be miserable in the domain of the real, or giving up reality for wealth and power in a dreamworld. What choice would you make? — frank

This is backward. Misery is encoded into the matrix. One of the agents even points this out explicitly at one point in the movie.



Indeed, machines lack the ability to describe a free world.

True. I was talking about the choice Cypher made. I think it's true that we associate adversity with reality.

Cypher chose the known, predictable, and limited world of the matrix, out of the mere comfort of familiarity and habit, I guess.

Oh...

(That puts a different perspective on it. I remember next to nothing about the movie.)

Cypher was guaranteed wealth and power for betraying his friends.

Why would anyone consciously choose to limit themselves? Because within the boundaries of a known and predictable matrix it's relatively comfortable, right?

You're associating freedom with reality as Moliere did. Assuming you have greater freedom outside a dream or matrix, what value do you find in that freedom? How are things different with that freedom vs without it.

BTW: think of the characters in your portraits. Do you ever think of them as real and alive? Bound by a reality you've created for them? I'm not asking if you're insane. I'm just asking if you're driven to imbue a sense of life to them.

Yeah, no doubt some monks do those kinds of things.

Anyway, I was half-joking with my response. The truth is I'm not sure what I'd do. It's a complex question. Does your being in the matrix benefit others beings; the machines for example, which in this scenario are sentient? Could you pursue philosophy there? Could you make others in the matrix happy or sad on account of your behavior?

Yeah, being in control is overrated. It entails responsibility over one's life, and actually thinking. What a drag.

*just wallows*

If you happen to smile at a person who's going through hell and barely hanging on, it could mean a lot. Would it matter if the context of the hell is all fictional?

Yeah, being in control is overrated. It entails responsibility over one's life, and actually thinking. What a drag. — Posty McPostface

?

You're associating freedom with reality as Moliere did. Assuming you have greater freedom outside a dream or matrix, what value do you find in that freedom? — frank

The answer to this is in the story. The characters who woke up could do things that no sleeper could do. Neo could literally fly in the matrix.

Outside of the story and in our 'real' world, liberating ourselves from our rigid and habitual patterns can offer greater creativity, connection, reduce anxiety, and potentially bring bliss.

Do those in the matrix think about their lives and find themselves being in love or friendship? Is the matrix not just the same as, phenomenologically speaking, and thus indistinguishable from, our own lives?

Well, if we assume that this love or friendship is solipsistic in nature, given the realization that it's all a sham, then would you feel comfortable living in such a perfect prison?

:up:

I imagine it's the same. Misery can be a product of attitude just as much as circumstances. The OP was aiming more at the value we attach to truth.

It wasn't explicit, but I think it actually was nested matrices. Neo made a bunch of robots fall down with his mind when he was supposed to be outside the matrix. In the second movie? I forget.

I guess the question is: how do we come to realize it is all a sham? And how do we know that realization is sound?

I always wondered what the point of the blue pill was. Isn't it just erasing memories? What about a person who took no pill at all? Wouldn't such a person have to learn to live in the matrix with knowledge he shouldn't have?

Personally, I'm interminably curious and would have liked to swallow both pills just to see what happens. But I'm a bit of a coward, too, so I'd probably have liked to say no thanks to both. With a choice forced upon me, I'd probably be sitting between both until they lose patience and I make a choice at random.

That sounds like a cop out, but this is a situation where people who care very much try to force a dichotomy on me that may not mean much to me. At that point, I certainly don't have enough information to make any sort of meaningful decision. Swallowing both pills is the wait-and-see-but-accelarate-the-process option.

If it were possible in the matrix scenario to know it is a simulation, should we not work from within (return to the Cave, Plato style) to enlighten others rather than exit to fight a war with the oppressors?
On the other hand in the premise of the actual movie one must be both 'out' and 'in' in order to effect any change.

Who knows such things? You can't doubt the process of doubting itself, so as long as your able to doubt or are willing to consider the possibility that it's a sham, then there's the chance that through that volition will arise an answer to those doubts. If it's all impossible then the whole issue becomes moot, but that's an epistempic gap that can only arise had you been omniscient or continually doubting.

Who knows such things? You can't doubt the process of doubting itself, so as long as your able to doubt or are willing to consider the possibility that it's a sham, then there's the chance that through that volition will arise an answer to those doubts. — Posty McPostface

Indeed, who knows such things? And that was the question. Perhaps we cannot question the process of doubt; but to doubt anything requires believing something else, and not merely believing that you are doubting, either.

How do any "answers" elevate themselves above the sea of doubt and belief? That is the question of all questions.

If it's all impossible then the whole issue becomes moot, but that's an epistempic gap that can only arise had you been omniscient or continually doubting.

What does this mean?

Indeed, who knows such things? And that was the question. — Janus

I think it goes deeper than that, if you're willing to entertain some thoughts. Let's say you were omniscient. Wouldn't that create that paradox that you we're solipsistic at the same time, since there's nothing more to know?

Perhaps we cannot question the process of doubt; but to doubt anything requires believing something else, and not merely believing that you are doubting, either. — Janus

Yes, and that something else is always a gap in knowledge or a solution to the above solipsistic situation, the process of doubting itself, if you will.

How do any "answers" elevate themselves above the sea of doubt and belief? That is the question of all questions. — Janus

Well, as long as you can doubt, then there's the chance of an answer.

What does this mean? — Janus

I hope I clarified it with the above...

I hope I clarified it with the above... — Posty McPostface

Well, not really...I am not seeing how any of your responses are actually related to the questions...might just be me, I guess...

Hmm, let me know what's confusing you about what I said or how it doesn't relate to the questions? I'll try and be more clear.

Why would anyone consciously choose to limit themselves? Because within the boundaries of a known and predictable matrix it's relatively comfortable, right? — praxis

:ok:

Cowardice. The worst kind being those that actually admit to being a coward, that conscious decision to avoid responsibility and allow others to think on your behalf.

Well, the first question was as to how we could know, not about the possibly solipsistic implications of omniscience; a topic which seems, at least on the face of it, entirely unrelated.

The statement after that was about the intrinsic relationship between doubt and belief, and your response said nothing at all about belief.

The second question was about how we can be sure of any answers, and your response spoke only of the possibility of answers. Do you mean the possibility of answers of which we could be certain, and if so, how would that reconcile with the "as long as you can still doubt"? Because it seems that if answers were certain, then there would be no possibility of doubt, so I'm quite confused as to what you are wanting to say here.

It doesn't seem to me there is any moral imperative to be authentic. Authenticity would seem to be for some and not for others, and perhaps even only possible for some and not for others. So, authenticity and inauthenticity would just seem to be two possible modes of being for humans; and perhaps no human could ever be entirely one or the other.

Well, the first question was as to how we could know, not about the possibly solipsistic implications of omniscience; which seems entirely unrelated. — Janus

So, how can we know? Through doubting. I hope that's simple enough. Now, the point I was trying to make with the whole solipsism thing, might be better understood with some analogy. So, let's assume that you're dreaming. You inhabit a solipsistic world. So, analogously to the matrix world, there's no way for you to tell if your dream is reality or not, because you and the dream are the same thing.

Anyway, I won't get hung up on that, and if that doesn't make sense I'll just think over it some more and polish up the idea.

The statement after that was about the intrinsic relationship between doubt and belief, and your response said nothing at all about belief. — Janus

Well, belief has to be about something, if we don't live in a solipsistic world. If we inhabit a dream, for example, then there's no room for doubt because all your beliefs originate from yourself. I don't think that makes sense. What I'm getting at is that doubt can only exist if there is a lack in knowledge. In a dream everything is perfectly clear, there's no room for/to doubt the existence of the dream world itself because there is no room for doubt itself.

The second question was about how we can be sure of our answers, and your response spoke only of the possibility of answers. Do you mean the possibility of answers of which we could be certain, and if so how would that reconcile with the "as long as you can still doubt"? Because it seems that if answers were certain, then there would be no possibility of doubt, so I'm quite confused as to what you want to say here. — Janus

Are you talking about certainty?

So, how can we know? Through doubting. I hope that's simple enough. — Posty McPostface

What I'm getting at is that doubt can only exist if there is a lack in knowledge. — Posty McPostface

These two statements seem contradictory. So. I remain confused.

In a dream everything is perfectly clear, there's no room for/to doubt the existence of the dream world itself because there is no room for doubt itself. — Posty McPostface

I don't see why it would be impossible to experience doubt when dreaming.

Are you talking about certainty? — Posty McPostface

I think so, but now I'm not certain. :wink:

I think the point is to question what certainty could possibly consist in. Is there any absolute certainty beyond deductive certainty? Is even deductive certainty absolute? On the other hand what could certainty be, phenomenologically speaking, beyond just a feeling; if I feel certain, then I am certain. Is to be certain necessarily the same thing as to be right?

In my own experience, the dreamworld of sex, drugs, and shoegaze is pretty miserable, and the glimpses of reality I've had have been nothing other than complete peace. Reality seems illusive and not inherently tied to "life", like the rose garden in the first stanza of Burnt Norton in T.S. Elliot's Four Quartets. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but whatever.

But also, isn't comfort ultimately miserable?