The Matrix

[LiquidDamage]

It might look cool on film, but the concept of "styles" in a gun fight is kind of silly.


In melee combat the defensive aspect matches the offensive aspect, and both are closely intertwined because of the range.

What matters with a gun is what matters to soldier/swat teams/paintballers  - cover and accurracy. A well trained shooter - doesnt look exciting in a gun fight(now if you add in several people flanking etc. become important).

I don't think anyone suggested that this idea would actually be effective in real life.

[Guest]

The batteries concept is silly. So is "die in the Matrix - die in real life" idea. And the "hardline" concept was never explained in a way that made sense.

But

Science fiction has a history of glossing over one set of details so something else can be explored more easily. Sure I prefer a cleaner story, but I dont think its ruinous aspect.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think of it from this point of view: When describing something new, the description has to be in terms of something already known. For example, if I tell you that rattlesnake tastes like chicken, that can be very informative -- unless you don't eat chicken (and, so, for me a better description is that chicken tastes like rattlesnake :) )

So, the set of interacting programs collectively known as the Matrix has parts that serve the function of virus checkers and detectors (the Agents). These use various methods to eliminate viri (Morpheus and the Zion gang). Those methods, to be intelligible to human consciousnesses, are represented by recognizable weapons. When a virus (Neo) spots and recognizes an anti-viral program (Smith) the "reality" is two pieces of code interacting. The image filtered through to Neo, however, is a stereotyped fibi complete with fibi shoes. It would make little sense to Neo (and none at all to the audience) if just waterfalls of code were displayed. Which is part of what makes the whole thing so interesting.

How much of the meaning in the film is created by the viewer? It is an allegory, and like all allegories, the author builds a framework upon which the viewer hangs his perceptions.

But when Neo was running from the Agents, and they "possessed" people he ran past, WHY did they take an Agent form? They'd do so much better in disguise.

Does an agent look like an agent? Or is what we're shown nothing more than what Neo "sees" when he sees an agent? So, maybe it is not so much that they take the form as that the form is put on them by the perception.

And that is a large part of what makes this a great movie. And the biggest mistake that can be made in part III is to try to "explain" it.

BTW, Total Recall? Real or implanted? In many ways, much like the Matrix. Or is it?

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

> The batteries concept is silly.

Sure it can be silly, especially taken literally. I prefer to see it as a high tech symbol of slavery. Humans as nothing more than a potential for labor and confined to a prison. I tells ya, I will never look at any AAA cells in my tv remote the same way again. ;)

>So is "die in the Matrix - die in real life" idea.

I keep remembering back to Morpheus speech about the matrix being a dreamworld. I had dreams where I was falling or about to fall, and it really did feel like I was physically falling. Nearly identical to that moment where you are in a roller coaster, a split second before it descends down the first big peak. When I woke up, I knew that was just clutching my bed, and I didn't really fall. Yet my physical response was identical if I would to experience falling in real life. Fear, increased heart rate, clutching something to hold, cold sweats.

I also had dreams where I was eating a fine meal, and at that moment I swear I could taste the food I was consuming. Down to the tiniest detail of the crispy fried chicken skin, the perfect combination of sauce and crunchy noodles... Only to wake up to the realities of stale bread and Mac'n cheese. ;)

So I have no problems of making a leap that if the matrix as an electronic dream world\prison can induce such physical reactions in humans like fear, texture and taste of food, sexual desire. It just might be able to induce death.

[Kasreyn]

I've had those. Know how popular myth says if you hit the ground in the dream, you'll actually die because your brain thinks you're dead? Well, it's not true.

I've hit.

I've had many falling dreams, but the one I will never forget was the one where I felt my body squash and splatter open on the pavement after a 20-story fall. I distinctly remember the sensation of my ribs being crushed into my chest. There was about a whole second or two of dream after the impact before I woke.

I envy you your dreams of fine food. All I've ever had are macabre nightmares.

-Kasreyn

[MonTy]

Hail,

I really don't like going OT, but I had a very odd dream recently that I've been wanting to share.

I drink a lot of water, and I always go to the fridge and take a new bottle up with me when I go to sleep. Normally when I wake up, I'm very thirsty so I take a few swigs. I had a dream that seemed SO real where I woke up and I was very thirsty as normal, and took a swig from my bottle. I remember sitting up, opening the poland spring cap, feeling the sensation of drinking, and then putting it back down. I then went to look out the window; but that's when I opened my eyes in real life. I looked at the poland spring bottle, and there was some gone, but not near the amount I drank in my dream. I'm almost sure I didn't have any before I went to sleep (I normally don't so I don't have to wake up and go to the bathroom). Felt very very odd, because it truely felt like real life. (I've never had a history of sleep walking or anything)

Also, they say a lot of people have falling dreams, but I have never had one.

Once again, sorry for going OT. I remember there was a post about dreams not to far back- so don't want to make a new post.

[LiquidDamage]

A friend of mine reminded me of a certain scene (that I felt was really necessary) in which you could see the plugs in Neo's back.

Then he reminded me that they removed them in the first movie.

[Taem]

Yah, I thought I was the only one who noticed the plugs in neo's back. What's up with that? I thought they were removed also!

[WarBlade]

The small plugs on the spine? The brief glimpse in The Matrix showed something being done to them, but nothing was shown actually being removed. In fact the next scene also shows Neo pulling something out of a plug in his arm.

Maybe the ones on the spine were being sealed to prevent complications or something. :unsure:

*shrugs*

[Kasreyn]

When they "plug in" to re-enter the Matrix, they only use the back-of-the-neck plug. Clearly, this is the only "data" plug. All the others must be involved with life support and bodily function monitoring for when you're in the tanks in the machines' farms. Whether the plugs are removed or just sealed doesn't matter, but I would think it would be impossible to remove them without the body reacting adversely. They've been there since the person was a fetus, probably, and the body has grown around them and grown accustomed to them.

Especially the head jack. Ever notice how LONG the prong is that is inserted, and the angle of insertion? That angle of insertion would put at least 3 inches of the prong into the area normally occupied by the human brain! Obviously, humans in the Matrix have had the prong inserted into their brain since early stages in embryonic development, to allow the brain to grow around the prong. Their adult brain has a prong-shaped cylindrical hole in it! The alternative is brutal surgery to insert it, which would ruin the brain. I imagine that a fetus has a tiny sliver of metal (not a functional jack) inserted as the brain begins to differentiate from other fetal tissue. This is replaced with a larger and larger one, until development of the brain is mostly complete at 9 months. At about age 2 (notice how you can't remember anything before then? The Matrix, my friend ^_^ (and yes, I know there are rare exceptions)), it is replaced with a functional probe after previous memories are wiped, and the new person is brought online. Until age 6-7, when the brain stops growing, new probes are used to keep up with brain growth. By age 9, you've got the probe you'll have in your skull until your death.

Kinda creepy, isn't it? =P

-Kasreyn

[kier]

Surely making all the people vegetables would be better? You wouldn't need any world for them to live and die in, they would be useless if saved, and they are allready having there waste being filtered off and fed with tubes. :P

[ithil]

WarBlade:
> Go back to the beginning, to the unanswered question of the first film: Why does the system need
> an artificial construct for the the human minds to exist in. To the machine, the people are
> supposedly just batteries and yet the machine wants people to think and learn and make decisions.

The problem with the whole battery thing is you have to put more energy into the humans than you get out. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I always just suspended disbelief on that point (after chuckling for a bit), but I read a very convincing explanation a week ago: Morpheus was lying or (more likely) flat-out wrong and the machines use humans, not as batteries, but as processors in a neural network for monitoring and controlling their very computationally demanding cold fusion reactors. There is an immense amount of highly parallel processing power available in the human brain which works exceptionally well for abstract pattern matching. Hardware like that might be necessary to control a fusion reaction without having it blow up in your face.

To actually answer your question, it's very possible that sensory deprived humans would die after a certain period of time, and it's even more likely that the higher functions of their brains would atrophy and become unusable.


LiquidDamage:
> It is entirely possible that the rusted door latch was simply predicted to an excruciatingly high
> level of accuracy, based upon years and years of compiled statistics on events.

Correct. However, gathering the necessary volume of statistics would require invasive sensors in the real world (simple if the 'real world' is the Matrix, but if that's the case the point is moot) and would take several million years. Google can process millions upon millions of pages a day. The Architect can't process millions upon millions of ships doing all sorts of complicated maneuvers because there simply aren't enough to generate the data.


MEAT (already addressed, oops):
> I believe the general agreement is that objects that are still part of the matrix and subject
> to its law, such as bullets, can be dodged and special effects can be gleamed, but attacks from
> agents and the hackers cannot because they defy the physical laws of the construct.

No, everyone in the Matrix is subject to its laws, some are simply very good at bending the rules. You die in the Matrix because it fully convinces your brain that your body is no longer functioning. Neo didn't die in the first movie because after he flatlined but before he was braindead Trinity did some convincing of her own.


Kasreyn (I didn't notice that someone touched on this one too):
> I've considered the "Neo is just that fast" argument before, but I reject it because when
> "bullet time" commences, it's only the bullets that slow down - other background things occur
> in the same rate they normally would. Only the bullets are slow.

'Bullet time' refers to the accelerated perceptions that we've seen with Neo and the agents. Actually slowing a set of bullets down is simply an exercise in telekinesis, which we've now seen Neo use several times in various ways, coupled with his hyperawareness.


Pete:
> Oh, and the second major flaw? I can understand why they would need a land line to get *into*
> the Matrix (think of it as a dial up connection). But I can't even imagine what a "real" land
> line in a construct where nothing is real even means, much less why they need it to get out.

Here's the previously mentioned article in full. You want ENTERING AND EXITING THE MATRIX and HARD LINES. (It's funny how he uses 32-bit IPs as examples even though such an address space would clearly be too limiting for the machines.) Note that there's a gaping hole in his explanation: cellphones generated inside the Matrix are part of its telephone network and should be usable as exits, but Neo didn't realize this when he swiped that guy's cellphone in the first movie. He also overemphasizes the (completely tangential) difficulty of finding a 'land line' in today's world.

The hole can be patched as follows: initial entry to the Matrix is gained by probing network locations and then transporting in to find the matching physical address. Subsequent entries are accomplished by using a network->telephone register maintained and updated in a central database at Zion. Cellphones are not useful for entry because they are rarely left unattended, and finding the same cellphone twice for a quick exit would involve tracking down a specific person in the Matrix and mugging them, not the best solution.

Of course, any uniquely tagged element in the Matrix can be used like this, but I can't think of any other suitable candidates off the top of my head.


edit:

Swarmalicious:
> IF THAT WAS PLANNED, then the rusted latch (that ends up killing the other ship members, and eventually
> leading to Trinity having to enter the Matrix) was no accident - but how?

Very good point. Sabotage springs to mind, but that's just a little unrealistic. I doubt the ships would have been swept for a bomb. Of course, the break was very well placed, since the collapse killed the operator and destroyed the command center, so it's certainly a possibility.

[WarBlade]

WarBlade:
> Go back to the beginning, to the unanswered question of the first film: Why does the system need
> an artificial construct for the the human minds to exist in. To the machine, the people are
> supposedly just batteries and yet the machine wants people to think and learn and make decisions.

The problem with the whole battery thing is you have to put more energy into the humans than you get out. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I always just suspended disbelief on that point (after chuckling for a bit), but I read a very convincing explanation a week ago: Morpheus was lying or (more likely) flat-out wrong and the machines use humans, not as batteries, but as processors in a neural network for monitoring and controlling their very computationally demanding cold fusion reactors. There is an immense amount of highly parallel processing power available in the human brain which works exceptionally well for abstract pattern matching. Hardware like that might be necessary to control a fusion reaction without having it blow up in your face.

*chokes*

As reasons for using human brain power go, that one is abysmal! :blink: A fusion reaction strikes me as being something that would be a straight event and response computation. Something that programs of the caliber of agents should be able to handle. The processing power required to make the calculation to catch a flying baseball is a task better suited to human brains.

I'd even speculate that a large precentage of the human 'collective' might be needed to sustain the processing invloved in rendering the matrix. The question is still "Why?".

To actually answer your question, it's very possible that sensory deprived humans would die after a certain period of time, and it's even more likely that the higher functions of their brains would atrophy and become unusable.

I'm not so sure about sensory deprived people dying. People in today's world can spend extended periods of time in a coma on life support, the body can still be sustained after brain death and so on. "The higher functions of the brain" thing is a better bet, but that's a no-brainer. It only gives a an answer to how to keep the human minds sustained and lends nothing at all in the direction of why they are being sustained in the first place.

[ithil]

>A fusion reaction strikes me as being something that would be a straight event and response computation.

> The processing power required to make the calculation to catch a flying baseball is a task better suited to
> human brains.

If cold fusion was as easy as controlled nuclear fission (assuming it's possible), we'd have it. On the other hand, it might involve sieving information out of thousands of intertwined, continually changing variables and passing this into hundreds of feedback parameters, and doing so fast. You see the connection, right? The human brain is good at highly parallel 'fuzzy' tasks like that. Face recognition. Motor skills. 'Event and response' is an oversimplification. That's all catching a baseball is, but programming a bot to do so has so far proven insurmountable because by the time the code recognizes the event, a response would come too late.

> lends nothing at all in the direction of why they are being sustained in the first place

It's a sure bet that it's not for their bodies.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If cold fusion . . .

Sorry, but did I miss something? I don't remember any mention of cold fusion, just fusion.

On the other hand, it might involve sieving information out of thousands of intertwined, continually changing variables and passing this into hundreds of feedback parameters, and doing so fast.

And it might not. But, even if we allow your assumption, there is a fundamental flaw. That's with the concept of *fast*. Do you mean "human fast" (about a tenth of a second) or do you mean "nuclear reaction fast" (about a ten billionths of a second -- a shake). Sorry, but the human mind controlling nuclear processes is *not* a good assumption for sf. For fantasy, maybe.

--Pete

[ithil]

> I don't remember any mention of cold fusion, just fusion.

Oops. That worked its way in there at some point. :->

> Sorry, but the human mind controlling nuclear processes is *not* a good assumption for sf.

You don't have to put the human in the front seat. The machines seem to have the necessary infrastructure for a hybrid system. I admit all of this is wild speculation, but it's fun to pass the time for a bit.

[Chaerophon]

Edit:

Mikhail Pfeiffer (spelling?)

It's not him, and it is spelled wrong. Double "d'oh!"

Now back to the original post...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm,

Bad acting? Check.

Complete lack of subtlety? Check.

Bad special effects? Check.

Ridiculously cryptic plot, deliberately contrived to produce infinite such discussions? Double-check.

I've never been so disappointed in a movie in my life. I'm a joint philosophy / political science major. I love Nietzsche. I love riddles. I have found it entertaining to engage Hegel and Schopenhauer. Sometimes the round about way of uncovering the truths of a story can be the most entertaining and rewarding. However, I'm not particularly fond of blatantly deliberate crypticism on the poetic / artistic level of a grade 10 student. To gain any sort of concrete understanding of the events in this movie, all aspects of the plot have to be narratively described by a character therein. Blunt instruments abound. That's not art or even artful, as it seems that some people believe it to be; that's a bad imitation thereof.

Why did I have to sit through pointless dancing (cripes, looked like a bad beer commercial) and sexual intercourse, at least five make out scenes, Morpheus' endless schtick that started to really get on my nerves and the completely useless introduction of Mikhail Pfeiffer (spelling?) just so that I could hear some annoyingly delivered information from the oracle that left me laughing and a deposit of obtuse plot from the man in the white jacket, the "architect" who gave his spiel in a deliberate attempt to force the viewer to watch the movie again? Sure, what he had to say was interesting, the rest? Bleh. I thought that maybe the redundant fight scenes would save this movie, until they approached the fifteen minute mark and I started to drift off. Thank god for them, however, because without them, I surely would have drifted what with the completely static and narrative dialogue that was making me dosy/gag/red with embarassment. (Never mind the fact that the "Smith's" fight scene reminded me of a well-animated computer game and not a movie. A second or two of that aka LOTR is ok, five straight minutes is not) For the most part, 'Reloaded' reminded me of a BADLY performed King Lear that I saw earlier in the year, actors delivering lines and not much else.

I absolutely loved the first movie. Saw it at least five times. It was mysterious, dynamic and captured the imagination. I can't say the same for the sequel, and I won't be watching the conclusion. I just don't care. The story DID continue in a very interesting direction. The unfortunate part is that I had to sit through the endless bulls#it in order to get there and it wasn't and won't be worth it for me. It embarassed me to have to watch that (as it was chosen upon my insistence) with people whom I respect for their insight and intelligence (girlfriend, her brother and her father). All that I could think of was 15 year old poets trying to sound like Shakespeare, but being WOEFULLY unable to even approach his subtly brilliant approach. Two thumbs down.

Edit: Just can't say enough: bad and blatant philosophical dialogue through and through - I get it, you want us to contemplate choice, existence, the nature of reality blah blah blah. Demonstrate your point in the movie - SUBTLY; don't dictate circular ideological debate to us through the mouth of a woman feeding crows. I hate crows and I hate being hit with big, blunt, stupid hammers again and again! ARGHHH!!!

[Chaerophon]

Pete, Warblade, Nico, et al,

I wish that you had actually written the movie - you're filling in the gaps very nicely. However, I have a feeling that maybe the answers that you've got go a ways beyond the level at which the movie was created and for that reason, you and a few others are actually writing the script as you go along here! While I can concede the obvious intelligence and fascinating intricacy that you and the others have contended exists in the movie, I searched for much of it, and although I can admit that your stories make for some good science fiction, I'm not sure that it's all actually there. While Reloaded seemed to me to be trying to come across as "brilliant", I think that the majority of its acclaim has come from those who a.) wanted it to be more than what it was, and b.) used what they were given as jumping off points from which to ponder and engage the plot on higher levels. Of course, c.) there are those who don't understand or can't engage the vague inferences that are there and feel the need to proclaim its greatness lest they face ridicule.

Not a flame at all. If it floats your boat, that's cool with me. However, I have to tell you that I'm actually enjoying the forum discussion more than I did the movie. The "theoreticals" weren't all that evident to me amidst the cheese and (as alluded to in another post) what I felt was infantile crypticism that ran rampant throughout the script.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete, Warblade, Nico, et al,

I wish that you had actually written the movie - you're filling in the gaps very nicely.

Thanks.

However, I have to tell you that I'm actually enjoying the forum discussion more than I did the movie.

The fact that there was enough there to generate the discussions is part of what I liked about the movie. The early scenes, both the frat party and the "sex" scene (anyone that thinks that was a *sex* scene obviously didn't see Bolero) I found boring because they didn't really contribute to the development. And the obligatory extended fight scenes were overdone, but still entertaining in a Tom & Jerry way. But, strip that away and what is left, IMO, is a movie that at least generates a few thoughts. Both entertaining and thought provoking -- that makes it a good movie in my book.

The "theoreticals" weren't all that evident to me amidst the cheese and (as alluded to in another post) what I felt was infantile crypticism that ran rampant throughout the script.

Yes, I read your other post. Reminded me of my feelings when I go to a SciFi movie that totally screws up some basic concepts in physics and weren't even necessary for the plot. Most of my non-physicist friends don't get the point. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Yes, the questions brought up in the movie are both familiar and somewhat trivial to anyone that has explored philosophy. But what percentage of the population has done that?

So, I completely understand your reaction to the movie. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it.

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

Well, I'm thinking that maybe I'll go and see it again - with a lighter heart. Excepting the opening scenes, I agree, there was some thought-provoking material. Maybe I expect too much, I just REALLY enjoyed the first one and was hoping for something with the same measure of "completeness". Despite the fact that they are all parts of one whole, I really felt that the first movie was far "tighter". Tough to explain... I suppose we'll see tomorrow night (cheap night!).

Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Yeah, right :) I can remember a few times, particularly regarding Aquinas where you were wearing both shoes while I couldn't even find my socks ;)