The Matrix???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glorfindell5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Brains in jars being fed experiences” presupposes the real existence of brains and jars, doesn’t it? 🙂
That’s just what the mad scientist wants you to think 😛

The brain in a jar is a classic thought experiment. It can’t be proven false, but we don’t operate as if it’s true because it’s much easier and more sensible to work with our perception of reality instead of worrying about the man behind the curtain. The Wizard of Oz was easily unmasked; the mad scientist (or, for that matter, a deity) not so easily.
Aquinas argues that since our perceptions can contradict each other (for example, I might say something is green and you might say no, it is not green), perceptions are not genuine knowledge. To get around this, he argues that our experience of objects is direct experience of real objects of knowledge.
There’s a guy I work with who’s mildly color-blind. He set his computer’s background color to a shade he thought looked great – to the rest of us, it was vibrant urine yellow.

We can’t rely on our perceptions 100%, as experiences like this show. But since we don’t really have anything better to go on, we may as well trust common perception; otherwise we’re not going anywhere.
In other words, our experience of reality does not have to be defended logically; it is itself the foundation of logical argument. If your friend says, “No, all we have are our perceptions, not reality,” just ask, “Perceptions of what?” And then don’t let him off the hook. The objects of knowledge we perceive are real. If anyone tries to dispute that seriously, I would argue it is just a mental game for them; people who do actually doubt their sense experiences are having some kind of psychosis.
I disagree with the reasoning but not with the result. Whether our frame of reference is real or not is of little consequence, so long as it is internally consistent. It’s ours, and that’s all that matters.
 
Here’s something else to ask your friend: In the movie, when Neo goes into the “real” world, given the premises of the movie itself, how could Neo know that the “new” world he was in was any more real than the “old” world he had before?

He can’t, which is why the movie at a primary level can’t make sense (although it was pretty entertaining). You could point out that that is the problem—THE PREMISES OF THE MOVIE ITSELF can’t be right.
Some things in Reloaded and Revolution (Matrix 2&3) gives me a feeling that the “real” world is just another computer-world. For instance: How does Neo and Smith suddenly move from one world to the other without being online? How can Neos powers work in the real world (when he blasts the sentinels)? And what is the thing about the train station? It is some kind of middle station between the “real” world and the Matrix… but how can there be a middle station unless the two are connected?

But to get back to the question, no, we can’t know anything “for certain”, but we can know a lot almost certainly. For instance we can be pretty sure this world exists and what we percieve is to some degree real. It is regular common sense. Few people actually believe in the Matrix (and those that do are mostly confused teenagers and geeky weirdos).

And if this is not the real world, how are we to know? All we have is a feeling that “this might not be the real thing”, but if it isn’t we have no way of finding out, and if it is, we waste our whole life on a stupid philosophy.

The main problem of agnosticism as I see it, is that it doesn’t consider the “subjective reality” as Kierkegaard puts it… the agnostic forgets himself and therefore his philosophy becomes useless! You can’t treat life as a scientific experiment, because you are part of it yourself…

There is a God or there isn’t, and perhaps we will never know the conclusive answer, but we have to live as if there is a God or as if there is no God. There really is no third alternative.
  • CB
 
Some things in Reloaded and Revolution (Matrix 2&3) gives me a feeling that the “real” world is just another computer-world. For instance: How does Neo and Smith suddenly move from one world to the other without being online?
  • CB
Neo is “the one”, the one human with the awesome, even ‘supernatural’, ability (midi-chlorians anyone? I doubt it:D) to transgress the computer and the real-world, to unite computer and humanity. When Neo ‘entered’ Smith in the first movie, Neo ‘gifted’ Smith with the ability to transgress both worlds as well. Smith didn’t earn this gift, but it was a ‘liberation’ for him. But Smith was, morally, the anti-Neo, the anti-Christ (if you will), so even though he could transgress both worlds, he could not sacrifice himself for the sake of love. It was this sacrifice that Neo freely offered, for the sake of the salvation of the worlds.
 
But how could Smith get Neo’s power? Wouldn’t that mean that Neo is purely code, since Smith is pure code (first antivirus and later a virus)? That would also explain why Smith in the “real” world can continue infecting people.

I did a 12 page paper on this about two years ago, and as I remember, there were several things that point towards the unreality of the real. I can try to dig that paper up if you want me to 🙂

The conclusion I got to as far as I remember, is that Morpheus suddenly understands this and thus he redraws from the action more or less in the sequel.

And sure, there are Christian symbolism in the Matrix, but there are a lot of Buddhism and Gnosticism as well. Perhaps more. Especially in 2&3.

-CB
 
But how could Smith get Neo’s power? Wouldn’t that mean that Neo is purely code, since Smith is pure code (first antivirus and later a virus)? That would also explain why Smith in the “real” world can continue infecting people.
Smith was pure code, yes, just like we are pure humans. But Neo was pure human and pure code, thus he could meet Smith where Smith was; whereas it was impossible for Smith, using his own power alone, to meet Neo. Smith actually killed his savior, Neo, but Neo’s resurrection led to Smith’s eventual liberation. “Neo became code, so that Smith could become human.”
I did a 12 page paper on this about two years ago, and as I remember, there were several things that point towards the unreality of the real. I can try to dig that paper up if you want me to 🙂
That wouldn’t be necessary.😃
The conclusion I got to as far as I remember, is that Morpheus suddenly understands this and thus he redraws from the action more or less in the sequel.
Morpheus is John the Baptist. How much screen-time did John the Baptist get after Jesus arrived?😃
And sure, there are Christian symbolism in the Matrix, but there are a lot of Buddhism and Gnosticism as well. Perhaps more. Especially in 2&3.
More? The ultimate sacrifice Neo made took the form of a shining cruciform brilliance. Can’t get more Christian than that.
 
Can’t get more post-modern than that, you mean? 😉

It’s a nice film, but it isn’t really a Christian film in my opinion. Yes, if you want to see it as Christian, you can get that out of it… but that’s just the point… the film is postmodern - it can mean whatever you like! It means everything and nothing at the same time.

Here is what I mean by Gnosticism and Buddhism:

-How is the creator God in the Matrix?

-What is the technique Neo uses to do his funky tricks (hint: there is no spoon)? And who teaches him?

-Where does Neo go in the finishing scene of Matrix 3? (hint: nowhere)

-Is the main problem evil/sin or ignorance and blindness?

-Is Neo God incarnate or just a god reincarnate?

To your objections: Neo didn’t come to liberate Smith… Smith is Satan.

I have always seen Morpheus as God the Father (creating a nice “Trinity” with the three persons of the Godhead), rather than John the Baptist, but I can understand your interpretation.

By the way, are we derailing this thread?

As for the cross-shape, I wont argue against that. The Warchowski makes a rather all-round patchwork-philosophy, and Christianity is a part of it.
  • CB
 
Can’t get more post-modern than that, you mean? 😉

It’s a nice film, but it isn’t really a Christian film in my opinion. Yes, if you want to see it as Christian, you can get that out of it… but that’s just the point… the film is postmodern - it can mean whatever you like! It means everything and nothing at the same time.
I wouldn’t disagree with that.
Here is what I mean by Gnosticism and Buddhism:
-How is the creator God in the Matrix?
The Creator God in the Matrix is the Creator of the real-world. The “Architect” is the Gnostic demi-urge, who creates an ‘alternative’ world.
-What is the technique Neo uses to do his funky tricks (hint: there is no spoon)? And who teaches him?
That’s basic physics. The ‘spoon’ is simply a set of subatomic particles that we humans decide to group together and call a ‘spoon’. We can replace those subatomic particles with other subatomic particles – is it the same spoon, or a different one? In either case, there’s no absolute separation between the subatomic particles that make up the ‘spoon’ and the subatomic particles that make up the ‘air’ around the ‘spoon’.

The one who teaches Neo this wasn’t the Buddha. It was a little kid who had some psychic abilities, and who (admittedly) had some physical and philosophical similarities to the Buddha.😃
-Where does Neo go in the finishing scene of Matrix 3? (hint: nowhere)
Well, you’re assuming he went nowhere. The Oracle claimed that he’ll be back, so he obviously went somewhere. Did Jesus go “nowhere” when He descended into Hades, or when He ascended into heaven?
-Is the main problem evil/sin or ignorance and blindness?
Blindness/igorance leads to sin. But in Buddhism, this ignorance is not a simple “not knowing in your head”; it’s a “not knowing in your heart”.

Sin in Greek means “to miss the mark”. If you’re blindfolded, and try to shoot an arrow into a target, most likely (unless you’re a Zen master or something) you’re going to “miss the mark”. Ignorance-in-the-heart, or spiritual blindness, leads to evil actions and sin in general – that’s basic Buddhism, I admit, but it’s also consistent with Christianity.
-Is Neo God incarnate or just a god reincarnate?
Whether God incarnates or re-incarnates, God would still be God, no?
To your objections: Neo didn’t come to liberate Smith… Smith is Satan.
Satan (read Job) is the adversary who challenges those who believe in God to prove their faith. God allows Satan to roam the earth, causing havoc. Satan is the boxing partner who improves our game. Satan is the person whose very action leads to the salvation of those he offended. Satan is the lover of drama, the great trickster, the wily coyote. He loves to corrupt.

God created Satan, and Satan is always under the control of God. Satan will have to undergo infinite purification before he can sit at the table of God. Infinite purification means the infinite and absolute consumption of Satan into his original state of ‘no-thing-ness’. It is only as ‘no-thing-ness’ that Satan can find liberation and salvation; because it was out of ‘no-thing-ness’ that God felt called to create the cosmos. Neo freed Smith from his greatest enemy, that is, from himself.
I have always seen Morpheus as God the Father (creating a nice “Trinity” with the three persons of the Godhead), rather than John the Baptist, but I can understand your interpretation.
Morpheus, as John the Baptist, always searching for the Messiah, and sometimes mistaken for the Messiah, cried in the wilderness. Neo, of course, is the One, the Messiah, the pure Human and pure Code. Trinity is Mother Mary, whose love was so powerful, it could invoke the very descent of the Neo and usher in his emergence.

The Matrix series is not about the Father; it’s all about the Son, John the Baptist, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. It’s the Four Gospels, pure and simple. It doesn’t go into the Book of Acts, and thus doesn’t involve the Holy Spirit. The Matrix series is thus theologically incomplete: it’s Christo-centric, choosing not to address the Father, nor Pneumatology. As such, it cannot be considered truly Canonical.
As for the cross-shape, I wont argue against that. The Warchowski makes a rather all-round patchwork-philosophy, and Christianity is a part of it.
Agreed.👍
 
By the way, are we derailing this thread?
Well, the thread is entitled “The Matrix???”, so maybe I should say something about the OP’s point:
“That doesn’t prove anything. We can’t trust our senses to prove something beyond any doubt. We could be in a matrix, for all we know.”
That’s the point. We are in the Matrix. No need to disagree with your friend here. Instead, you should celebrate his tremendous insight! We are in the Matrix. Fact one. Now, the questions becomes: How do you get OUT? You can’t do it by yourself, that’s for sure. You need someone who is outside of the Matrix, to lead you to salvation.
 
That’s basic physics. The ‘spoon’ is simply a set of subatomic particles that we humans decide to group together and call a ‘spoon’. We can replace those subatomic particles with other subatomic particles – is it the same spoon, or a different one? In either case, there’s no absolute separation between the subatomic particles that make up the ‘spoon’ and the subatomic particles that make up the ‘air’ around the ‘spoon’.
The physic explaination is nice, but I still believe the main point is, that the spoon is an illusion. That the material world is an illusion.
Well, you’re assuming he went nowhere. The Oracle claimed that he’ll be back, so he obviously went somewhere. Did Jesus go “nowhere” when He descended into Hades, or when He ascended into heaven?
He dissolves at least… I would agree that he ascends in #1, but in #3 he breaks the circle of existance and goes to the Nirvana.
Blindness/igorance leads to sin. But in Buddhism, this ignorance is not a simple “not knowing in your head”; it’s a “not knowing in your heart”.
In gnosticism it’s “not knowing in you head”
Sin in Greek means “to miss the mark”. If you’re blindfolded, and try to shoot an arrow into a target, most likely (unless you’re a Zen master or something) you’re going to “miss the mark”. Ignorance-in-the-heart, or spiritual blindness, leads to evil actions and sin in general – that’s basic Buddhism, I admit, but it’s also consistent with Christianity.
But only insofar as Buddhism is consistent with Christianity!

I don’t want to sound preachy or anything, but I don’t see Neo’s moral behaviour change to the better upon leaving the Matrix. What people need is not the Light of men, but Enlightenment. (How’s that for a pun?)
Whether God incarnates or re-incarnates, God would still be God, no?
Yes. But Neo is the fifth (?) incarnation of himself. Sounds suspiciously like Buddha.
Satan (read Job) is the adversary who challenges those who believe in God to prove their faith. God allows Satan to roam the earth, causing havoc. Satan is the boxing partner who improves our game. Satan is the person whose very action leads to the salvation of those he offended. Satan is the lover of drama, the great trickster, the wily coyote. He loves to corrupt.
Christ didn’t come to liberate him…
God created Satan, and Satan is always under the control of God. Satan will have to undergo infinite purification before he can sit at the table of God. Infinite purification means the infinite and absolute consumption of Satan into his original state of ‘no-thing-ness’. It is only as ‘no-thing-ness’ that Satan can find liberation and salvation; because it was out of ‘no-thing-ness’ that God felt called to create the cosmos. Neo freed Smith from his greatest enemy, that is, from himself.
Isn’t that annihilationism?
Morpheus, as John the Baptist, always searching for the Messiah, and sometimes mistaken for the Messiah, cried in the wilderness. Neo, of course, is the One, the Messiah, the pure Human and pure Code. Trinity is Mother Mary, whose love was so powerful, it could invoke the very descent of the Neo and usher in his emergence.
Makes sense.
As such, it cannot be considered truly Canonical.
Haha… I would be rather bewildered if it were :eek:

Oh boy, now my imagination starts going down that track…
  • CB
 
cpayne said:
“Brains in jars being fed experiences” presupposes the real existence of brains and jars, doesn’t it? 🙂

One must also ask: what do brains do?

Assuming that the jar is real, is the purpose of a brain to experience a realm which is not a jar? I would say no. If the jar is real, then the brain is designed to experience the jar realm.

If the jar is not real, then the brain is designed to experience the non-jar realm.

Moreover, how do you know that the jar is real?
40.png
cpayne:
The objects of knowledge we perceive are real. If anyone tries to dispute that seriously, I would argue it is just a mental game for them; people who do actually doubt their sense experiences are having some kind of psychosis.
Indeed. The notion of a jarred brain which only experiences a realm which does not include being in a jar is very PhilipKDickensian.
 
I was in a discussion with an agnostic the other day, and I brought up the existence of miracles to justify belief in the supernatural. He said something along the lines of “That doesn’t prove anything. We can’t trust our senses to prove something beyond any doubt. We could be in a matrix, for all we know.” A ridiculous assertion, of course; but one that is difficult, if not downright impossible, to disprove. Is there any rational argument out there to counteract such an objection? How do I answer this?
This is the malaise of modern relativism. Catholicism offers a realist epistemology (theory of knowledge). We know that some things are real, that they exist- a table for example. Modern philosophy has lost its way and become irrelevant because it spends all it’s time arguing about surreal issues like whether a table is in fact a table or something else entirely different. Of course it’s a flippin’ table-- next question!!
The poster who said a dose of St. Thomas was not wrong!! But if you really want to learn how to counter this approach, a great way to start would be with Fides et RatioPope John Paul II’s encyclical which condemns modern philosophies bound with nihilism and relativism. He advocates a faith informed by reason.

He asks us to maintain a sapiential dimension to our thinking (a conviction, rationally held, that there is an overarching meaning to life~ that there is cohesion, purpose and connectedness to the cosmos. We need to maintain a confidence that we can know objective truth, what we know is real, objective, an ontological truth. He also asks us to uphold a genuine metaphysical range from phenomenon (flux) to foundation (being). This means our understanding of what is real must encompass material, human, spiritual and divine being.

Hope this helps! It’s amazingly powerful stuff once you start to get a hold on it!

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top