be more sympathetic towards him, but the inability to bear the hardships needed to offer others freedom isn't a virtue.

I recall the Thirtieth Floor and Dark City having similar vibes, but I really don't remember them well except that I thought Dark City was really good.

, because we can't prove that they exist as anything other than concepts.

because we can't prove that they exist as anything other than concepts. — Hyper

Yet you grant them physical presence as neurons in the brain. Whence the reluctance to grant the concepts physical presence as money and paper?

The assumption that money and paper are concepts, and that the target of those concepts is also a concept, is circular. Under a circular assumption it is, indeed, futile to prove that things are anything other than concepts. But that's just because of the circularity in the assumption.

between that of real and fake — Hyper

To me, this suggests the distinction between "true" and "false."

That leads into a discussion of objective and subjective truth.

I think the "real" incorporates both objective and subjective truth.

I know my mother loves me. This is my subjective truth, it is real.

Any thought you have exists as neurons in your brain — Hyper

We need to understand the difference between structure and function.

The neurons are the structure. "Thought" - i.e. your mind - is the function.

It's electro-stimulation of the neurons that causes thought.

Now, is it real? Pretty real to me. Is that not all that matters?