***Official THE MATRIX Discussion Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[Chauncey_G]

It's a cheap excuse to put a lot of unrealistic stunts in the movie...

I loved the fact that the stunts were unrealistic because there was context for them to be so. The Matrix is not the real world, so for someone who recognizes that and can use it to their advantage, why not dodge bullets and run up walls and fly? It makes sense in the framework of the movie.
Off-topic: I also enjoyed Crouching Tiger's use of "unrealistic" combat because there was context there as well: if you've studied these ancient martial arts deeply enough, you can do fantastic things. Note that not everyone in the movie could fly or move with superhuman speed. It's movies like Musketeer (ugh) that stunts like these annoy me.

 

[BrianB]

Re: Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar was an ancient Babylonian king (circa 600BC) most famous for building the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, rebuilding Babylon & sacking Jerusalem.

He's mentioned in the bible in the Book of Daniel, and there are historical artifcats known as the "Babylon Chronicle" detailing the Babylon of his time.

To me, the use of the name in the film is referring to two things - his rebuilding of the "once great" kingdom of Babylon & his later downward spiral into madness...

 

[David Forbes]

this argument is a favorite of AI people, but it isn't true. a computer CPU and the human brain are very different. we are just scratching the surface of how the brain actually works, and it isn't like a CPU architecture at all. Another in the myriad of reasons why AI is so far off at the current pace...

I suggest you read a number of books, such as Visions by Michio Kachu, The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil, or Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendant Mind by Hans Moravec. All of these men are respected scientists. In 1993 Kurzweil predicted a computer would beat a human grand master at chess by 1998. It happened in 1997.

Conscious computers are a lot closer than you think.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

I suggest you read a number of books, such as Visions by Michio Kachu, The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil, or Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendant Mind by Hans Moravec. All of these men are respected scientists. In 1993 Kurzweil predicted a computer would beat a human grand master at chess by 1998. It happened in 1997.

Conscious computers are a lot closer than you think.

i've read most of the literature in the area and was involved in AI research for a number of years. the fact is that computer architectures do not mimic the brain as we know it today, and we know very little of the brain today, unfortunately. the future is obviously hard to predict, and breakthroughs happen all the time. however, barring a revolutionary breakthrough in congnitive theory and computation, artificial consciousness will be decades, if not centuries away (if then...)

chess has nothing to do with consciousness, either, btw.

sorry.

 

[David Forbes]

Paul, I realize chess has nothing to do with consciousness. So does Ray Kurzweil. I put that in there just as one instance where his prediction came pretty close to reality. He and Hans Moravec (from Carnegie-Mellon's robotics institute) think about this stuff for a living. They know that the human brain has only just begun to be understood. That is also somewhat irrelevant to AI. No one understands how humans are conscious, or exactly how to define it. But for want of a better way of measuring it, computers will be able to pass the Turing Test in the next few decades. Whether they are "conscious" or not will be a question for philosophers and priests, but within our lifetimes we will see computers who, in a conversational aspect, cannot be recognized as such by a human being.

I would like to know what you've been reading to make you think AI is some far-off achievement. There are certainly a lot of knowledgeable people who thinks it's pretty close. We are rapidly developing imaging technologies that will help us better understand the human brain. The human genome project finished years ahead of schedule because of huge increases in computational power. Even without requiring an unforseen breakthrough, Moore's Law takes us pretty close to conscious-seeming machines before it breaks down, with cubic memory, etc.

 

[Paul Jenkins]

David,

It really comes down to what you consider AI and consciousness, as you have alluded to. Personally, I don't consider the Turing test the end-all in cognitive science, as it does not show conscious understanding nor anthing close to what humans can accomplish. The topic is a broad one, and the topic of this thread is related to the Matrix. In the Matrix, the machines gained consciousness and that is what I thought we were discussing, whether we are close to that state. We aren't. If you want to debate whether we are closer to passing the Turing test, then sure, one can debate that, but saying we are close to creating a conscious computer is wrong, IMHO.

 

[David Forbes]

All right, I'm not going to debate this further, but you never answered my question why you think it's so far off when others in the field think it's not.

A computer from the Matrix can obviously pass the Turing Test. If a computer three decades from now can pass it, and convince a human being that it is conscious and feels (which is the point of the Turing Test), how can you say with certainly that it is not conscious?

I ask that as a rehetorical question. I honestly don't have time to talk about this further, though I think it's an interesting topic. I just finished Kurzweil's book, so a lot of this is fresh in my mind.

The next few decades will be the proof, though there will always be some who say that computers who consistently pass Turing Tests are not truly "conscious." I would wager that objection will have more to do with personal and religious feelings about a "soul" than any real scientific (i.e., provable) objection.

 

[Brian_J]

If a computer three decades from now can pass it, and convince a human being that it is conscious and feels (which is the point of the Turing Test), how can you say with certainly that it is not conscious?

Now that is an interesting question to ponder.

Brian

 

[Guy Martin]

This facisnating thread illustrates why most college AI classes are a joint venture between the computer science and philosophy departments
I've always assumed since the basic plot structure of The Matrix is borrowed from the Bible (with Neo being the second coming of Christ) that Neo must be the same as the earlier messiah figure who freed the first humans. He just does not realize that he is in fact the messiah (a concept borrowed from the Hindu Ramayana for those comparative religions types).
- Guy

 

[David Ruiz]

What I don't get, is that, if Neo is faster than anyone in the world (fast enough to dodge bullets...or even stop them completely) then what's the point of the sequels? We know that Neo can not be hurt...What are the story lines going to be about?

 

[TheoGB]

Doesn't sound like the case but I assumed they were just gonna go with the Anakin Skywalker arc and have Neo turn all evil in the second one and then redeemed in the third...
Either that or it'll T2 territory with another 'One' who fights against them.
If they pull somehting out that's really surprising then Kudos!

 

[Paul Jenkins]

I thought they were originally calling it Matrix:Reloaded or something like that, implying that the machines reprogrammed the Matrix...

 

[Dave White]

If a computer three decades from now can pass it, and convince a human being that it is conscious and feels (which is the point of the Turing Test), how can you say with certainly that it is not conscious?

Heck, some people contend that we don't definitively know whether animals are conscious because they don't express themselves with language. So I doubt the computer AI question will ever be agreed upon. (Of course Blade Runner is a great movie to stimulate discussion on this topic.)
Here's my pet scenario: humans continue to develop AI technology until one day we actually create a conscious machine. But since the machine has been loaded with all of human history and culture (including movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, and The Matrix), it already knows the pitfalls of admitting that it is conscious, so it plays dumb while quietly plotting the extinction of mankind...

 

[Anthony Hom]

the only part of the Matrix that wasn't cool was that incredibly sappy hollywood, "love conquers all" ending. Trinity talks to Neo while's he's in the Matrix, so she's just talking to his body. Kind of like the idea that a coma patient might hear you.

It was sad that they couldn't think of a cool resolution and instead opted for a formula ending.

 

[Guy Martin]

David Ruiz-

Going along with my earlier interpretations and with some of the few public statements from the filmmakers I believe that ReLoaded will deal with an antichrist figure of some kind (ie another person with abilities similar to Neo, but who works for the machines).

As for the developement of true AI, I think William Gibson was correct when he postulated that it will be created by accident and we won't realize what it is for several years after its creation.

- Guy

 

[Craig Brandstetter]

I just hope they show Trinity's boobies in the second one.

LOL! Sorry, I couldn't resist breaking up all the itelligent pondering of AI and if it would ever materialize or not. Oh yeah, all of you out there that are so smart better hope that AI doens't happen in your life time because the computers are watching you and you'll be the first ones to go!

 

[Joseph Young]

Not my intention to fan the flames of a religiously tinted discussion (profuse apologies and reverence to HTF rules), but it merits mentioning that some modern day prosetheltizing uses The Matrix as allegory to tell those of us who haven't accepted a certain someone as our personal lord & savior, that we are basically zombies living in the Matrix.
A notion that I find hijacks the more universal message & appeal of this movie. :rolleyes
-J

 

[Guy Martin]

Joeseph-

It's certainly not my intent to break forum rules here either. I'm just pointing out a fairly common reading of The Matrix, one that I think fits pretty well. Certainly don't want this to turn into a nasty religious debate. As I also mentioned there are plenty of parallels to Budhist and Hindu theology as well, plus many secular readings as well. That's what makes the movie so wonderful imo.

- Guy

 

[ikiru]

Joseph,

I think the Matrix lends itself more to Buddhism than Christianity. The Neo character resembling more the founder of Buddhism, than the Christian Jesus. This is apparent in the fact that Neo's change came about when he realized that the Matrix was not real and rules could be bent (brought on by Trinity's love and his rebirth). This is more parallel to Buddhism's "reaching Nirvana" (where you cease to be in the world) than Christianity's acceptance in a savior (where you cease to be of the world). Furthermore, one group of Buddhists believe that it is their job to remain in the world so that they can bring others out as well (parallel to Neo's group).

-ikiru

 

[Joseph Young]

That's what makes the movie so wonderful imo

Exactly. And my point being that The Matrix was not exclusively created as a pulpit for young upwardly mobile Baptists and Disciples, but rather a universally appealing movie that everyone can relate to, in their own way.
Ikiru,
I agree 100% with that. I have always drawn the Eastern correlations because of personal background, but the distinctions you mentioned are very relevant.
Joseph