[lit-ideas] Re: Decisions, decisions

  • From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:13:36 +0200

Le 23 oct. 04, =E0 20:46, Robert Paul a =E9crit :

> Janette Poulton writes:
>
>> Robert Paul notes it is 'banks of human material that feed the=20
>> matrix'  -
>
>> Doesn't this imply that the virtual world is in fact based on flesh=20=

>> and blood.
> that the ontological basis of the virtual is the physical
> or, the bottom line is physical reality?
>
>> No (human ?) flesh and blood - no Matrix.
>
>> SO - it seems the film assumes/proposes an answer to the ontological=20=

>> question.
> ----------------------------------------
> I'm not sure what further ontological question there is.

M.C. Well, here's a few=A0: what is the ultimate basis of reality=A0: =
human=20
beings or machines=A0? If it's humans, then is it mind or matter=A0? If=20=

it's the machines, then is it the atoms that make up their hardware, or=20=

is it the information that is encoded in their software ? But=20
information is ultimately reducible to a combinations of 0's and 1's :=20=

is it possible that 0's and 1's might be the ultimate constituents of=20
reality? In other words, doers the universe resemble a computer or=20
computer program (Chalmers calls this the computational hyposthesis,=20
and points out that it has recently been defended by Ed Fredkin and=20
Stephen Wolfram), or not?




> I've already said that
> there's an answer in the film to one of the film's questions.

M.C. Not sure what you mean here. Does this "answer" consist in the=20
observation that most people would prefer reality to illusion? If so,=20
it's not clear that this is really "one of the film's questions", to a=20=

greater extent than : Why would they prefer this?



> Of course 'the
> bottom line is physical reality' insofar as we're meant to assume that=20=

> those
> fantastic machines are real fantastic machines, even though the way=20
> they work
> their magic is to put it mildly highly theoretical. I suppose too that
> Descartes' Evil Genius would be a real Evil Genius; that Nozick's=20
> experience
> machine would be a real machine; and that the vats in which brains are=20=

> kept are
> real vats.
>
> If the conceit is that it is the 'physical reality' of human beings=20
> which lies
> behind everything (even human beings who have been processed through =
an
> electronic Cuisinart), perhaps that is true: but this is possibly the=20=

> wrong
> outcome if we're concerned with mental phenomena and their origin.

M.C. What I find interesting - and puzzling - is that Robert appears to=20=

want to continue to deny that the Matrix presents any philosophical=20
interest, in the face of some pretty impressive prima facie evidence,=20
namely (1) that a number of well-pedigreed, prominent Analytic=20
philosophers have not only taken it to be philosophically interesting,=20=

but have devoted philosophically interesting essays to the Matrix, and=20=

above all (2) that we are now in the midst of having a philosophically=20=

interesting exchange on the philosophy of the Matrix. Perhaps, expert=20
analytic philosopher that he is, Robert will reply that it is perfectly=20=

possible to have an interesting discussion about a non-existent object.
>
>
Michael Chase
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76
7, rue Guy Moquet
Villejuif 94801
France

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2004