Blogcritics Comments on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Comment by Phillip Winn on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:26:42 EDT

Don't worry, Pedro. While Alex dismisses you as "a lost case" and laughs at your "hilarious" efforts to understand life, many of us out here aren't nearly so stuck on ourselves, and I encourage you to continue to seek truth and think for yourself. Learn from everybody you can, but do not accept the "wisdom" of people who claim to know everything without processing yourself. It's a fine line we walk, trying to filter out the incorrect information while accepting the good stuff regardless of the source, and if you get off of it by just a few degrees you can find yourself miles from shore and convinced you're cruising smoothly (like Mr. Bunard seems to be), but life goes on, and pompous windbags who live inconsistent lives aren't worth worrying much about. Alex is right about exactly one thing: George Lucas is a hack. :)

Comment by Alex on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:46:54 EDT

Hi Pedro, Sorry, I've misjudged you. It happens, you know. Obviously, you're a lost case for the spiritual world. But let me just correct you in one thing. Your concept of faith ("not only the belief in afterlife, but, moreover, the generical mental mechanism, set in every person's mind, that evades that person from trying too hard to answer the unanswerable by giving them a personal satisfactory solution to it.") is hilarious! What you're referring to is simply known in psychology as 'defence mechanisms'. Nothing to do with faith whatsoever. As for geeks, again you misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that you're a geek, only that others participating in this discussion are hard core geeks. As for geeks making the world go round, do you honestly believe that if it wasn't for Galileo, Darwin, Marie Curie, Dianne Fossey, George Lucas, Einstein etc., the world would for some reason stop going round? I mean, it was going round perfectly well for countless eaons before Einstein appeared, so what did he do to prevent it from keeping its rounds? I can perfectly envision my world without geeks. I think they are more of a nuisance than problem solvers. Generally speaking, they introduce gimmicks that, while sometime addressing certain issues, always manage to introduce a plethora of new, never before seen nuisances (of course, this does not hold true for people like George Lucas, who only introduced nuisances, without ever attempting to solve anything). With each iteration of geekhood, our world becomes messier and more tedious place to live in. Alex

Comment by Pedrobrown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:39:27 EDT

Alex, here goes. One more time for you too, and as many as you need: Parragraph: "However, arguably we could point to the large masses of non-religious people who are also sedated and tranquilized by something. They don't have any faith in anything beyond their immediate physical surrounding, and yet they are heavily sedated." True: some don�t question themselves about it... Socrates said once "In order to be a filosopher, you need a plate of peas in front of you everyday". People who need to do a living can�t stop to think over these "irrelevant" issues in their everyday life, and they use "faith" for that. The concept of "Faith" I used was "not only the belief in afterlife, but, moreover, the generical mental mechanism, set in every person's mind, that evades that person from trying too hard to answer the unanswerable by giving them a personal satisfactory solution to it." And that is exactly what you do: You said: "Once a person has a direct experience of realizing 'It', all the questions are automatically answered." By the way, don�t dismiss geeks Alex: they make the world go round. Suddenly, someone with geeky ideas turns out to be right, and revolution breaks through. Galileo was a geek; Darwin was a geek; Marie Curie, Dianne Fossey, George Lucas (excuse his latest films please)were all geeks; I can�t think of anyone more geeky than Einstein!. The truth is, dismissing geeks is a very common atittude from narrow minded people; but in fact, these people, considered to be on top because of doing so, end up being the #356/37 salesmen , in cubicle #45 at the 14th floor of The Big Big American Company Building (obviuosly not you Alex), while the geeky guys turn out to be geniuses and make huge breakthruoghs. I don�t consider myself a geek; I might think like one at some point, but I�m definitely not (you could ask my swedish 5 foot 6 girlfriend, she�ll tell you all about it). So, impressions can be decieveing, can�t they? Take care Alex.

Comment by Pedrobrown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:48:07 EDT

Alex: I�ll get to you later... It�s 2 o clock a.m., and my eyelids are being held up by matchsticks to prevent them from closing. But, in advance, I liked the way you gave your "faith" a legitimate starting point. Feelings can be quite decieving, can�t they?...

Comment by Pedrobrown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:36:03 EDT

Two thoughts that might be revealing to all the Matrix fans: 1) I catched various details in the film which make me finally believe The Oracle is a rebel program fighting on the human�s side. 2) The uber-matrix theory has been totally thrown out the window. 1 --> This is based only on hipothesis, but it fits in quite nicely...I pointed out before that there had to be a reason for the Oracle needing protection in the Matrix if it`s supposed to be a ruling program. The most plausible answer to me is it�s beacuse she is a rebel program, an outcast... It is quite possible that she was designed to understand humans, an intuitive program capable of relating with humans in order to make The Matrix acceptable for them, and it went too far with it�s purpose. The Oracle says that Neo is making a believer out of her. Believing is opposite to knowing, and that is quite wierd considering she is supposed to be omniscient. It could mean that she doesn�t fully know what is Neo going to do. Maybe Neo, being the One, the ultimate expression of the sistemic anomaly, has total free will to choose his destiny, which would make him unpredictable. He has proven to be more honorable, more honest than his predecessors or something like that, and it has made her believe that he might bring an end to the human suffering. I think The Architecht lied to Neo; I think he wanted to trick Neo in order to destroy himself, the same way he did with his five predecessors. If not... why then are the agents trying to kill him?. If Neo is so necessary for the Matrix�s subsistence, why are they after him? Not Smith, since he has gone afoul, but all the other agents who always run after him?. Of course, it might all be because the agents, being simple programs, have only one goal (search and destroy), and that Neo�s program is so much powerful than theirs, it is impossible for them to destroy him, so the Architecht shouldn�t worry about Neo getting destroyed by agents. But then, why do they recognise him as the anomaly? Agent 1: "There he is" Agent 2: "The anomaly" Agent 3: "Do we proceed?" Agent 1: "Yes" Agent 2: "Remember: he is... Agent 1: "Only human". They know of it�s existence and powers, maybe they even know why it exists (eventually, to reload the program) and they still go after him. Why do they do that? I stick to the idea of The Oracle guiding Neo and the rest to destroy the machine world. She has set everything in place, just like she has done in the past with the previous Ones: she makes a "potential" be The One; she makes a girl fall in love with the One some how; and later on she sends the One to the Architecht to see what he does, what is his choice. It�s a test that his predecessros failed at. Of course, wild guessing. Are the Merovingian and his girlfriend previous failures?. Good question. What I don�t have an explanation for is Neo stopping the centinells. 2 ---> The cast, during a recent interview with the press in London, answered the ubber-matrix questions stating that all we saw in Zion was the real thing; there was no "box in a box" situation. Quite a relief.

Comment by matteo on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:59:31 EDT

"You raise an interesting point - how easily can Neo tell the difference between different types of entities within the matrix?" The Oracle tells him that he CAN'T look at the code of some routines. he can see the code of the crows. their simulation, their modeling, their abstract rapresentation. But he sees not the routines which plot the crows' movements, the 'why' they're there and so on. I caught this in the last scene of M1. I simply thought, hey, it's just a CGI scene. In that greenish code there could be everything. But looking at the code of init tells me almost nothing of the system calls. So, perhaps, in the uber-matrix, he can't see the code of what makes the inner matrix running, since 1) he can't 2) he does NOT account for even the chance. Every freed human can learn to leap buildings as superman. We simply need to convince ourselves (over-stated in M1). But a few can manipulate some of the code (the kids at chez oracle's). Neo's got less restrictive permissions ? When I say "uber-matrix" I do not necessarily share your ideas of the 'other' matrix. But, if you want some proof for the "real Zion" here's one: the sentinels go down by EMP. Why the choma ? Simple (maybe): Neo's body, in the real world, has got his neural spin and encefalus filled with metal and, supposedly, circuitery. As no one with a cardio-electro-stimulator should walk around a RMN pod, the EMP shocked his neural system. Boy, it's better than Rubik Cube. I'll post no-more other than for answering, or I'd move in spam-land.

Comment by matteo on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:48:05 EDT

Phil said: "And of course, he doesn't see code outside the matrix, which is another strike against the uber-matrix theory, though not a fatal one." While this may be since we do NOT see Neo looking at the code, it may be not for some reasons: - Neo is not actively doing it (I have this feeling, in some scenes, that he he should 'have a look'. almost like the 'true seeing' of Carlos Castaneda books) - the authors are not letting us see him seeing. in fact Neo doesn't look at the code of tons of softwares in the Matrix - the anomaly is compulsary but programmed by the Oracle's envision. So he would be able to do that in the usual Matrix, but still not in the other layers since his construct has not got inheritance of his routines. That changes when he accepts the fact that he feels the sentinels approaching. BTW he knows the sentinels approaching since they escaped from the ship. In fact he feels the other ships' engine roaring. Or maybe... (ad libitum) Just kidding while thinking, mind it. I think the whole problem of this movies is that they let us too freedom of creating "uber-realities" based on the scarse evidences. I, too, am considering Zion as real. But this has got no more logic than the other possibilities and it's partly based on M3 trailer I saw somewhere on the net.

Comment by Phillip Winn on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:09:45 EDT

Certainly the brothers DID expand the idea out and planned on other movies, but there is a big difference between holding a general thought in your head and plotting it out on paper. Witness the Star Wars debacle to see that half-formed thoughts often translate into simply awful movies. In this case, while the brothers may have had a rough idea of what they wanted to do post-M1, they weren't able to actually committ it to paper/screen with the same degree of care and finesse that they did the first one. You raise an interesting point - how easily can Neo tell the difference between different types of entities within the matrix? Do agents really look very different from "people"? And so on. And of course, he doesn't see code outside the matrix, which is another strike against the uber-matrix theory, though not a fatal one. I'm still leaning heavily toward Zion being real and no uber-matrix.

Comment by Matteo on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:54:00 EDT

Oops I did it again. Phil said: "I'm almost willing to believe that Neo stepped back into a different "real world" than the one he left, or that he never actually stepped back into it at all. After all, Morpheus managed to get out of the matrix by stepping through a door, a first." While you could be right (or should we say 'true' to retaliate the Outer Matrix ? :)) this doesn't counter the "uber-matrix" Hp. In fact, as doors can pin point to any grid angle in the Matrix, there surely could be some sort of IPC between the different layers. I do NOT think the authors really went so far, but sharing memory between the two Matrixes could simply put us, at the end of M2, along cloned processes of the electronic constructs of the heros as well. This is where I see the deceipt of the script. Wherever we turn around we can supply a good construct ourselves and a newer layer comes to life ;)

Comment by Matteo on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:54:59 EDT

Hi again. At least some more points that slipped out of my intent last night. 1) I see no mumbo-jumbo in The Architect's words as long as I see him/it/her as a software or an AI. If I try to look at him/it/her as if I was The One, I mean seeing him/it/her in disassembled green'n'black code :) it reminds me of Neuromancer stylish explanations on the "fictious" shore. I'm not referring to the book as a whole, I'm speaking about the Neuromancer AI that Case talks to in VR. So we got more derivative work, here, and less original work in the script. But I don't think that dialogue was meant to "just impress the auditorium". One may like it not, but that's another story 2)the guy that's been taken forecefully out of the restaurant before the leather trio meet the Merovingian is just not going outside. Amidst everybody, Neo is the only One who perceives him. His attention is brought to that man as we see Neo mending his eye-brow (sorry I don't know how to say it any different) and turning to face that man in a eyes-to-eyes sequence. In fact the other guy is looking at The One and his visual expression suggest reconaissance and perhaps a pleadge for help. 3) The fight with the Oracle body-guard. I'm not trying to find a computer-science parallel for this fighter, but I simply think of it as a mean of re-assuring Neo that the Oracle is important and is not telling lies. How ? In M1 Neo couldn't see the Matrix code, so he could have never been able to tell the difference between structured softwares, residual images of humans in the pods, background deamons or loose codes. Now he can. He notice immediately something strance in the bodyguard code contest. A submatrix of shining instructions and execution flows that a) not only shines out of the darkish background of the Matrix, but b) sparkles with contradictions and "race conditions" in the try of merging with the existing code. That's what I see while looking at that scene still. So he must conquer his right to speak with the Oracle, cause she has to be defended from the machines. She's not a new medium of control, right ? If Neo would have been given immediate acces, perhaps he would have been more upset seeing the Oracle code. 4) I don't think the accent we see on philosophy is the same the authors conceived. I mean, if Matrix wants to be a compendium of derivacy, a blending tour of human ideas flattened in a never ending loop, as in angled mirrors or abstract layers of upper complexity, perhaps that's just the Choice that 99% of humans perceive in an unconscious process and those freed/reloaded in Zion on the other way feel as the only chance of surviving. What if Zion is not real and it's hardcoded that no-one will believe the Prophecy ? The point here is in taking into consideration the philosophy, perhaps not in embracing it. I see this as part of the Outer Matrix outside of theaters. While it may be true/obvious that M1 was conceived as a stand-alone movie, it's a weak point to think that the brothers NEVER expanded the idea in their belief. Most directors often envision much more of the story, but work to offer us a movie. Surely enough it wasn't planned in a production environment, but it's as difficult as creating M1 to think about the story and not going on with the speculations... with the success and money made with M1 they simply got the opportunity. The problems arise in cinematography and scripting, sure, but not in the story lining, imho. I think some people around here and in endless sites and groups is drawing a line here: between the story and the script. I'm one of them. I have no rights, except my brain, to question or criticize the script, and I'm simply producing lines of code on the story itself.

Comment by Alex on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:27:17 EDT

All right, Pedro, you're due for one more try. But remember, three strikes -- you're out! So, this will be my last attempt, after which I'll bow out. I'm not a geek, so I don't have any interest in arguing with geeks. But you've managed to project a certain air of genuine sincerity in your search, so I view you as being somewhat different. So, we've seen that faith is not a good concept for you. Somehow, you associate it with a soothing spa session. In your view, it's a tranquilizer, suitable for removing life's anxieties (or, more accurately, for giving people an illusion that the anxieties have been temporarily removed), and therefore being akin to a drug. That's very close to Karl Marx, who claimed that religion is the 'opium for the masses'. However, arguably we could point to the large masses of non-religious people who are also sedated and tranquilized by something. They don't have any faith in anything beyond their immediate physical surrounding, and yet they are heavily sedated. Which means that a soothing spa session is not the hallmark of religious faith only. Because you seem to have a problem with the explanation that uses fauth, we'll drop it for now. Next, you also seem to have a problem with the concept of realizing the Eternity in Time. So, I figure maybe we can try something else, just for the size, to see how it feels. Keep in mind that there are numerous ways to tackle the ineffable, but like I said, I'm going to deliberately confine myself to three attempts only. What we're trying to do here is point toward realizing Suchness in the world of appearance. And I mean it in the spiritual, not geeky computer game sense. We're not dealing with a trickster here (such as the AI in the Matrix), but with the unnameable 'It'. Once a person has a direct experience of realizing 'It', all the questions are automatically answered. In a way, this is kind of like the example I gave you earlier: a color blind person having a burning desire to discuss the impact colors have on people's mood. The color blind person may be extremely intelligent, and he may have studied intricate theories dealing with color, so in that way he'd be superior to almost everybody else, but still he wouldn't really have the slightest idea about what is color. Only people who actually do have eyes open to see the colors could meaningfully discuss what different colors mean to them. So, without meaning any disrespect, I view you in this context as a color blind person. You have the ability to discuss color on the intellectual level, but you have never actually seen color, so to speak. So, just replace the concept 'color' and instead of it use the concept 'awakening'. You can discuss awakening till you're blue in face, but because you've never experienced it, you are not really equipped to form final conclusions on the matter. However, keep in mind that you are perfectly equipped to experience it. It's totally up to you. Earlier I've pointed you to the high quality work of Hubert Benoit; here, I'll just offer a very important excerpt from his work: "The average sensual man is without the consciousness of the Self as a self-sufficient totality. He is unceasingly aware that something is lacking. He comes into the world bearing with him a negation of Self-consciousness, or a negative consciousness of self (original sin). Consequently all his pleasures are of a negative character; they are but the impressions, on the physiological or imaginative plane, of a partial and momentary appeasement of his sense of original lack, of congenital defect. If we study human sensibility from the point of view of the realization of Being, we shall find that it is pointless to concern ourselves with pleasure; for all that we experience is only the increase or decrease of a fundamental pain. Suffering is not an act of Self-consciousness, but rather an act of the absence of Self-consciousness. But the absence of Self-consciousness is illusory. Man possesses everything needed for the existence of Self-consciousness; but these prerequisites for Self-consciousness are not in the right state. It is like ice and water; ice possesses the nature of water, but possesses it in a state in which the properties of water are not apparent." If we now go back and examine some of the issues exposed in the Matrix 1, we will see that it's a disturbingly inconsistent film. In it, we see Neo constantly shifting in and out of the various states of dream and/or imaginative states of mind. When he got caught by the agents and confined inside the little interrogatory room, we see him through the security TV monitor screen. The camera penetrates that screen and, voila!, we're suddenly pushed down into that illusory world of electrons hitting the cathode ray. All of a sudden, we take whatever ensues as 'real', although we've never actually 'popped up' from that virtual push. From then on, things get more inconsistent, and more and more unreal. The next thing we know, Neo experiences, to his horror, that his upper and lower lips have inexplicably grown into each other. He can't speak any more! Then, he gets infested by some bizarre half robot/half repulsive insect. Screaming in horror, he wakes up in his bed, breathing a sigh of relief, thanking god that it was just a nightmare. But at that very moment he gets a phone call, and is lured outside, holding onto the promise that he'll finally find Morpheus. On the way to meet Morpheus, he learns the hard way that, apparently, the nightmare he had epxerienced moments ago, was actually not a dream, but something that 'really' happened to him. They manage to magically (leaving no wound and no scar) extract the bug from his abdomen. But what happens then is even more bizarre, almost absurd. He meets Morpheus who gives him a choice between waking up in his bed vs. going down the rabbit hole. Neo chooses the rabbit hole. Upon swallowing the red pill, he is enveloped in some alien, cold substance, which forces him to 'wake up' inside a gooey, pinkish artificial 'womb'. Now, the crucial question is: what is a dream, and what is real here? In the film, Neo for some reason decides to take this latest 'awakening' at the face value, and to proclaim it to be the reality. But, what evidence does he have that it is, in fact, reality? His experience of having a dream within a dream, as when he was dreaming inside the matrix that he is having a waking life, and even within that dream of a waking life he was having dreams, and dreams within dreams, was equally compelling as his experiences upon waking up in the human farm. What made him decide that this is the end of dreaming within a dream? The film never addresses that crucial question. Another oddly misplaced dialog pointing to this issue of reality vs. dream transpired when Morpheus was instructing Neo about the whole matrix charade. "What is real?" says Morpheus. "How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." However, later in the dialog, when Morpheus explained to Neo how machines have enslaved humans, he elaborated how at first he himself wouldn't believe that to be true, until he saw human farms with 'his own eyes'. Now, if he had already expressed a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the nature of evidence offered to us via perception (which can be boiled down to the 'electrical signals interpreted by our brain'), how is it possible that he would all of a sudden use the same 'electrical signals interpreted by his brain' as the final arbiter in ascertaining the truth? In this respect, the film is quite good at pointing at this most pressing question -- how do we know when we have finally awoken from all these tricky dreams? The film, of course, cannot even begin to answer that, but it served its purpose by pointing to the issue. It's a self-referential question, and the only way it could ever be resolved is if we make the breakthrough that will take us to the 'other side'. The 'other side' the point when the faith is awoken, and the notion of time disappears. Another thing that happens at that point is that the notion of self also disappears. In other words, the person attaining the breakthrough fully and totally dies. Then, that person is reborn. But, this time, the ego, the self, is nowhere to be found. Having no ego, how can a person fret over such things as gain and loss, before and after, free will and determinism? Free will implies an agent who carries out the act confirming it. But, if there is no agent, who cares about the free will? Free will disappears, it is just another illusion, same as is determinism, causality, law of gravity, etc. Another interesting resource I would like to point you to is a discussion on the first matrix, as published at the official matrix web site: http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_hanley.html In there, you'll find a handfull of fascinating observations that may help you clarify your search. Good luck!

Comment by Matteo on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:08:29 EDT

Hi Phillip and everybody else! First of all please forgive my poor english: it can fulfill simple tourist-like-phrases which is a an entire order of magnitude lower than arguing about the Matrix saga... I read all of the comments today so I will just pour infos here and there, beginning with what I see as answers to other people's words. 1) You said: "I'm still confused about a couple of seemingly-contradictory statements from The Architect. At one point he refers to Neo as "human," but at another he talks about the need to reassimilate Neo's code. As a programmer myself, I associate that term with software programs." I do NOT see any contradiction here as long as we take for granted hypothesis our concept of "uber-matrix" and relatives: Neo is in fact human but, from what we see in M1, his jacked construct is not. Both in Matrix and in the "loader" software (I saw a nationalized version of M1 and M2 in which the rebel ship VR environment is called "loader") his residual self-image as an electronic representation of himself is NOT human, it's a mere interface from software2synapses (the inner functioning or code is not relevant here, I think). So the sparse code that the residual image of Neo brings within himself is in the Neo construct that exists in the "uber-matrix", thus allowing, probably, a human to being still locked in a pod while code-like 'running' in the two layers of the matrix. 2) The anomaly which the Oracle is after, as opposed to The Architect, is in Neo catching the meaning of his fake reality. I prefer it/her to "upgrade" this anomaly by giving him cookies than Neo ending up upsetting The Architect by not eating the candy in M2. But this is complete lucid-dreaming and is not sustained by any script evidence. In this I agree with Pedro. The cookie though could simply infer newer instructions in the anomaly which is hiddend in the residual electronic image of the human being Neo, as opposed to "making" The One, which I think it doesn't. 3) Alex posting gave me both good and bad feelings. Good because it got good points. Bad because it reminds too much of Anti-Matrix-Forever postings in the italian Usenet gerarchy :) ... anyway: I think we're not speaking angled mirrors here. That would be nice in Disneyland but wouldn't follow some guidelines which the movie is full of (sometimes chidishly though, I agree). That is "computing and software coding" related stuff. I know. This could be personal bias overlay but I, as a programmer myself, couldn't stop weaving "angled mirrors" of layering to some concepts, and the matrix-in-a-matrix continuum just don't fit IMHO. This could be achieved in a finite state calculum unless we decide there's no human being at all anywhere in the drama. Please consider the first Phil's idea of AI birthdaying in a lab environment. An angled mirror setting would not be feasible to be monitored and/or acted upon by human beings, less than controlled in a cyclic catarsi. It would be acceptable in a different approach: it's true the machines cannot live without humans as batteries and this is a "should have I known better" simulation of the last machine on earth, after the disappearance of the human race, in which every player on stage is just an algorythm. This is interesting but I don't know if I like it. In fact I think the first Matrix hit differently basing on targets. I've seen M1 so many times I still wonder how comes I cannot perform it alone :P and I discovered (I still do) new spots of genius, new paranoic fan-questions, new excitement. BUT (there's always a but) no questions about the meaning and the infrastructure of the Matrix, which btw could be the directors' merit. On the other way this M2 filled me with questions about,how,when and obviously why :) ... As you say, no human unjacked from the Matrix could save himself with no help, less than ever building Zion near the core of the planet ! But this simply brings us to a "uber-matrix" concept which, in return, still folds so many possibilities I need some CPU power to aid me computing (or more time anyway). BTW, I think that from a cine-critic point of view, this is one of the weak points of M1 and not of its lack of answering in M2: the answer we'll find in M3 I suppose, since is in line with the other questions the second chapter unveils. Since then, it's just you who anticipated it for M2 and got unsatisfied, I suppose. It's true that the Matrix saga is full of philosophy (now serious, now childish), citations and derivative thinking all alike. But it's implanted on a sci-fi movie with a partially strong commitment to hackish (not hacking, please) geekdom. While it's sure that calling "backdoors" some longjmp alike routines :) is for hype reasons, some of the script is filtered of all "this stuff" in every angle, I think. And this should be thought about when criticizing some plots. Alex says: "Had the movie started with a voice over explaining how the machines have sometime in the future taken over and enslaved the human race etc. (essentially, spelling out what Morpheus had to do in the middle of the movie), the impact of the storyline would've been practically non-existent. Luckily, the movie creators were clever enough...." Right. That's what happens in M2. You already know that stuff. Sincerely, to wait for something else is waiting for a new videogame, imho. What's inside in M2, I agree, is not a masterpiece in terms of cynematography, but, sincerely, is what 'I' expected from M2. I quite well remember how I felt when seeing "the empire strikes back". The feeling that all is lost, the Evil Side claiming its prize, the hopes of the first episode crushed. Please bear with me and follow me here, cynematographycally: in M1, we keep getting thrown from darkish green computer generated reality and darkish pale whatever color in the rebels' ship. Fine. There's a strong phisic difference between the matrix and the "real world". That feeling is lost in M2, since the reality seems blurred and strange in feelings. Here, the momentum of the "real world" is in the 'party at rave-cave'. Sex, sweat dripping, tears and the "worse looking couple" (hollywoody speaking) making love and, perhaps, Neo not fulfilling it to the acme. Where's the darkish pale whatever color in M2 ? In the paths the ships go through, making we wander if the will succeed, or, better, if this "real world" is real at all. In the Matrix there's no need to say anything else. Neo does only what he's supposed to do and perhaps the code adapts to his code-mending powers, strictly confined in a human mind: superman flying is there. If I had to fly I don't think I'd fly head down and backwards. I think as a geek in the late ninties I'd fly as a comic hero. Or a movie character. He does stupid and stereotypical thinks, you're right. that's why we must begin to wonder if he's not a software or a mean of control: by NOT identifying ourselves with him. I just don't get why nobody tries to see it this way as a link between M1 and M3. The deus-ex-machina is needed for a simple cause: there's no answer in a software outside of its code and author. It's a moot point to think that The Architect is there to explain what the movie M2 couldn't before: signs of something not going on smoothly in the "real world" are everywhere since the first half of the movie. That's the last resort: ask and annoy the author. It's "the much ado about nothing" that is important and clever. If this is a simulation, we just have to ask why. Even if we wanted, we can't do anything else and we're doomed desperating ourselves or wondering why. this is what Neo indecision is all alike. He think he's not, then he think he could, the he doubts it, to realize he can't and eventually to be struck up by the idea that perhaps he really can, but not as programmed (in a computer way). And we spectators do the same thing during the M2 (which I repeat is not a so fine movie). Anyway, M1 WAS indeed more elegant and vision enthrailing than the second, I must agree. But I think we'll consider it slightly different, when we'll have seen the third chapter. What I do REALLY love is the Matrix atmosphere in the discussions meetings and forums. I can see a little joke here: what we see ? the movies. what we perceive ? doubts and ideas unfolding at every step and angle. the dicotomy between the cinematographyc point of view and the derivative scripting done by the authors is grand. We're setting a matrix ourselves of ideas and patterns to fulfill the action-reaction and the why mantras. I'm beginning to feel sure this was anticipated by the authors and that they fed us with the right reagents to the wrong hypothesis, to let us fall in our inner thinkings when the third curtain will be opened. And while commenting on the philosophy in Matrix is a good starting point to feed our brain, it does nothing to raise or lower what the Matrix script did to us: overflowing with data to be computated and simulated till the result. It's almost ironic that such a bad movie, as portrayed by many, could bring to so many discussions and flames :) And we didn't get a cookie ! Sorry if some of the ideas look fuzzy. I was (what a shame) in a hurry and I do not think well in english :|

Comment by Phillip Winn on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:11:49 EDT

Leaving aside the question of whether time is a physical force, I would say time is more powerful. You can "escape" gravity by getting far enough away from mass to be largely unaffected by its force. You cannot escape time. Of course, I could make the reverse case: We all travel through time, but few of us ever experience anything other than the standard pull of earth's gravity. Besides, if we've managed to send atomic clocks up in jets and "slow down" time that way, we've done more than we can with gravity.

Comment by Pedro brown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Mon, 9 Jun 2003 19:26:19 EDT

Some more empty geekery for the gallery: What would you consider the most powerful physical force in the universe? a) Time or, b) Gravity It�sa totally out of the Matrix context, it just popped into my mind. Follows, anyone? Pedro.

Comment by Doctor Slack on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:29:00 EDT

Wow. This thread has really moved along since the last time I looked in. I'm not going to wade into religious discussion, except to say that I hope Alex eventually realizes his notion of "faith" is no more impressive than what he purports to criticize. BUT I will get back to some good old-fashioned "empty" geekery, and Alex does have something to offer in this regard. To wit, he may well have hit on the reason why causality is apparently so messed up in the Matrix films. For example: "Now, as soon as we drop the notion of time, all the considerations regarding what determines what, what is a cause and what is an effect, what is a choice and so on, become utterly meaningless." This does seem to me to echo the "you've already made the choice" thread in Reloaded, not to mention "what's really going to bake your noodle" in the original. In fact, given how easy it is to mess with perception in the Matrix, it would seem more than plausible that the Architect and the "Oracle" (did anyone else notice the Architect's snort of contempt at that term?) exist somehow "outside" of time as it's perceived within the Matrix. Which is why they can appear to be prescient. OTOH, the Bros. Wachowski seem pretty clear that there's more to it than this. To be postulating, for example, that there's something deeper (more "real"?) than the malleable time and framework of the Matrix, something that makes it impossible even for the Architect to be omniscient or omnipotent, something that renders their powers into -- when you get right down to it -- elaborate parlor tricks. I'm guessing that "something" will prove to be the traditional components of Western tradition -- eg. that mundane "free" will and love are more powerful than illusions of fate, destiny, predestination, prophecy, what have you. If that proves to be the case, than the Matrix would effectively wind up being a contest between -- not rationalism per se, but let's say "conventional" morality -- and gnosticism. Gnosticism having won often in the past, but now being exposed as something of a sham, a mechanism of control. I'll be honest, I find the "love conquers all" meme a little bit mawkish. But I find this overall philosophical framework (such as it is) much, much preferable to the first film's apparent lauding of gnostic, prophecy-guided belief, which always struck a false note with me.

Comment by Phillip Winn on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:43:42 EDT

Don't worry, Pedro. Alex doesn't even live by his own standards. While dismissing time as an illusion in print, Alex still does things in order, seperated by time. As it happens, time is a fundamental tenet of science, measurable and quantifiable in a way that faith isn't. Just like everybody else, whether they dismiss time as a foolish construct or not, Alex and you and I watch movies from the beginning to the end, put on clothes before we go outside, and poop after eating. To decide that time is an illusion with regard to the idea of free will can make some sense, but once you extrapolate the idea beyond that, you realize how foolish it really is. Of course, Alex is free to dismiss my statements as merely indicating that I don't understand. Perhaps even that I'm too foolish to understand. That's fine. Pompous windbags are a dime a dozen, and most people like to believe that they have answers that others don't. He's already dismissed me once, and I'm not bothered in the slightest. In fact, with this statement, I've indirectly challenged him to find a way to dismiss my statements as ignorant without seeming quite so smugly superior while doing so as he did last time, which will at least tie up a few minutes as he rewords things. :) All in all, it doesn't matter. Time is more than an illusion, it is the basis for some of the basic laws by which life in this universe operates. That doesn't answer anything about choice versus perdeterminism. As it happens, I have my own answer to that question that serves me quite well. I even believe it to be correct, though I'm not so egotistical to state it categorically.

Comment by Pedro on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:44:18 EDT

I went to your web site Alex and I�m definitely going to read your essay... it all looks very interesting. Going over our discussion, I see now that I didn�t quite fully explain the meaning of the concept "faith" that I used. Faith, as I think it, is not only the belief in afterlife (with the white bearded man, or in the form of reincarnation, or laying low with the sixty virgins in paradise...) but, moreover, the generical mental mechanism, set in every person's mind, that evades that person from trying to answer the unanswerable questions by giving them a personal satisfactory one. I think that everyone has "faith", (although not on an equal basis) and that, my friend, includes you. You have your own personal answer to the question, very satisfactory to you I`d say, soothing, like a spa session. But the question remains objectively unanswered and the objective answer is still out there... You see? your faith is also blind... So, I recomend listening to Mr. Marley... "If you know what life is worth, you would look for your�s on earth, and now you see the light, stand up for your rights". Jam.

Comment by Alex on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:41:30 EDT

I don't think you understood me, Pedro. But that's okay, as most people need several iterations before they start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Let me try another angle (there are infinite number of angles one could approach this issue form). Maybe a different angle will make sense to you (as the concept of faith obviously comes with a huge baggage for you): What we're talking about here is a mental construct. The idea of free will/determinism is a mental construct. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living, so let's examine what is a mental construct. Mental processes and constructs denote phenomena that have their root in the Latin word 'mens', which means 'to measure'. This means that we cannot engage in mental activity without having the ability to measure. Now, whenever me measure something, we're actually involved in the activity of comparing. In order to compare, we need to discriminate first. As soon as we start discriminating, we slip into the evaluations, which means we develop sentiments of gain and loss. These are all self-referential, meaning those sentiments always relate to the subject. And the subject is nothing else but the outcome of measuring. If we didn't measure in the first place, we wouldn't arrive at the conclusion that there is 'me', separate from the rest of the world. The idea of an ego, an entity that is somehow completely different from anything else, is a clear sign of delusion. It is this notion of an ego, frail and precious and somehow more important than anything else, that gives rise to the notion of time. If you go and meet people who are enlightened, who are spiritually liberated, the thing that will strike you the most about such people is that, for them, time is non-existent. The perception of the passage of time is simply a hallucination, caused by the desperate attempts of the ego to assure its permanence. Now, as soon as we drop the notion of time, all the considerations regarding what determines what, what is a cause and what is an effect, what is a choice and so on, become utterly meaningless. The only way these questions could have any meaning is if there is a solid reality of 'before', 'now', and 'after'. In actuality, such constructs (i.e. past, present, future) are mere hallucinations. When this delusion disappears, the sentiments of gain and loss also evaporate with it. So I disagree with you that it's the most important question of our lives. You seem to equate faith, which I mentioned in my first explanation, with the notion of 'blind faith'. Sort of like: "I have no idea what I'm doing, but I'll just clutch this Holy Book and pray to the Lord, and he'll show me the way." That's not what I wanted to convey to you. By faith I didn't mean faith in the supernatural being that created the world and can influence it and interfere in order to protect or punish individual egos. That's a very infantile notion, that is commensurate with the way two or three years old children think. Surprisingly, some people never mature, and are forever stuck in this infantile frame of mind, expecting the Big Daddy to resolve their problems. Also, realizing that there is no such thing as 'me making a choice' and 'me being forced to do something' has nothing to do with having a background in philosophy. Some of the greatest enlightened minds in history were not well educated (Hui Neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism in China is probably the most prominent example). As for the books, I strongly recommend you read Hubert Benoit's book "The Supreme Doctrine". That book contains probably the best rational explanation of the inexplicable. In addition, some of the ideas expressed here are elaborated in the book I'm working on. I have posted excerpts at: http://alexbunard.freeservers.com/reality/meta/metamain.html so, if you're interested, you can go and read about it there. Thanks for the nice discussion. Alex

Comment by Pedrobrown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Thu, 5 Jun 2003 06:35:01 EDT

I think it�s not about the story getting complicated (M1 one was really quite complicated) it�s the way you tell the story, the way you make the audience follow the story in an effortless natural flow. Editting in M2 was a disaster, don�t you think?. The final cut was too scrambled: it looked like a bunch of unconnected images... maybe it was because of a lack of time. Anyway, I hope that editting for Revolutions is taken proper care of... otherwise we�ll get the same hurly-burly sense that we got in M2.

Comment by Phillip Winn on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:21:20 EDT

I did in fact rewatch M1 after seeing M2. It was what finally drove me to the conclusion that the extra interest generated by new plot directions did not overcome the obvious care put into the first film. I'm not saying that a more complex film is necessarily better or worse than a more simple one. Simply that it must be judged by a slightly different standard, since it attempts to be a different movie. Generally speaking, simpler is better, but considering how "simple" most movies actually are, there is such a thing as too simple. :)

Comment by Pedrbrown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:09:48 EDT

P.S: So in conclusion, what it all was is a way of rocking the audiences faith as well as Neos faith in their lives... I forgot, thanks for answering Alex... quite revealing... do you have any books on the "deus ex machina" isuue to recomend me? Other books on the same or related issues? Have you read Simulacra Simultaion? Any good?

Comment by Pedrobrown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:02:55 EDT

Faith is not the answer Alex. It seems as though you have a lot of thinking yet to do... or maybe not, because, as you very well point out, although interesting, trying to answer the question is impossible. You said the more you know, the more ignorant you get. I agree; the questions arisen from answered questions grow geometrically, creating a billion to a trillion of new questions, too many to answer, with too many possiblities; maybe the answer to the original question is, in its self, not stable but fluctuates. That turns to overload of our soul... and there is where we give up, having faith to kick in. Faith means you liberate yourself from answering the question, not from it. Actually, you are forced to live with it, you are a prisoner of it, whether you like it or not, even though you have the means to get around it in your day to day life. Faith is the mechanism for you to feel free from the un-answerable question. Faith is usefull to keep you going when the question crawls up on you, maybe unconsciously, maybe consciously. "What happens if I die right now?" Faith tells you everything is all right = you think the answer according to it and you feel liberated. Those who don�t have faith don�t need an answer: it�s impossible to know what happens until it manifests, until it actually happens, so what�s the point worrying? In conclusion, yes, you are right; the question is irrelevant, meaning it�s impossible to answer, but no, it is not irrelevant, as it is the most important question of our lives. Just because we have faith to overcome it doesn't mean it�s irrelevant... Applying all this to M2: the posing in the film of the free will vs. determinism question is, I believe, a very intelligent way of moving the audience to feel uncomforatble and not so sure, just as Neo was not so sure of himself. Quite boggling, I must say... in my case, the effect was achieved and I think I speak for the majority of the public. Maybe it worked with those to whome the issue was not so familiar, and it was "I�ve-already-gone-over-it" to those who have a much deeper knowledge of it. Don�t forget that not everyone has studied or read much filosophy...

Comment by Alex on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:32:00 EDT

Hi Pedro, "what if the Matrix 1 was cut off in two? What if the movie ended right at the point when Neo is rescued from the sewer and rehabilitated? What impression would you have had of the movie?" That's a very good question. This may surprise you, but I would have been even more impressed if they left it off right there. Like I said, after seeing the sequel, the original film suddenly lost a lot of its appeal for me. Go back and watch it again, and you'll probably see how it tends to bust at the seems. "Personally, M2 sucked, but, I repeat, it might be just because the story is cut in half. My point is, let�s wait to see the third installment, let�s see the explanation to all the loose ends before crucifying the work, how deep does the filosophy in the Matrix really go..." Again, a very good point. I'll take it in all seriousness, and we'll reconvene here around Christmas time, and compare the notes:-) "If it isn�t getting more interesting, then why everybody out there is trying to get a hold on the plot? Because we refuse to see the truth, that the Wachoskis did the sequels only to make big bucks, and that the whole thing is a lame excuse just to hit for the box office? I don�t believe that... they are artistes (you must admit it) and artistes don�t prostitute their own "children". So, even though it all looks fishy (Star Wars), I still stay put." You may be right. One thing is certain -- the creators of the Matrix trilogy have read Douglas Hofstadter's book "Godel, Ecsher, Bach -- The Eternal Golden Braid" one time too many (especially those Achilles and Tortoise dialogues). Back in the early eighties, when I was studying Artificial Intelligence, that book reached a cult status, comparable to the Matrix today. But in reality, the book was empty at the core (it was an unchecked fusion of the myriad of half-baked, fractured and fragmented ideas), and served only as a great resource for all kinds of ideas for the onslaught of the computer games. It is very obvious to me that the Matrix creators are sworn computer gamers, unable to peel themselves off those online gaming worlds and the entire cyber punk subculture. Not my cup of tea, though, as these things are truly empty to the core. "Not to annoy anybody, but... what�s the answer to the question "Are we prisoners of God (whoever he is to you; always the creator of reality; maybe reality in it�s self) or do we have free will to choose?" Please, if you have the answer, I need to know." "By the way Alex, please don�t dissapoint me ... what is the answer to my question?. Those of us who haven�t got a clue (I�d say, Humanity with a capital H) are dying to know, and it seems as though you are closer to the answer... "No bad intentions here, just open minded discussion... I�m eager to read your response, really." OK, Pedro. What I'm not sure I understand is why do you feel that this discussion would be annoying to anybody? You felt the need to assure us that you have no bad intentions for asking such a question, but I just can't see how can anyone ever have bad intentions by doing so? Anyway, I'll start by reminding you of the fact that the more you amass the knowledge, the more ignorant you become. If you haven't heard of this phenomenon before, it may sound to you like a paradox, like an impossibility, but it actually isn't a paradox at all. In order to clarify your vexations about the issue of free will vs. the fatalistic determinism of the Prime Mover, you need to first realize who you are. Without really knowing yourself, you stand no chance of clarifying that pressing question. Once you get to know yourself, you'll realize that the only reason you needed so desperately to cling on to the notion of God (i.e. the creator, the Prime Mover) was because you have been asleep. Actually, your faith has been sleeping. By awakening your faith, you will untie the Gordian knot of control vs. unpredictability. People whose faith is still asleep will forever wrestle with these unpleasant questions. Only the immediate, direct insight into your true nature will help dispel these pesky and useless questions. The notion of free will is a mental trick that we play upon ourselves. It single-mindedly serves to cover up the 'family shame', so to speak. What is this 'family shame'? While our faith is sleeping, we feel desolate and desperately need to invent the notion of omnipotence and benevolence. Thus, the idea of God arises, and we cling on to it like there is no tomorrow. But deep in our hearts we intuitively know that this God of ours is a sham (i.e. the Emperor has no clothes). We feel that the omnipotent God is quite flaky, as it suffers from many lame tricks and blows that the angel of darkness (the devil) plays on His creation. What kind of an omnipotent something is this God, if he always gets tricked by the Satan? The only way out of this unbearable lie is to invent 'deus ex machina', that is, a 'divine intervention' in the form of 'free will'. The reasoning goes something like this: we know that God is omnipotent and all loving. We also know that there is lots of hatred, injustice and destruction all around us. That much is indisputable. God certainly wouldn't allow such a thing to ever happen, and furthermore he is perfectly equipped to prevent any mishappenings from occurring. But, there is a fly in the ointment, because the explanation goes that God created everything, including Satan himself. Simply put, if there is God, there must be a No-God (same as if there is 'up', there must out of necessity be 'down'). Did God create its own negation? All these mind twisters are conveniently resolved in the form of an ingeniously concocted Divine Plan: God implanted the possibility of free will into each and every one of his beloved children. So now the onus is on us to follow God's path or cause havoc. We have the choice. What a croak! It is really funny watching us trying to hastily cover Big Daddy's incompetencies. Like I said, the only way out is to awaken the faith. Once the faith has been awakened, all those issues simply melt away. We have no need for a Big Daddy in the sky, nor do we then have the urgency to cover up his numerous flaws. We're free then to live our lives to the fullest. Of course, you've probably grasped by now that when I talk about the faith, I'm not implying commercial faith (that is, faith as sold by the systems of organized religion). Faith is strictly an individual thing. No one can give it to you, no one can sell it to you. There are no sacred books where faith gets to be explained, nor are there formulas that will magically enable you to awaken your faith. In a way, faith is to the unawakened what color is to the color blind. You can discuss color with a person who has been color blind since the day he was born, you can throw around all kinds of concepts, but the color blind person will never ever be able to grasp what is color. He may try with all his might to imagine what could color really be, but to no avail. Unless, he somehow heals himself and obtains the ability to actually SEE color. The 'color blind person' analogy is actually flawed, as it can only be stretched so much. It tends to break apart as soon as we go into the more serious discussion. What this analogy is lacking is the notion of self-healing. A color blind person cannot really heal himself. He was born that way, and no amount of diligent work on his part could ever cure him from that ailment. The unawakened person, in contrast, has the ability to awaken himself. She doesn't need anyone else in order to do that. And that's the most important part. Anybody is capable of liberating themselves at any point in time. That's the predicament of human beings. All they need to do is perform due diligence, which is something I call the 'inner labour'. If a person applies herself diligently, and performs the inner labour, that person will sooner or later reach the point of liberation. At such time, all the anxieties and unpleasant questions related to why I'm here? what will happen to me when I die? and so on, vanish with no trace. And of course, the question of free will vs. determinism become the un-question, meaning it becomes irrelevant and nonsensical. Imagine someone coming to you and asking you: "Why do three pounds reproach?" What would you provide as an answer? Would you think it worthwhile to fret over such a question? Alex

Comment by pedrobrown on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:00:48 EDT

Alex: I can say... what if the Matrix 1 was cut off in two? What if the movie ended right at the point when Neo is rescued from the sewer and rehabilitated? What impression would you have had of the movie? I would say it would have appeared as a really big kung-fu empty mumbo-jumbo, no sense at all. lthough... the vfx, the dialogues, the musical score, the carachters and lot�s of other things in M1 are very superior to those in M2. Personally, M2 sucked, but, I repeat, it might be just because the story is cut in half. My point is, let�s wait to see the third installment, let�s see the explanation to all the loose ends before crucifying the work, how deep does the filosophy in the Matrix really go... I know, it does�nt look good at first, but give it a chance... The story is getting really twisted (too twisted) but the same happened with the first act of M1, and I think there might be a great explanation to all of it. If it isn�t getting more interesting, then why everybody out there is trying to get a hold on the plot? Because we refuse to see the truth, that the Wachoskis did the sequels only to make big bucks, and that the whole thing is a lame excuse just to hit for the box office? I don�t believe that... they are artistes (you must admit it) and artistes don�t prostitute their own "children". So, even though it all looks fishy (Star Wars), I still stay put. By the way Alex, please don�t dissapoint me ... what is the answer to my question?. Those of us who haven�t got a clue (I�d say, Humanity with a capital H) are dying to know, and it seems as though you are closer to the answer... No bad intentions here, just open minded discussion... I�m eager to read your response, really. Take care buddy. Pedro.

Comment by Adam Burley on The Matrix: Reloaded, Redux

Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:09:23 EDT

Basically, it seems reasonably obvious what has happened here. The Architect says that 99.9% of people accepted the programme so long as they were given a choice. However he does not explicitly state that the extra 0.1% are those in Zion. So, I think that those in Zion actually accepted the programme but they were only aware of the choice at a "near unconscious level" as The Architect puts it. They therefore think they have a choice and are rebelling against The Matrix, but they actually do not have a choice at all. The exception is Neo - he thinks he is among lots of people all of whom have a choice but in fact he is an anomaly and he is alone in the fact that he has a choice. The reason why he stops the sentinels at the end is because he is actually still in The Matrix at this point. This begs the question - what happened to the 0.1%? Obviously I don't know. Maybe they were killed. More likely, they are going to be the ones who save the world in the end. Perhaps the 0.1% were those who created the mathematical anomaly which created Neo in the first place. The Architect believes he is in control of The Matrix but in fact he is under the control of the 0.1%. Like I said, I don't know.