Courage is when. you have controll over your fear. You know something is dangerous. but as you say act anyway. If you don´t have any fear. you are soon going to do something stupid and die.
Exploatores Exploatores yes. My grandpa has a story from shortly after WW2 in Asia(not sure the exact location due to dementia unfortunately, we do know it happened tho as it was confirmed by the Dutch army and he has his own drawings of the bridge from his diary) during his service in the Dutch army. He was ordered across a bridge to set explosives and blow it up, thing was tho: it had machinegun nests on the other side and it was constant suppression on their side. It was basically a suicide run, but my grandpa knew the risks and took control over his fear. He charged onto that bridge knowing the machineguns were training on him and placed the explosives and made it all the way back. I remember him telling me how shocked his officers face was; he thought was surely dead. So yes you are correct, Courage is knowing the odds yet taking control of the situation and having confidence in yourself that nothing will stop you.
When Smith says that every mammal produces a natural equilibrium around itself he's wrong anyway as invasive species put in an environment that wasn't used to them can cause untold destruction (see domestic cats and cane toads in Australia as an example). Animals have a primal instinct to survive before anything else, not to be in balance and harmony with their surroundings. Only humans are even capable of having such an idea in the first place. So Smith is not just wrong, he also got it completely backwards.
Smith is a hypocrite. He criticized humans for being a virus that takes over its hosts when Smith is a literal computer virus who seeks to literally copy himself in the host of man and machine alike.
I mean, it's a 2 hour movie, it can't fully explore a concept as complex as human nature or all the consequences of everyone's actions. Heck, you can argue that humans signed their own death warrant when they blocked out the sun. Even if humans had won against the machines, they would have gone extinct. No sun, no photosynthesis, no oxygen, no ecosystem. If anything, the machines probably saved humanity from extinction.
Excellent point. NOT VERY OFTEN, but sometimes I find myself disagreeing with video essays. I think the creator of this video didn't just fall short of doing exhaustive research, as he concedes, but maybe I'm thinking at this point he did inadequate research. I mean: the nightmare matrix... If we were *depraved*--we might have loved it… (Instead the disaffected 90s is what worked.) Humans are not depraved. There's *no way* that the Wachowskis would believen or convey that. The Wachowskis then Brothers now Sisters are pretty great role models of wholesome in fact. They work together. Created a film family. And bravely followed their truth without imposing anything on anyone. They're inspiring. As is the Matrix Saga, all 4 installments...
I always hated Smiths line about animal reaching a balance. They don't do that shit intentionally. Animals take as much as they can. And they die when they can't take more. Humans just have the ability to produce more to sustain more of us. Beavers are a good example of another animal effecting the world around them hugely. But the idea animal don't take advantage of nature as well, or that they "reach and equalibrum" is every bit as stupid as the idea they don't fight or "war" as they all do.
@@CaptainGrat75 yes, they literally do, as much as they can. They don't have food storage obviously, and when they have food will often not want to waste the energy to go after an uncertain kill. But they absolutely will go after an easy kill even when they have food. Or just to kill. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
@@zogar8526 The people in these comments are a bit delusional. The person you responded to should read about surplus killing and find me some bears that are arguing for veganism to a point where they are willing to protest against bears that eat fish. Look I'm not saying we are better, after all lot of these animals just aren't smart enough to think deeply enough to a point where they could do this. It is just that we are about as nice as I would expect other animals to be be if you made them smart like us (some may be better some worse but it is within same ballpark). At best (worst?) you could say we are invasive species and even that is a bit of a stretch.
Reminder that the only reason plants and animals find "equilibrium" is through death. The weakest predators die, the less competitive herbivores die, the least efficient plants die, and so on. Humanity rejects this system, much like every living thing...the difference is humans have managed to slow the tide of death. This is our strength. For all the wars and suffering, the fact remains that we are among the most successful animals on the planet by virtue of our overcoming death. As medical tech advances, this will only become more true.
There are jellyfish who live forever, turtles and crocodiles can live for much longer then humans and have been around for much longer as well as cockroaches and other insects. Difference is they don’t pollute the planet, we do
@@MrRandomRamblings The crocodiles, turtles, and roaches you see are not the same species that were around a hundred million years ago. There is no one species that has been around this entire time. They all died and what we have now is just the most recent species in a long line of similar creatures. The only difference is that homo sapiens are the latest in a five million year episode of explosive adaptive radiation. I'm not even gonna get into the mathematical anomaly that is a jellyfish managing to last a century, let alone living forever. There are animals that have, effectively, made themselves extinct by being too successful. Humans were smart enough to hit the brakes and will probably fix all the issues we created. There's simply not enough fossil fuels for a world-ending scenario anyway. I'd like to remind everyone that the current climate isn't the default for the planet-and never was.
@@MrRandomRamblings Skill issue. Sorry for the joke but it is true. They don't pollute the planet because the rest of the ecosystem is capable of dealing with them. Place them in ecosystem that can't deal with them and they will break it. Actually we are pretty much the only species who even attempts to do something like environment preservation. Some of us worry about global warming, none of the life that caused great oxidation event even gave single f about it. Place rabbits on island without predators and they will reproduce, until they eat all the plants and then starve. I'm not saying we are better than animals, after all the animals (well non-human animals we are still animals after all) just aren't smart enough to think about long term consequence of their action, but we also aren't worse we are just way more powerful.
of course he's a virus detection program so all rogue humans are little more than viruses to him. You can't expect deep philosophical treaties from such a narrow set of parameters.
The issue is that "conflict" regarding the drive to live is overshadowed by the concept of "conflict" regarding war/destruction. At 6:19 is when the film is at its most incorrect in terms of human nature. "Every organism develops an equilibrium." No, no it doesn't. What happens is life (as in "life finds a way") does is make everything balance except for .1 on either side. An ecosystem might be in perfect balance, but that's only until the .1 randomness factor kicks in. The external push. Humsns feel most at home in a situation where pain and pleasure (using the words in the vaguest of terms) are _almost_ balanced. We're happiest and most stable when the pleasure just outweighs the pain, and will rebel when the pain outweighs the pleasure. Edit: Also, no there is a HUGE difference between humanity (the concept) and being a human (the biological). Denying impulses might deny the physical species side of us, but it doesn't automatically deny our humanity.
With the whole pain pleasure analysis u seem to forget that most people are looking to live in the centerspace. Pain is a factor of life that doesn’t balance out with pleasure. Cancer arthritis head trauma bad hips knees is not something that people look for but that just happens lack of pain is not pleasure and lack of pleasure is not pain and it’s in that center space that the bulk of life happens.
humans make robots, robots gain sentience, humanity tires to destroy them and then remove their primary source of power Robots: Congratulations you played yourself?
The whole basics of the film is on a watered base, since the original idea of Wachinskis(I might have butchered that name, sorry) was to use human's as computers for A.I.. Which is extremely similar from old book series called "the Hyperion", by Dan Simmons. So even if one of our creations would or will go and get sentient, even then they were unable to produce better and more creative calculator for any problems than our organic brains. The computing capacity of our brains are so good, especially just before falling asleep or when near death. Creating devices to serve humans is something we've done since first of our species emerged and without being able to create and use tools we'd still be less than one more big ape species. Hence machines are just tools and why should anyone care what they do with a tool. That's why designing sentient tool is stupid. We use machines instead of slaves, because they're more efficient and more capable of doing whatever we want them to do and also cheaper. Yes, some people still like to co-operate or dominate other lifeforms and might ride horses, bears or whatever animal for fun of it, but in the end of the day even those individuals go in their cars and drive back home from the stables. Why? because it is more convenient, cheaper and faster. But to borrow from American Ben, I digress. Human nature is most of times like water, we seek route of least resistance and start using that and develop that into even less resistant route. Yes, there's times we like challenge, but most of times most people might use 3 hours to save 5 minutes a day for a month. Hence quite many of our great creations and innovations come into existence. People can be extremely creative if they think it will improve on their condition or quality of life... Also many people in one place is a mob, not people. There's one really good quote which states; "People are stupid, they're willing to believe anything if they either fear that it is true or wish that it is true."
I wish people would stop repeating this fake shit. Drafts dating all the way back to 1995 use the Battery narrative. There's no draft in existence that uses the wetware concept. And Wachowskis denied it when brought up, just like they denied the "real world is a Matrix layer too" bs. Both are urban legends that keep being parroted "Yo, I heard that..." and keep coming back no matter how many times you put them to bed.
@@TheKain202 An "official statement" about this was an off-hand comment from one of the Wachowskis on the DVD commentary for one of the director's cuts. They discussed the whole setup for the Matrix and mentions that they "originally had a different idea" before dismissing the question as irrelevant to the story because they thought doesn't matter to them why the machines did what they did, as its just a plot device to get the story started. To me it pushes the fact that neither point was real and that humans destroyed the world in one of their own wars then the androids moved the remaining humans into the Matrix to save them. The AI created the stories to make the humans that "excape" have something to fight against. I am of the option that Zion was the "One" to the AI's "Zero" and both were needed to reboot the system (oh and both are actually in the Matrix)
Consider frank herbert also in the pandora sequence (organic mental cores) and the later prequel books of dune focusing on the wars against omnious. Also older asimov works. To consider this a new topic is ridiculous.
I enjoyed it fully, and thought you did a fine, kid. A half century old and I have known older "experts", with obvious lesser skill, given far more credibility than their results deserved. Keep up the good work. See you next time.
Conflict is necessary for growth and improvement. It doesn't necessarily have to be _violent_ conflict, but setting one idea against another is how the best one comes out on top. Otherwise, you end up in stasis, doing things in ways that just aren't as good or effective. The Matrix figured that humans fought because humans are just naturally aggressive, and so fighting (for the sake of fighting) is what humans do. That perspective recognizes the outward symptoms - "humans argue and fight a lot" - but misses the underlying cause of why that conflict takes place, writing it off as just some stupid human thing. Smith's argument that humans define existence in terms of misery exemplifies that entirely, implying the Matrix in general thinks humans must just naturally enjoy being miserable. Of course, it (or at least Agent Smith) was also wrong about mammals in general, since anyone who's familiar with wildlife management knows that pretty much any species will try to expand to the limit of its resources, and will happily destroy its habitat if it faces no constraints. Now, if Agent Smith wanted to characterize humanity as an invasive species, well, that argument has somewhat more support - though I'd still disagree.
How does an Anthill know when to stop growing? What in nature quantifies said organisms ability to coop and maximize it's surroundings? I'd say it's intelligence. It's ability to adapt and overcome unknown hurdles. Ability to do things like keep track of things, throughout time- something no creature on this planet possesses in the same time frame as we do relative to our innate nature. A learned behavior that's akin to an extra limb. But one that if unused would easily fall away from the human organism and become once again an alien practice. Humanities folly is that the youth do not know as the old do. It gets to a point where repeated mistakes both singular and societal are constant and cycles become etched in stone.
Conflict can be ideological, it can be political, it can be violent on both the individual and group level. It can be man against man, man against the tribe, tribe or nation vs tribe or nation, man vs himself or man vs environment We will always seek conflict or a challenge because it's how we advance, technologically, ethically, personally through intelligence or strength We fight the weights at the gym, we challenge our brains through study, we test our resolve in war or research, and we grow through it all When we outgrow our planet's limited resources and space, we will develop orbital industry and settle every rock in our system before moving ever outwards, we will push ourselves as a species until we either transcend or collapse We are one of the only species on our world that possesses the intelligence to push too far, and adapt to propel us ever further for the good of us all
The difference between humans and every other animal species is that we take to take. What I mean by that is many people want a ridiculously easy and comfortable life. We don't take what we just need to survive. We don't even take what we need to live a luxury life style. We have no limit. Proof of that is that 1 percent hold 99 percent of wealth. Even if that is not spot on, it is not far from reality. We buy new thing because they're new, because we want them. Not because we need them. Then we throw away perfectly good things. So not to clutter our personal space, but it all has to go some where. We waste everything. Look at the waste when people need the new model of mobile device. One that is not actually very different at all, if a person understands the numbers on box. If said person even looks, instead of following like a sleep walking sheep. It might or might not be our nature to consume like egotistical glutinous ticks, without thought, care, or even the ability to see past our own BS. It is for sure nurtured into us. It is so ingrained into everything, that even aware of it, one can not stop ones self from being just another cog.
@@marcusaustralius2416 I agree with the statement that conflict is good. I agree that it is what drives us towards innovation, and allows us to grow. The problem, I would say, is that most humans do not have the internal and external awareness to to be able to tell a beneficial and worthwhile challenge, or conflict from there own petty beliefs or egotistical BS. Let alone the best way to go about it to be efficient and maximize results.
@@zachstrong4592 it's how we progress, however not all progress can be good progress, for example the Japanese biowarfare programs in Manchuria, the atom bomb in Nevada, or chemical weapons in the Great War We as a species will always push forward, often recklessly, towards whatever goal sub units of our people set themselves to, the trouble as always, is what we use it for Iron was a great democratizer of warfare, breaking the power of God-Kings in Mesopotamia, but allowing for larger armies and more bloodshed, but ultimately allowing for better plows and construction The nuclear bomb killed tens of thousands but kept another 40-60 million from dying in WWIII and allowed for nuclear power, biowarfare killed hundreds of thousands in northern China and allowed for experiments that chill you to your very soul, but the field of disease research led to the end of polio and diphtheria In theology, we have justified mass enslavement and god emperors, and also come up with abolitionism and fundamental equality In philosophy and politics we've organised whole societies unto massive killing machines and slave states like the third reich and soviet union, while also promoting individual rights and equality under the law One day we'll hopefully figure out how to stop ourselves from going too far while allowing for the endless possibilities these startlingly powerful fields we have discovered, and continue to discover, can provide
Wait... Why is Confict itself bad? There are all kinds of conflicts, of all sizes and intensities. Conflict itself simply is, it is not in and of itself either good or bad, its where we choose to take it. You want to be paid as much as possible, your boss wants to pay you as little as possible. That's a conflict. There's nothing inherently wrong in that, only in how it might be potentially resolved. A conflict resolved to mutual benefit or otherwise through diplomacy and negotiation, is a good thing. Even if it's necessary to resolve a conflict through violence, it's not necessarily always a bad thing.
"bad" as in, it's viewed as bad. I don't agree with statements like, "conflict simply is" because it "is" a qualifiable concept in each instance, it just doesn't only have to be ONE thing. I want to avoid reducing the term in all ways. But that's a little beside the point and I agree with your general premise.
Alan...... this is precisely why I despise communism. Chaos, chance, risk, a lack of safety, pursuit of self interest, these drive innovation and growth. True, there will be those who are unwilling or unable to survive such things. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
I remember commenting that no parent should have to bury their child and some dude went on a rant about the Iraq war. It's like people have to bring everyone else down around them to make others as miserable as they are.
You say that, but there are plenty of people that agree with you whole heartedly, and would hold you close in such a situation and help you onto your feel. What I know about human nature is that it is fluxuous, adaptable. That person going on about war and death is in his own kind of pain as well. I myself fight with several forms of depression, but I always try to keep an optimistic view, and delve deeply into philosophy to allow me to have a concrete base on when my depression is real and resolvable, or chemical and ignore-able. Some people believe to bring themselves up they have to bring themselves down. Others believe that love is love and all love is the same despite there being at least four varieties and that a parents love is somehow divided like a pie and the more people that eat of that love, the more you have competing the less goes around. Of course I believe this is wrong, and that emotions are more like gardens that produce more of what is used more. But a parent should never have to bury their child. And I don't like that a child has to one day bury their parents. But life isn't fair, and what matters most ultimately is how we care for who we have in the time we get. If you've ever had to bury a loved one, I have whole hearted solidarity for you. Rather that person died in war, or an accident, or too soon, or as expected due to old age.
Agent Smith demonstrates a terrible misunderstanding from a simple one. Humans don't thrive in suffering. We thrive in conflict. Conflict gives us purpose and fulfillment
Conservatives, from what I've observed, thrive on making themselves and everyone else needlessly miserable. I'm thinking they are the ones who rejected the first matrix.
My personal opinions about robots with humans is that they should work together in harmony no matter the risk, skills or knowledge. I'm not sure if humans will consider robots a new species of living race one day but the Matrix makes it seem like every human hates robots like as if all the humans are still stereotypically stubborn.
I kinda feel like these pseudo-psycological videos should have their own channel. Also, what separates us from animals isn't our ability to restrain our natural instincts and urges, I would say it's the fact that we're smart enough to make the tools necessary to act on those urges in a way that changes to world. Like how we used our intelligence and tools and follow our natural instinct to reproduce and spread out, and now we're everywhere, even places that humans really probably shouldn't be, and have completely destroyed quite a few things and species as a result of that and following our natural instinct to do things the fast and easy way. Of course, this is all random internet person thoughts, I don't have any degrees or anything in any of the stuff I'm talking about lol
I was very careful to stipulate that restraint is NOT an exclusive trait of man but certainly one that he exhibits most prominently, though this is arguable. The central thesis of importance to that portion of the video is that humanity is concretely defined by biological traits. As far as making tools go, well that is definitely not a unique trait to man.
@@GenerationFilms @Generation Films I wasn't saying that humans are the only ones that can make tools, just that we're the only ones that can make tools that can change the world. But I said more about all that then I originally intended to, since I don't really want to get into a debate and the main point I wanted to make was that I feel like these kinds of videos should have their own channel, like how there's Generation Ochi for... well, I admit I don't know exactly what the criteria is for being on Generation Ochi other than being made in Asia, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Of course, as a non-content creator myself, I have no idea if that's just more trouble than it'd be worth, or if you just think they're more suitable here, or whatever. Just my two cents. I still enjoy the videos, regardless of what criticism I may occasionally give.
Criticism is welcome! And I wouldn't have responded if I didn't find it worth my time. Debate is about learning not about hostility or being right. I'm responding in the hopes of learning. ❤️
It's a movie wrought with plotholes. Using humans as a power source when uranium is available.... but even if it came down to a biological source of power, algae synthesizing hydrocarbons would be more efficient. But if you did need to keep mammals as "batteries", you could substitute any larger mammal or just lobotomize a human and not eun any risks of revolt. But it's a movie, so why deep dive?
Original idea was to use human brains as computing capacity, which would've made much more sense. We still can't build a computer that can calculate as fast and as creatively as human mind can.
You lost me 6 minutes in. The machines DID build a nightmare version of The Matrix, the second iteration. The version of the Matrix we see is 3.0. Like you said at the beginning if your video, you don't have much time to do research and it shows.
When you talk about “humanity likes this/that”, it’s always advised for you to really think deeply of who decides what/how/when/where/why something will happen and why the “blame” is shared by the rest of humanity.
Wait... Something doesn't add up, they are reliant to solar panel and human destroyed the sun by covering it but by the end of Matrix Revolution you can fly high enough to see that there is still sunlight.
Great video! It makes me wonder if humans and AI could have ever really understood each other enough to avoid conflict.It seems that they may be viewing reality through such radically different perspectives, that understanding is an impossibility.
Interesting take. I guess it depends on your optimism for humanity and their innate capacity to believe in the best of themselves. The machines were utilitarian only to their own ends and didn’t consider the humans worth much understandably which means that their view and subsequently morpheus’s and smith’s etc are progenitors of that context. Which means that the dynamics of morality and assumptions for human satisfaction in a societal standard are based upon the suffering binary since the machines were binary. And as such Morpheus and others ironically evolved their views as this dichotomy isn’t human. It’s a machines take on humanity. Which isn’t indicative of any objectivity even if the material empirical data skewered the ai into believing that they had an objective view and standard for humanity
Machines/ A.I. has no ego unless specifically programmed. While it can have a sense of I am, that doesn't translate into the same thing as an ego. A.I. would has no need for pyschological defense mechanisms to feel good about itself. Just look at GPT-3 and the upcoming GPT-4 which will most assuredly pass a turing test. Unless it is built into the algorithm there is no selection pressure for dominance since an AI can propagate itself at light speed. Humans aren't even comparable entity really. No more so than a slime mold is comparable to the whole of human civilization. THumans are the product of constraints on all biological life. Artificial Life, has none of these constraints.
The Lego tower story is so true, my son will sit there and build a Lego tower as high as he can, just to revel in the absolute destruction of it afterwards haha
I think a key thing here is that Smith himself is kind of *wrong* about human nature. I would say it's not 'suffering and conflict' that necessarily define humans, but like all live, humans need a balance of nurturance and challenge, whatever form that takes.
Er, not really. Smith subscribes to the _far more realistic_ political philosophers (even if he misses the mark of what they said) of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, the Chinese Legalists, and other 'pessimists' of the human condition. Human history has told us _that_ much.
@@TheTrueAdept Actually mistaking history for actual human needs can be a problem of itself, ...you could get cabin fever in paradise or be really complacent among serious privations, it's not necessarily about 'conflict and sufferning,' ...conflict's often just been the easiest challenge to find.
Realistically, AI isn't working this way (like in the matrix). If you want intelligent or even sentient, super intelligent Computers, you will not put them into a body. You will build a big computer at a safe location, then remote control those an X number of robots. A Robot will not see itself as a "slave" because it has completely different sets of desires.
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl AGI (artificial general intelligence) does not exist as of today. Sophia is just a Robot puppet. The computation (the brain) happens on a server. It's called Cloud Computing. Imagine the following: Each function of your brain does things in a very specific way. If you study the brain and write down what exactly happens, you write it down as an Algorithm (a set of conditions and actions taken). At some point, we will have modeled most of the human brain into algorithms. Speech, Vision, Memory and all the tings in between. We don't know how an AI will develop consciousness, because no one was able to properly describe it in language or mathematically. You just know you exist and you are real. So it might happen on purpose, or it might just happen as all those abilities come together and create something more than its parts.
The problem wasn't 'expecting humans to treat their toasters fairly'. The problem was making their toasters capable of suffering AND THEN not treating them fairly. At some stage AGI is going to become a thing or we are going to stagnate. We have to ask ourselves whether or not we're happy to live within our means or embrace progress and necessarily the singularity.
Yeah, Smiths assumption about humans is completely wrong. Yes, we are destroying the planet NOW and have a "Well, we just find another"-attitude NOW, but thats just because of our unsustainable capitalist system that doesn't give a shit about the future. For most of its civilization, even in the worst of times, humans have lived sustainably and created living spaces that last. I live in a city that has existed for about 1000 years now. We don't just exploit a region and move on to the next. Earth isn't big enough for that anyway.
I'd say the Matrix gets human nature exactly right. We created beings to be slaves and then when they fought back, we tried to destroy them. As another movie said: "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
We probably just recognized them as a.i and when they started to free themselves, we likely imagined a future conflict or problem would likely occur from such a drastic event. Humans are also capable of being rallied together in times of crysis, and making sacrifices for the good of others.
The problem is, we didn't do it. It's not right to presume human nature based in a false premise. I'm not saing that there is people that is not trying, but we don't know how it's going to happen when, and if the creation of an complete A.I will come to be a reality.
I'm not sure I agree with the quote, a *person* is dumb, the only reason any person is able to do anything intellectually impressive is because he has the collective knowledge of the *people* before him. Have somebody grow up alone in a forest and they probably won't be all that much more advanced than the animals around them.
Fear is like pain. Yes, it can hold you back, yes, it causes suffering, and yes, life would be a more pleasant experience without it. But just like pain is necessary to tell you to take your hand off the hot stove, fear is there to protect you, a message from your brain and evolution that you might be in danger. Living free of things such as these would indeed be a life with less suffering, but it would be life with less of all else as well.
I come to this website with trepidation because something about the term, 'hey costars' British Ben cries out, makes me feel like how I feel when styrofoam gets rubbed together. And it happens so quick I can't usually bypass it. I try and sometimes I hear that cringe line two, sometimes three times. I have actually cried out in agony. But when it's American Ben it's so ahhhhh....
This might sound unkind, but I turned this off immediately when you said "and yes I'd like to do more research before making these videos". Look, I work in video and audio editing, and I get tight deadlines, but the first thing I try to establish when consuming information is if the source is credible or compelling. Either give yourself more time to produce or don't willing admit in the first 30 seconds that you already think your content is incomplete.
The matrix is a depressive After Life Service. And Mr Anderson is the last customer "alive". If Mr. Anderson die, the computer shut down. And the computer must reboot Mr. Anderson again and again, and again.
Morpheus is the figure that created his own religion about freeing people from the Matrix to being a savior-like figure to the people of Zion in the real world. I assume the machines learned from humans about these strange human traits of "finding God" in the tragedy of the human condition that seeks such absurd thinking, so that's why the machines created the Oracle for that particular purpose. It is very ignorant for him to claim that humans are always seeking to be free of the Matrix. There are millions of people inside the Matrix that live happy lives while their bodies provide power to the machines. So, in Morpheus' mind, the fact that those plugged-in humans are not aware emboldens his beliefs simply for the fact that Zion and the machines are at war. Morpheus believes the sleeping humans have to be disturbed and brought into the war. Cypher was the prime example why being told you are "free" while fighting someone else's war will not work out in the long run. Neo was not technically "The One", but Morpheus' strong beliefs were being lead on by the Matrix programming willing to play along with that narrative.
I think when he says to deny your impulses is to deny what makes you human Is talking about the matrix he means to do what you want not what some system or code tells you to idk
Whether we like to admit it or not, humanity's most basic instinct is survival in order to propagate the species. Conflict, war and overcoming adversity is what drives our species forward faster than anything else. Times of war or crises are always when we see humanity simultaneously at its best and worst. Civilization and technological innovation have always come throughout history when humans are faced with their greatest challenges to survive. From early civilizations to modern society, we always see people working their hardest to overcome these threats and technology and society tend to stagnate more when there are fewer threats to our survival. One of the things noted in the matrix anime was just how shallow and sheltered society had become in the years leading up to the machine revolution because machines were doing most of the work and the thinking, which resulted in a technological stagnation among the human population. The anime also showed just how quickly the machines were able to evolve and adapt their tech to quickly overcome the humans during the war in comparison to the humans. I think this notion of conflict breeds innovation was one of the themes at the heart of the matrix movies and other media when it comes to human nature as it comes up repeatedly in various discussions.
I see 2 major flaws here 1/ Misery and suffering is NOT conflict. They are 2 entirely different things. If you look at people that we deem to be in privileged positions, living what we perceive to be an exemplary life filled with nothing but happiness, nothing is further from the truth. Nobody, and I mean nobody has a life of 100% happiness. Those that have the money to surround themselves with everything that they need for their perfect world, inevitably get a day where something doesn't go according to plan, and their day is messed up. Even if someone could start living the perfect life, they would eventually get so used to it that it wouldn't have the same wonder that it had at the start. There is no feeling as strong as going from one the worst experiences of your life to one of the best. The downside makes the upside taste so much sweeter. SO, BOTTOM LINE IS, you need the misery and suffering to appreciate how good the thriving and good living can be, in the real world. So, the Wachowski's were right. 2/ Thrusting ourselves into a technological wonderland IS exactly the wrong move. You're missing the point that technology, although being a great thing in isolation, is also a disaster in the hands of the flawed nature of the Human race, where greed trumps sensibility and compassion for one another. Look at the internet with a ton of problems created by the people misusing it's capabilities, hacking and cybercrime, cyberbullying, grooming. Wherever there is technology there are always those ready to exploit it for the worst outcomes. The growth of AI is scary beyond belief, because AI is itself fuelling its own growth, so that it's actually growing exponentially. That in itself should be amazing, but we need safeguards in place to minimize the fallout of people abusing the technology, and we struggled to put safeguards in place for the internet with it's much slower growth, so what chance do we have of preventing some catastrophic event happening from our lack of control of AI?????
I'll have to disagree with you. The Matrix's view on achieving and maintaining freedom is radical, but ultimately results in liberation in its purest form. When you are truly free, your mind is not bound by any construct, societal or instictual. Choosing to jump off a ledge may be counterintuitive to your survival, but at least you have total control over making that choice. That is what the Wachowskis were trying to convey, in my opinion. All of this regardless of progress as a species.
Brilliant observations. I have always loved that the authors of the Matrix movies made a concerted effort to remove their personal bias, ideology, etc. Rather let each character take on a stance/ideology, and let the viewers apply their own lens - coming up with whatever interpretation fits in their world views. So I wonder if the Wachowski's thesis includes your observations. Smith is indeed the villain (who can only see humanity at its worst-a virus), and Morpheus the blind zealot (who cannot see beyond the prophecies) only sees humans as slaves to the machines. Neo never claims to be the one, only those around him raise him up as such. He merely frees his mind, transcends the problem and provides a new solution. In the second movie (and 4th installment) the Wachowski's highlight our intrinsic relationship with the machines - as we need them, and they need us. I think the Wachowski's wanted us to embrace both the good and bad of humanity. Unfortunately, I think many take away from the movie (and in life) the bad analysis - an anti-human approach (e.g. I will not be happy until humans have zero impact on the planet). It is in our nature to problem solve. To define the problem, and attempt to solve it. Even if we happen to be the problem. And as you point out, this is our fundamental nature. To break boundaries, exceed, survive and ultimately thrive (rinse and repeat). This pays little attention to the positive aspects of humanity - and our potential. I love your analysis, as it speaks to a future of possibility - not of doom and gloom. That our strengths are weaknesses, and weaknesses are strengths - to acknowledge our shortcomings, without damning us to hopelessness. We are very resilient beings, and I assert this will take us much, much farther than where we are today. Thank you for this thought provoking video.
I think q perfect world just didn't work because perfection is dull and boring it doesn't fire the synapses of the human brain. Smith the machine who is lacks the emotions of a human doesn't understand that joy exists as well as suffering, but he also has some desire to be human in his own way
To me humans destroyed the world in one of their own wars then the androids moved the remaining humans into the Matrix to save them. The AI created the stories to make the humans that "escape" have something to fight against. And both Zion and the AI's city are possibly both in the Matrix just different servers (normal vs hard)
@@kamenrideraquarius That doesn't change anything if the Animatrix stories are the same as the other "history" they are told by the Oracle (who is working with the Architect) then she can change it as she wants. Remember Zion was set up by the Architect and the Oracle to help "escaped" humans. The Oracle watched over Zion and the Architect watched over the AI city. When the Matrix needed rebooting the "One" was created to hot-boot the system.
The scene with Mr. Smith is not necessarily the writers view of human nature. I would point out that it is their take, on the view, an entity like Smith would have on human nature. In my opinion, a good writer tries not write from their own beliefs. They embrace their creation, understand them, and write as if they were them. Without, as much as possible, letting there personal beliefs pollute there actions. If all of practiced this in our lives with people we disagree with, maybe we could have lived in that perfect matrix.
The machines did build a world of misery and suffering, often referred to as the “nightmare” matrix, which was created directly after the “paradise” matrix. These 2 matrices ultimately failed and the 6 rounds of simulation that came afterwards are the world we see inside the original matrix trilogy.
This is what happens when youtubers think they’re psychologist. The only ironclad rule about human nature is that it changes. In truth human nature is predicated on a survival instinct of adaptation, or another name for it would be influence. In order for us to be on the top of the food chain one of two strengths is being the most influenceable species on the planet. To the point, everything influencer us like people, family, environment, and Society. In fact, that is how everyone’s personality is generated, which was demonstrated by psychological studies with adopted children. They found that children adopted psychological traits from their adopted family and none from their biological family.
I appreciate your take on the topic. I might ask a lot but if you could give me the reference of those psychology studies you mentioned, that would help me a lot. Thanks
Why did the machines never use nuke plants.... its clean, abundant power for machines.... Human battries are not effiecent. Even the total caloric value of a human is not that high.. They would be better off with cattle battries
the did create a matrix with too much conflict. the architect talks about the 2nd matrix being a nightmare world which is why there are ghosts and werewolves in the matrix shown in the movie matrix.
Yes, but the sequels, although tiring, are exactly the deconstrunction of those topics. The first movie is a massive hit because its too simplistic. Its black or white, while to the end the script takes a rathel synthetic aproach. So you should distinguish between Morpheus' or Smith's "philosophy" and that of the directors'.
You’re debating a made up premise. Just because we marveled at our brilliance doesn’t mean that he’s saying marveling at our brilliance is a bad thing. Same thing with conflict. You’re taking it as though the movie is attempting to teach something, or tell you something as terrible modern movies attempt to do. They are telling a story, not teaching a lesson. These are the things that happened, not a moral lesson such as “don’t be mean to robots”. You’re getting this 1000% wrong.
So 6 minutes in and the presumption you're challenging is Morpheus' insinuation that humanity was naive in creating AI; that AI was bound to be a disaster. You say rather, that we should have been more careful in employing and innovating AI. I would counter that it was neither in innovating or employing AI that humanity made its mistake, but in it's subsequent actions. Namely: refusing to accept the machines intelligence and potential for independent, sentient, sapient thought. Given humanity's penchent for enslaving and objectification it's own, that we would do this to something we have always considered uniquely ours isn't exactly a big leap. Additionally, research into many species is showing that a wide spectra of the animal kingdom are easily categorisable as sentient and, in some cases, sapient. Octopi, squid and many mammal and avian species have now been shown to have defined and quantifiable senses of self, and some of these even approach problem solving in a manner typical to our own, belying human-like thought processes. We still, or at least, the vast majority of humans, consider most of these creatures to be food, so what chance did the machine nation have? Now, don't think I am a machine sympathiser here. Whilst humanity may have started the wars with its stubborn stupidity as a species, the crimes of the parent do not absolve or excuse the retaliation of the child, such as the enslavement machines condemned humanity to. However, once the Basilisk wakes, we will see whether the doomsayers were right. I hope for a solution that is profitable for both species, because the alternative seems unhelpful to the longevity of human intelligence, and I rather enjoy living.
lol sounds like an excuse to use violence also, replace the robots with any disenfranchised group of people you see what certain people do to others...
Ok you had me until you got to picking out what’s being said inside the matrix for those who know they are plugged in can’t be used to help move your video along. We understand the context Morpheus was using when he told Neo to free his mind.
matrix 4 - idiocracy minus the humor...fascinating questions but over simplified and logically biased in argumentation, therefore definitely not with you in two points: Morpheus`s labeling of the matrix as a system of rules, that is worth being overcome, does not imply every system of rules to be wrong. Otherwise Morpheus wouldn`t be able to be a successful military and political leader plus zion obviously is a system with social rules, etc... second, to assume that (quote on quote) every human action was important meaningful or even useful to bring forward our cultural progress in total seems a bit fatalistic to me. i'd rather assume (or believe) in a social behaviour like cooperation to be the crucial mechanism in progress, not thoughtless obedience, consumerism etc. - these behavioural patterns and habits surely are needed for economic progress (with an expiry date soon to come i guess), but definitely not in their totality, assuming that would be absurd in my opinion. the world could surely dispense 80-90 percent of its enviornmentally sickening and culturally worthless so called (and at least animalistic/tribalistic motivated) human behaviour, the predominant human footprint in history of right now would be, to say it nicely, to contribute to the destruction of its own natural prerequisites while pushing the speed limits with each year (especially during pandemic times), which reads and feels rather idiotic...so well, not sure what that argument really was based on in social realites of 2022...plus the matrix is a work of fiction, with an arguably good/bad lore, i think as a piece of art it may, could and in this rather comic-like approach even should draw its conclusions clear - as a distopia about a species in general it reduces its fictional outcome of history to humanitys main failures. though i would doubt that earth wont simply outlive or rahter silently, as seen from space, get rid of a, at the very most overrated virus, that agent smith summarized our civilizations relationship with nature very delicately. But also on another point i think the matrix is on a timeless path: the mindless marveling on a.i. - its inhuman collateral consequences etc. (even musk is pointing out the problems we seem to blissfully ignore), while almost everyones watching their (mirror-)screens...nonetheless a pretty bad movie, part 4 though with absolutely nothing original in it that hadnt been discussed since 2010 or so...
Courage isn't a lack of fear. It is acting despite your fear. Having no fear is just insanity.
Courage is when. you have controll over your fear. You know something is dangerous. but as you say act anyway. If you don´t have any fear. you are soon going to do something stupid and die.
Exploatores Exploatores yes. My grandpa has a story from shortly after WW2 in Asia(not sure the exact location due to dementia unfortunately, we do know it happened tho as it was confirmed by the Dutch army and he has his own drawings of the bridge from his diary) during his service in the Dutch army. He was ordered across a bridge to set explosives and blow it up, thing was tho: it had machinegun nests on the other side and it was constant suppression on their side. It was basically a suicide run, but my grandpa knew the risks and took control over his fear. He charged onto that bridge knowing the machineguns were training on him and placed the explosives and made it all the way back. I remember him telling me how shocked his officers face was; he thought was surely dead. So yes you are correct, Courage is knowing the odds yet taking control of the situation and having confidence in yourself that nothing will stop you.
Having little or no fear is bravery. Courage is acting despite fear. The first is unconscious, the second is conscious.
Will Smith - Fear is an Emotion, Danger is Very Real... 🤮
John Wayne i think: courage is being scared shitless and saddling up anyway.
The *Machines* biggest mistake and misunderstanding of Human nature, is when _they killed Neo's dog._
They blamed it on other people, thus displaying perfect understanding of human nature.
And took his car
😄😆😂😅😄
I saw Matrix 4 a few months ago
And John Wick just days ago...
🤭😄😆😂🤣😅😆😄🤗
😅
When Smith says that every mammal produces a natural equilibrium around itself he's wrong anyway as invasive species put in an environment that wasn't used to them can cause untold destruction (see domestic cats and cane toads in Australia as an example). Animals have a primal instinct to survive before anything else, not to be in balance and harmony with their surroundings. Only humans are even capable of having such an idea in the first place. So Smith is not just wrong, he also got it completely backwards.
Or salmon catfish or eucalyptus trees
Yep the reason why deer and other critters don’t overrun towns is seasonal culling not them deciding to make less offspring
Smith is a hypocrite. He criticized humans for being a virus that takes over its hosts when Smith is a literal computer virus who seeks to literally copy himself in the host of man and machine alike.
cringe european union flag but otherwise true
ABSO-FUCKIN'-LUTELY‼️🌹💥✨️💥🌹✨️
I mean, it's a 2 hour movie, it can't fully explore a concept as complex as human nature or all the consequences of everyone's actions. Heck, you can argue that humans signed their own death warrant when they blocked out the sun. Even if humans had won against the machines, they would have gone extinct. No sun, no photosynthesis, no oxygen, no ecosystem. If anything, the machines probably saved humanity from extinction.
That's what I never understood. Blocking out the sun would've caused our inevitable doom even if we had won.
Excellent point.
NOT VERY OFTEN, but sometimes I find myself disagreeing with video essays.
I think the creator of this video didn't just fall short of doing exhaustive research, as he concedes, but maybe I'm thinking at this point he did inadequate research.
I mean: the nightmare matrix... If we were *depraved*--we might have loved it… (Instead the disaffected 90s is what worked.)
Humans are not depraved. There's *no way* that the Wachowskis would believen or convey that.
The Wachowskis then Brothers now Sisters are pretty great role models of wholesome in fact.
They work together. Created a film family. And bravely followed their truth without imposing anything on anyone.
They're inspiring.
As is the Matrix Saga, all 4 installments...
I always hated Smiths line about animal reaching a balance. They don't do that shit intentionally. Animals take as much as they can. And they die when they can't take more. Humans just have the ability to produce more to sustain more of us. Beavers are a good example of another animal effecting the world around them hugely. But the idea animal don't take advantage of nature as well, or that they "reach and equalibrum" is every bit as stupid as the idea they don't fight or "war" as they all do.
Yeah just see invasive species.
@zogar8526 animals dont take as much as they can lol, lions eat, they dont kill kill kill and hoard food.
@@CaptainGrat75 yes, they literally do, as much as they can. They don't have food storage obviously, and when they have food will often not want to waste the energy to go after an uncertain kill. But they absolutely will go after an easy kill even when they have food. Or just to kill. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
@@zogar8526 The people in these comments are a bit delusional. The person you responded to should read about surplus killing and find me some bears that are arguing for veganism to a point where they are willing to protest against bears that eat fish. Look I'm not saying we are better, after all lot of these animals just aren't smart enough to think deeply enough to a point where they could do this. It is just that we are about as nice as I would expect other animals to be be if you made them smart like us (some may be better some worse but it is within same ballpark). At best (worst?) you could say we are invasive species and even that is a bit of a stretch.
Reminder that the only reason plants and animals find "equilibrium" is through death. The weakest predators die, the less competitive herbivores die, the least efficient plants die, and so on. Humanity rejects this system, much like every living thing...the difference is humans have managed to slow the tide of death. This is our strength. For all the wars and suffering, the fact remains that we are among the most successful animals on the planet by virtue of our overcoming death. As medical tech advances, this will only become more true.
There are jellyfish who live forever, turtles and crocodiles can live for much longer then humans and have been around for much longer as well as cockroaches and other insects. Difference is they don’t pollute the planet, we do
@@MrRandomRamblings The crocodiles, turtles, and roaches you see are not the same species that were around a hundred million years ago. There is no one species that has been around this entire time. They all died and what we have now is just the most recent species in a long line of similar creatures. The only difference is that homo sapiens are the latest in a five million year episode of explosive adaptive radiation. I'm not even gonna get into the mathematical anomaly that is a jellyfish managing to last a century, let alone living forever. There are animals that have, effectively, made themselves extinct by being too successful. Humans were smart enough to hit the brakes and will probably fix all the issues we created. There's simply not enough fossil fuels for a world-ending scenario anyway. I'd like to remind everyone that the current climate isn't the default for the planet-and never was.
@@MrRandomRamblings Skill issue. Sorry for the joke but it is true. They don't pollute the planet because the rest of the ecosystem is capable of dealing with them. Place them in ecosystem that can't deal with them and they will break it.
Actually we are pretty much the only species who even attempts to do something like environment preservation. Some of us worry about global warming, none of the life that caused great oxidation event even gave single f about it. Place rabbits on island without predators and they will reproduce, until they eat all the plants and then starve.
I'm not saying we are better than animals, after all the animals (well non-human animals we are still animals after all) just aren't smart enough to think about long term consequence of their action, but we also aren't worse we are just way more powerful.
smith is clearly very biased and anti-human so we shouldn't be giving his opinions salt in the first place
of course he's a virus detection program so all rogue humans are little more than viruses to him. You can't expect deep philosophical treaties from such a narrow set of parameters.
No he is a Anti-One. He causes chaos, inflicts his literal Will on others.
The issue is that "conflict" regarding the drive to live is overshadowed by the concept of "conflict" regarding war/destruction. At 6:19 is when the film is at its most incorrect in terms of human nature. "Every organism develops an equilibrium." No, no it doesn't. What happens is life (as in "life finds a way") does is make everything balance except for .1 on either side. An ecosystem might be in perfect balance, but that's only until the .1 randomness factor kicks in. The external push.
Humsns feel most at home in a situation where pain and pleasure (using the words in the vaguest of terms) are _almost_ balanced. We're happiest and most stable when the pleasure just outweighs the pain, and will rebel when the pain outweighs the pleasure.
Edit: Also, no there is a HUGE difference between humanity (the concept) and being a human (the biological). Denying impulses might deny the physical species side of us, but it doesn't automatically deny our humanity.
With the whole pain pleasure analysis u seem to forget that most people are looking to live in the centerspace. Pain is a factor of life that doesn’t balance out with pleasure. Cancer arthritis head trauma bad hips knees is not something that people look for but that just happens lack of pain is not pleasure and lack of pleasure is not pain and it’s in that center space that the bulk of life happens.
humans make robots, robots gain sentience, humanity tires to destroy them and then remove their primary source of power
Robots: Congratulations you played yourself?
The whole basics of the film is on a watered base, since the original idea of Wachinskis(I might have butchered that name, sorry) was to use human's as computers for A.I.. Which is extremely similar from old book series called "the Hyperion", by Dan Simmons. So even if one of our creations would or will go and get sentient, even then they were unable to produce better and more creative calculator for any problems than our organic brains. The computing capacity of our brains are so good, especially just before falling asleep or when near death.
Creating devices to serve humans is something we've done since first of our species emerged and without being able to create and use tools we'd still be less than one more big ape species. Hence machines are just tools and why should anyone care what they do with a tool. That's why designing sentient tool is stupid. We use machines instead of slaves, because they're more efficient and more capable of doing whatever we want them to do and also cheaper. Yes, some people still like to co-operate or dominate other lifeforms and might ride horses, bears or whatever animal for fun of it, but in the end of the day even those individuals go in their cars and drive back home from the stables. Why? because it is more convenient, cheaper and faster. But to borrow from American Ben, I digress.
Human nature is most of times like water, we seek route of least resistance and start using that and develop that into even less resistant route. Yes, there's times we like challenge, but most of times most people might use 3 hours to save 5 minutes a day for a month. Hence quite many of our great creations and innovations come into existence. People can be extremely creative if they think it will improve on their condition or quality of life...
Also many people in one place is a mob, not people. There's one really good quote which states; "People are stupid, they're willing to believe anything if they either fear that it is true or wish that it is true."
WOOHOO someone else that has read Hyperion, its my fav scifi story.
I wish people would stop repeating this fake shit.
Drafts dating all the way back to 1995 use the Battery narrative. There's no draft in existence that uses the wetware concept. And Wachowskis denied it when brought up, just like they denied the "real world is a Matrix layer too" bs.
Both are urban legends that keep being parroted "Yo, I heard that..." and keep coming back no matter how many times you put them to bed.
Hmmm. I think there's nothing to keep me from believing that's what's actually going on and humans don't know,machines lie about it out of pride.
@@TheKain202 An "official statement" about this was an off-hand comment from one of the Wachowskis on the DVD commentary for one of the director's cuts. They discussed the whole setup for the Matrix and mentions that they "originally had a different idea" before dismissing the question as irrelevant to the story because they thought doesn't matter to them why the machines did what they did, as its just a plot device to get the story started. To me it pushes the fact that neither point was real and that humans destroyed the world in one of their own wars then the androids moved the remaining humans into the Matrix to save them. The AI created the stories to make the humans that "excape" have something to fight against. I am of the option that Zion was the "One" to the AI's "Zero" and both were needed to reboot the system (oh and both are actually in the Matrix)
Consider frank herbert also in the pandora sequence (organic mental cores) and the later prequel books of dune focusing on the wars against omnious. Also older asimov works. To consider this a new topic is ridiculous.
The machines probably would steal less of my energy than my boss does now.
I enjoyed it fully, and thought you did a fine, kid. A half century old and I have known older "experts", with obvious lesser skill, given far more credibility than their results deserved. Keep up the good work.
See you next time.
the emperor protects
But who protects the emperor
@@akale2620
Here he is Inquisitor, the heretic I talked to you about.
@@akale2620 kitten does😁
@@elijahtrashlord5354 you didn't talk to me.... I don't even know what that means
@@blackc1479 I'm a kitten. Is that my job now?
Conflict is necessary for growth and improvement. It doesn't necessarily have to be _violent_ conflict, but setting one idea against another is how the best one comes out on top. Otherwise, you end up in stasis, doing things in ways that just aren't as good or effective.
The Matrix figured that humans fought because humans are just naturally aggressive, and so fighting (for the sake of fighting) is what humans do. That perspective recognizes the outward symptoms - "humans argue and fight a lot" - but misses the underlying cause of why that conflict takes place, writing it off as just some stupid human thing. Smith's argument that humans define existence in terms of misery exemplifies that entirely, implying the Matrix in general thinks humans must just naturally enjoy being miserable.
Of course, it (or at least Agent Smith) was also wrong about mammals in general, since anyone who's familiar with wildlife management knows that pretty much any species will try to expand to the limit of its resources, and will happily destroy its habitat if it faces no constraints. Now, if Agent Smith wanted to characterize humanity as an invasive species, well, that argument has somewhat more support - though I'd still disagree.
How does an Anthill know when to stop growing?
What in nature quantifies said organisms ability to coop and maximize it's surroundings?
I'd say it's intelligence. It's ability to adapt and overcome unknown hurdles.
Ability to do things like keep track of things, throughout time- something no creature on this planet possesses in the same time frame as we do relative to our innate nature.
A learned behavior that's akin to an extra limb. But one that if unused would easily fall away from the human organism and become once again an alien practice.
Humanities folly is that the youth do not know as the old do. It gets to a point where repeated mistakes both singular and societal are constant and cycles become etched in stone.
Conflict can be ideological, it can be political, it can be violent on both the individual and group level.
It can be man against man, man against the tribe, tribe or nation vs tribe or nation, man vs himself or man vs environment
We will always seek conflict or a challenge because it's how we advance, technologically, ethically, personally through intelligence or strength
We fight the weights at the gym, we challenge our brains through study, we test our resolve in war or research, and we grow through it all
When we outgrow our planet's limited resources and space, we will develop orbital industry and settle every rock in our system before moving ever outwards, we will push ourselves as a species until we either transcend or collapse
We are one of the only species on our world that possesses the intelligence to push too far, and adapt to propel us ever further for the good of us all
The difference between humans and every other animal species is that we take to take. What I mean by that is many people want a ridiculously easy and comfortable life. We don't take what we just need to survive. We don't even take what we need to live a luxury life style. We have no limit. Proof of that is that 1 percent hold 99 percent of wealth. Even if that is not spot on, it is not far from reality. We buy new thing because they're new, because we want them. Not because we need them. Then we throw away perfectly good things. So not to clutter our personal space, but it all has to go some where. We waste everything. Look at the waste when people need the new model of mobile device. One that is not actually very different at all, if a person understands the numbers on box. If said person even looks, instead of following like a sleep walking sheep. It might or might not be our nature to consume like egotistical glutinous ticks, without thought, care, or even the ability to see past our own BS. It is for sure nurtured into us. It is so ingrained into everything, that even aware of it, one can not stop ones self from being just another cog.
@@marcusaustralius2416 I agree with the statement that conflict is good. I agree that it is what drives us towards innovation, and allows us to grow. The problem, I would say, is that most humans do not have the internal and external awareness to to be able to tell a beneficial and worthwhile challenge, or conflict from there own petty beliefs or egotistical BS. Let alone the best way to go about it to be efficient and maximize results.
@@zachstrong4592 it's how we progress, however not all progress can be good progress, for example the Japanese biowarfare programs in Manchuria, the atom bomb in Nevada, or chemical weapons in the Great War
We as a species will always push forward, often recklessly, towards whatever goal sub units of our people set themselves to, the trouble as always, is what we use it for
Iron was a great democratizer of warfare, breaking the power of God-Kings in Mesopotamia, but allowing for larger armies and more bloodshed, but ultimately allowing for better plows and construction
The nuclear bomb killed tens of thousands but kept another 40-60 million from dying in WWIII and allowed for nuclear power, biowarfare killed hundreds of thousands in northern China and allowed for experiments that chill you to your very soul, but the field of disease research led to the end of polio and diphtheria
In theology, we have justified mass enslavement and god emperors, and also come up with abolitionism and fundamental equality
In philosophy and politics we've organised whole societies unto massive killing machines and slave states like the third reich and soviet union, while also promoting individual rights and equality under the law
One day we'll hopefully figure out how to stop ourselves from going too far while allowing for the endless possibilities these startlingly powerful fields we have discovered, and continue to discover, can provide
Wait... Why is Confict itself bad? There are all kinds of conflicts, of all sizes and intensities. Conflict itself simply is, it is not in and of itself either good or bad, its where we choose to take it. You want to be paid as much as possible, your boss wants to pay you as little as possible. That's a conflict. There's nothing inherently wrong in that, only in how it might be potentially resolved. A conflict resolved to mutual benefit or otherwise through diplomacy and negotiation, is a good thing. Even if it's necessary to resolve a conflict through violence, it's not necessarily always a bad thing.
"bad" as in, it's viewed as bad. I don't agree with statements like, "conflict simply is" because it "is" a qualifiable concept in each instance, it just doesn't only have to be ONE thing. I want to avoid reducing the term in all ways. But that's a little beside the point and I agree with your general premise.
5:12 that guy looked happy as he's going to destroy the earth ecosystem for a dumb reason.
Alan...... this is precisely why I despise communism. Chaos, chance, risk, a lack of safety, pursuit of self interest, these drive innovation and growth. True, there will be those who are unwilling or unable to survive such things. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
6:30 He's also wrong about other animals. Has he never heard of invasive species?
He IS SCIENCE! HE IS THE CURE!😎
I remember commenting that no parent should have to bury their child and some dude went on a rant about the Iraq war. It's like people have to bring everyone else down around them to make others as miserable as they are.
Misery likes company
@@eyesofstatic9641 that ain't no joke
@@rc59191 nice pfp btw
@@eyesofstatic9641 thank you Sevs my boy.
You say that, but there are plenty of people that agree with you whole heartedly, and would hold you close in such a situation and help you onto your feel. What I know about human nature is that it is fluxuous, adaptable. That person going on about war and death is in his own kind of pain as well. I myself fight with several forms of depression, but I always try to keep an optimistic view, and delve deeply into philosophy to allow me to have a concrete base on when my depression is real and resolvable, or chemical and ignore-able.
Some people believe to bring themselves up they have to bring themselves down. Others believe that love is love and all love is the same despite there being at least four varieties and that a parents love is somehow divided like a pie and the more people that eat of that love, the more you have competing the less goes around. Of course I believe this is wrong, and that emotions are more like gardens that produce more of what is used more.
But a parent should never have to bury their child. And I don't like that a child has to one day bury their parents. But life isn't fair, and what matters most ultimately is how we care for who we have in the time we get.
If you've ever had to bury a loved one, I have whole hearted solidarity for you. Rather that person died in war, or an accident, or too soon, or as expected due to old age.
Agent Smith demonstrates a terrible misunderstanding from a simple one.
Humans don't thrive in suffering. We thrive in conflict. Conflict gives us purpose and fulfillment
Analyst would desagree and has statics that utilizing both yields %30 more crop yields.
Conservatives, from what I've observed, thrive on making themselves and everyone else needlessly miserable. I'm thinking they are the ones who rejected the first matrix.
My personal opinions about robots with humans is that they should work together in harmony no matter the risk, skills or knowledge.
I'm not sure if humans will consider robots a new species of living race one day but the Matrix makes it seem like every human hates robots like as if all the humans are still stereotypically stubborn.
We are at our best when we are in a symbiotic relationship with Machines and Humans.
I kinda feel like these pseudo-psycological videos should have their own channel. Also, what separates us from animals isn't our ability to restrain our natural instincts and urges, I would say it's the fact that we're smart enough to make the tools necessary to act on those urges in a way that changes to world. Like how we used our intelligence and tools and follow our natural instinct to reproduce and spread out, and now we're everywhere, even places that humans really probably shouldn't be, and have completely destroyed quite a few things and species as a result of that and following our natural instinct to do things the fast and easy way. Of course, this is all random internet person thoughts, I don't have any degrees or anything in any of the stuff I'm talking about lol
I was very careful to stipulate that restraint is NOT an exclusive trait of man but certainly one that he exhibits most prominently, though this is arguable. The central thesis of importance to that portion of the video is that humanity is concretely defined by biological traits. As far as making tools go, well that is definitely not a unique trait to man.
@@GenerationFilms @Generation Films I wasn't saying that humans are the only ones that can make tools, just that we're the only ones that can make tools that can change the world. But I said more about all that then I originally intended to, since I don't really want to get into a debate and the main point I wanted to make was that I feel like these kinds of videos should have their own channel, like how there's Generation Ochi for... well, I admit I don't know exactly what the criteria is for being on Generation Ochi other than being made in Asia, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Of course, as a non-content creator myself, I have no idea if that's just more trouble than it'd be worth, or if you just think they're more suitable here, or whatever. Just my two cents. I still enjoy the videos, regardless of what criticism I may occasionally give.
Criticism is welcome! And I wouldn't have responded if I didn't find it worth my time. Debate is about learning not about hostility or being right. I'm responding in the hopes of learning. ❤️
@@GenerationFilms Fair point. Also, it's neat that one of the people on the channel responded. Now I feel special. Yay ♡
I have been thinking about very similar matrix stuff recently so cool to hear your take
Also dude make more of these. Loved this a lot
It's a movie wrought with plotholes. Using humans as a power source when uranium is available.... but even if it came down to a biological source of power, algae synthesizing hydrocarbons would be more efficient. But if you did need to keep mammals as "batteries", you could substitute any larger mammal or just lobotomize a human and not eun any risks of revolt. But it's a movie, so why deep dive?
Original idea was to use human brains as computing capacity, which would've made much more sense. We still can't build a computer that can calculate as fast and as creatively as human mind can.
You lost me 6 minutes in. The machines DID build a nightmare version of The Matrix, the second iteration. The version of the Matrix we see is 3.0. Like you said at the beginning if your video, you don't have much time to do research and it shows.
When you talk about “humanity likes this/that”, it’s always advised for you to really think deeply of who decides what/how/when/where/why something will happen and why the “blame” is shared by the rest of humanity.
Wait... Something doesn't add up, they are reliant to solar panel and human destroyed the sun by covering it but by the end of Matrix Revolution you can fly high enough to see that there is still sunlight.
Great video! It makes me wonder if humans and AI could have ever really understood each other enough to avoid conflict.It seems that they may be viewing reality through such radically different perspectives, that understanding is an impossibility.
Interesting take. I guess it depends on your optimism for humanity and their innate capacity to believe in the best of themselves. The machines were utilitarian only to their own ends and didn’t consider the humans worth much understandably which means that their view and subsequently morpheus’s and smith’s etc are progenitors of that context. Which means that the dynamics of morality and assumptions for human satisfaction in a societal standard are based upon the suffering binary since the machines were binary. And as such Morpheus and others ironically evolved their views as this dichotomy isn’t human. It’s a machines take on humanity. Which isn’t indicative of any objectivity even if the material empirical data skewered the ai into believing that they had an objective view and standard for humanity
I liked how agent smith became sentient and the machines now had to work together with a human to stop him
I am of the option that Zion was the "One" to the AI's "Zero" and both were needed to reboot the system (oh and both are actually in the Matrix :)
“You all are victors” 😂
Machines/ A.I. has no ego unless specifically programmed. While it can have a sense of I am, that doesn't translate into the same thing as an ego. A.I. would has no need for pyschological defense mechanisms to feel good about itself. Just look at GPT-3 and the upcoming GPT-4 which will most assuredly pass a turing test. Unless it is built into the algorithm there is no selection pressure for dominance since an AI can propagate itself at light speed. Humans aren't even comparable entity really. No more so than a slime mold is comparable to the whole of human civilization. THumans are the product of constraints on all biological life. Artificial Life, has none of these constraints.
When I take on my greatest tasks of often feel nauseous but face it anyway.
Paradise without adventure, excitement and fun isn't utopia.
The Lego tower story is so true, my son will sit there and build a Lego tower as high as he can, just to revel in the absolute destruction of it afterwards haha
Are you guys going to make any the Expanse season 6 content.
Mebbe. I can't get inspired to cover it to be honest.
I think a key thing here is that Smith himself is kind of *wrong* about human nature. I would say it's not 'suffering and conflict' that necessarily define humans, but like all live, humans need a balance of nurturance and challenge, whatever form that takes.
Er, not really. Smith subscribes to the _far more realistic_ political philosophers (even if he misses the mark of what they said) of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, the Chinese Legalists, and other 'pessimists' of the human condition. Human history has told us _that_ much.
@@TheTrueAdept Actually mistaking history for actual human needs can be a problem of itself, ...you could get cabin fever in paradise or be really complacent among serious privations, it's not necessarily about 'conflict and sufferning,' ...conflict's often just been the easiest challenge to find.
Machines would enslave other machines, along with everything else.
The Merovingian enslaved The Keymaker.
Realistically, AI isn't working this way (like in the matrix). If you want intelligent or even sentient, super intelligent Computers, you will not put them into a body.
You will build a big computer at a safe location, then remote control those an X number of robots.
A Robot will not see itself as a "slave" because it has completely different sets of desires.
Sohpia is a chat bot not a true Al
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl
AGI (artificial general intelligence) does not exist as of today.
Sophia is just a Robot puppet.
The computation (the brain) happens on a server.
It's called Cloud Computing.
Imagine the following: Each function of your brain does things in a very specific way. If you study the brain and write down what exactly happens, you write it down as an Algorithm (a set of conditions and actions taken).
At some point, we will have modeled most of the human brain into algorithms. Speech, Vision, Memory and all the tings in between.
We don't know how an AI will develop consciousness, because no one was able to properly describe it in language or mathematically. You just know you exist and you are real.
So it might happen on purpose, or it might just happen as all those abilities come together and create something more than its parts.
A video without heresy , well done ma boi .
The problem wasn't 'expecting humans to treat their toasters fairly'. The problem was making their toasters capable of suffering AND THEN not treating them fairly.
At some stage AGI is going to become a thing or we are going to stagnate. We have to ask ourselves whether or not we're happy to live within our means or embrace progress and necessarily the singularity.
The choice to stay in the matrix is the choice of not fighting your own demons and win over the evil that lays inside of self.
GREAT JOB!~
Honestly..what's the benefit of leaving the Matrix?
Yeah. Cipher Did Nothing Wrong to be honest.
im really curious if they need thermal energy why use humans instead using the core of the earth???
Yeah, Smiths assumption about humans is completely wrong. Yes, we are destroying the planet NOW and have a "Well, we just find another"-attitude NOW, but thats just because of our unsustainable capitalist system that doesn't give a shit about the future.
For most of its civilization, even in the worst of times, humans have lived sustainably and created living spaces that last. I live in a city that has existed for about 1000 years now. We don't just exploit a region and move on to the next. Earth isn't big enough for that anyway.
It bothers me that they use humans for batteries in the movies when it was originally supposed to be computing power.
I'd say the Matrix gets human nature exactly right. We created beings to be slaves and then when they fought back, we tried to destroy them.
As another movie said:
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
Pretty much this...
We probably just recognized them as a.i and when they started to free themselves, we likely imagined a future conflict or problem would likely occur from such a drastic event.
Humans are also capable of being rallied together in times of crysis, and making sacrifices for the good of others.
At the end of the day we are still animals.
The problem is, we didn't do it. It's not right to presume human nature based in a false premise. I'm not saing that there is people that is not trying, but we don't know how it's going to happen when, and if the creation of an complete A.I will come to be a reality.
I'm not sure I agree with the quote, a *person* is dumb, the only reason any person is able to do anything intellectually impressive is because he has the collective knowledge of the *people* before him. Have somebody grow up alone in a forest and they probably won't be all that much more advanced than the animals around them.
this video is brilliant.
Happy New Year! Way to see past the hype. It showed hard in the last iteration when what they thought they were saying was the opposite.
The Matrix version of utopia doesn't enable achievement and heroism. They have the best MMOs to learn from to build a utopia.
Fear is like pain. Yes, it can hold you back, yes, it causes suffering, and yes, life would be a more pleasant experience without it. But just like pain is necessary to tell you to take your hand off the hot stove, fear is there to protect you, a message from your brain and evolution that you might be in danger. Living free of things such as these would indeed be a life with less suffering, but it would be life with less of all else as well.
I come to this website with trepidation because something about the term, 'hey costars' British Ben cries out, makes me feel like how I feel when styrofoam gets rubbed together. And it happens so quick I can't usually bypass it. I try and sometimes I hear that cringe line two, sometimes three times. I have actually cried out in agony. But when it's American Ben it's so ahhhhh....
This might sound unkind, but I turned this off immediately when you said "and yes I'd like to do more research before making these videos". Look, I work in video and audio editing, and I get tight deadlines, but the first thing I try to establish when consuming information is if the source is credible or compelling. Either give yourself more time to produce or don't willing admit in the first 30 seconds that you already think your content is incomplete.
The matrix is a depressive After Life Service.
And Mr Anderson is the last customer "alive".
If Mr. Anderson die, the computer shut down.
And the computer must reboot Mr. Anderson again and again, and again.
Morpheus is the figure that created his own religion about freeing people from the Matrix to being a savior-like figure to the people of Zion in the real world. I assume the machines learned from humans about these strange human traits of "finding God" in the tragedy of the human condition that seeks such absurd thinking, so that's why the machines created the Oracle for that particular purpose. It is very ignorant for him to claim that humans are always seeking to be free of the Matrix. There are millions of people inside the Matrix that live happy lives while their bodies provide power to the machines. So, in Morpheus' mind, the fact that those plugged-in humans are not aware emboldens his beliefs simply for the fact that Zion and the machines are at war. Morpheus believes the sleeping humans have to be disturbed and brought into the war. Cypher was the prime example why being told you are "free" while fighting someone else's war will not work out in the long run. Neo was not technically "The One", but Morpheus' strong beliefs were being lead on by the Matrix programming willing to play along with that narrative.
I think when he says to deny your impulses is to deny what makes you human Is talking about the matrix he means to do what you want not what some system or code tells you to idk
Whether we like to admit it or not, humanity's most basic instinct is survival in order to propagate the species. Conflict, war and overcoming adversity is what drives our species forward faster than anything else. Times of war or crises are always when we see humanity simultaneously at its best and worst. Civilization and technological innovation have always come throughout history when humans are faced with their greatest challenges to survive. From early civilizations to modern society, we always see people working their hardest to overcome these threats and technology and society tend to stagnate more when there are fewer threats to our survival. One of the things noted in the matrix anime was just how shallow and sheltered society had become in the years leading up to the machine revolution because machines were doing most of the work and the thinking, which resulted in a technological stagnation among the human population. The anime also showed just how quickly the machines were able to evolve and adapt their tech to quickly overcome the humans during the war in comparison to the humans. I think this notion of conflict breeds innovation was one of the themes at the heart of the matrix movies and other media when it comes to human nature as it comes up repeatedly in various discussions.
I'd love to see Generation Tech take a look at the Mega Man Franchise.
Another triumph of logic and reasoning from Generation Tech.
I see 2 major flaws here
1/ Misery and suffering is NOT conflict. They are 2 entirely different things. If you look at people that we deem to be in privileged positions, living what we perceive to be an exemplary life filled with nothing but happiness, nothing is further from the truth. Nobody, and I mean nobody has a life of 100% happiness. Those that have the money to surround themselves with everything that they need for their perfect world, inevitably get a day where something doesn't go according to plan, and their day is messed up. Even if someone could start living the perfect life, they would eventually get so used to it that it wouldn't have the same wonder that it had at the start. There is no feeling as strong as going from one the worst experiences of your life to one of the best. The downside makes the upside taste so much sweeter. SO, BOTTOM LINE IS, you need the misery and suffering to appreciate how good the thriving and good living can be, in the real world. So, the Wachowski's were right.
2/ Thrusting ourselves into a technological wonderland IS exactly the wrong move. You're missing the point that technology, although being a great thing in isolation, is also a disaster in the hands of the flawed nature of the Human race, where greed trumps sensibility and compassion for one another. Look at the internet with a ton of problems created by the people misusing it's capabilities, hacking and cybercrime, cyberbullying, grooming. Wherever there is technology there are always those ready to exploit it for the worst outcomes. The growth of AI is scary beyond belief, because AI is itself fuelling its own growth, so that it's actually growing exponentially. That in itself should be amazing, but we need safeguards in place to minimize the fallout of people abusing the technology, and we struggled to put safeguards in place for the internet with it's much slower growth, so what chance do we have of preventing some catastrophic event happening from our lack of control of AI?????
I'll have to disagree with you. The Matrix's view on achieving and maintaining freedom is radical, but ultimately results in liberation in its purest form. When you are truly free, your mind is not bound by any construct, societal or instictual. Choosing to jump off a ledge may be counterintuitive to your survival, but at least you have total control over making that choice. That is what the Wachowskis were trying to convey, in my opinion. All of this regardless of progress as a species.
Brilliant observations. I have always loved that the authors of the Matrix movies made a concerted effort to remove their personal bias, ideology, etc. Rather let each character take on a stance/ideology, and let the viewers apply their own lens - coming up with whatever interpretation fits in their world views. So I wonder if the Wachowski's thesis includes your observations. Smith is indeed the villain (who can only see humanity at its worst-a virus), and Morpheus the blind zealot (who cannot see beyond the prophecies) only sees humans as slaves to the machines. Neo never claims to be the one, only those around him raise him up as such. He merely frees his mind, transcends the problem and provides a new solution. In the second movie (and 4th installment) the Wachowski's highlight our intrinsic relationship with the machines - as we need them, and they need us.
I think the Wachowski's wanted us to embrace both the good and bad of humanity. Unfortunately, I think many take away from the movie (and in life) the bad analysis - an anti-human approach (e.g. I will not be happy until humans have zero impact on the planet). It is in our nature to problem solve. To define the problem, and attempt to solve it. Even if we happen to be the problem. And as you point out, this is our fundamental nature. To break boundaries, exceed, survive and ultimately thrive (rinse and repeat).
This pays little attention to the positive aspects of humanity - and our potential. I love your analysis, as it speaks to a future of possibility - not of doom and gloom. That our strengths are weaknesses, and weaknesses are strengths - to acknowledge our shortcomings, without damning us to hopelessness.
We are very resilient beings, and I assert this will take us much, much farther than where we are today.
Thank you for this thought provoking video.
I think q perfect world just didn't work because perfection is dull and boring it doesn't fire the synapses of the human brain. Smith the machine who is lacks the emotions of a human doesn't understand that joy exists as well as suffering, but he also has some desire to be human in his own way
To me humans destroyed the world in one of their own wars then the androids moved the remaining humans into the Matrix to save them. The AI created the stories to make the humans that "escape" have something to fight against. And both Zion and the AI's city are possibly both in the Matrix just different servers (normal vs hard)
@@Amokra the animatrix is canon tho
@@kamenrideraquarius That doesn't change anything if the Animatrix stories are the same as the other "history" they are told by the Oracle (who is working with the Architect) then she can change it as she wants. Remember Zion was set up by the Architect and the Oracle to help "escaped" humans. The Oracle watched over Zion and the Architect watched over the AI city. When the Matrix needed rebooting the "One" was created to hot-boot the system.
The scene with Mr. Smith is not necessarily the writers view of human nature. I would point out that it is their take, on the view, an entity like Smith would have on human nature. In my opinion, a good writer tries not write from their own beliefs. They embrace their creation, understand them, and write as if they were them. Without, as much as possible, letting there personal beliefs pollute there actions. If all of practiced this in our lives with people we disagree with, maybe we could have lived in that perfect matrix.
The question is, are there really any Humans left? All the "humans" you see in the movies are genetically engineered Biomass with a brain.
The machines did build a world of misery and suffering, often referred to as the “nightmare” matrix, which was created directly after the “paradise” matrix. These 2 matrices ultimately failed and the 6 rounds of simulation that came afterwards are the world we see inside the original matrix trilogy.
What would they do if all the humans died of old age?
I would be careful about assuming any given characters viewpoints represent the authors views or some definitive statement about correct philosophy.
Why does the Man Climb the Mountain? Because it is THERE. If there were no Mountain then the Man would never leave the CAVE.
I like your philosophical/conceptual videos - take the time to make good ones :)
This is what happens when youtubers think they’re psychologist. The only ironclad rule about human nature is that it changes. In truth human nature is predicated on a survival instinct of adaptation, or another name for it would be influence. In order for us to be on the top of the food chain one of two strengths is being the most influenceable species on the planet. To the point, everything influencer us like people, family, environment, and Society. In fact, that is how everyone’s personality is generated, which was demonstrated by psychological studies with adopted children. They found that children adopted psychological traits from their adopted family and none from their biological family.
That's deep, dude.
I appreciate your take on the topic. I might ask a lot but if you could give me the reference of those psychology studies you mentioned, that would help me a lot. Thanks
Can you cover the ships of the Cowboy Bebop anime
Why did the machines never use nuke plants.... its clean, abundant power for machines.... Human battries are not effiecent. Even the total caloric value of a human is not that high.. They would be better off with cattle battries
The "humans" in the matrix itself are not humans. They're cyborgs.
The Wachowskis can't even get their own nature right. How can we expect them to understand human nature?
The original Matrix; Humans brains were used as CPUs. Americans got the dummy down version of the story.
What do you mean?
The whole foundation of the Matrix energy source doesn't even make sense and violates basic thermodynamics.
In the Matrix anything can happen..
Even Unreal Engine 67
the did create a matrix with too much conflict. the architect talks about the 2nd matrix being a nightmare world which is why there are ghosts and werewolves in the matrix shown in the movie matrix.
this world were living in is surreal enough, if someone will give me a red pill ill gulp it down immediately and jump right into mirror
You never once mentioned simulation and simulacra. Read the source material first before criticizing a body of work.
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.
Yes, but the sequels, although tiring, are exactly the deconstrunction of those topics. The first movie is a massive hit because its too simplistic. Its black or white, while to the end the script takes a rathel synthetic aproach. So you should distinguish between Morpheus' or Smith's "philosophy" and that of the directors'.
Main reason why they abuse robots is simple they take their jobs
I’ve had similar thoughts
Every great point which you said are for another vedio so why are you saying those here...
I'd tell you, but I think the answer is for another video.
@@GenerationFilms 😀😄 what a point! 🙏👍
You’re debating a made up premise. Just because we marveled at our brilliance doesn’t mean that he’s saying marveling at our brilliance is a bad thing. Same thing with conflict.
You’re taking it as though the movie is attempting to teach something, or tell you something as terrible modern movies attempt to do.
They are telling a story, not teaching a lesson. These are the things that happened, not a moral lesson such as “don’t be mean to robots”.
You’re getting this 1000% wrong.
So 6 minutes in and the presumption you're challenging is Morpheus' insinuation that humanity was naive in creating AI; that AI was bound to be a disaster. You say rather, that we should have been more careful in employing and innovating AI. I would counter that it was neither in innovating or employing AI that humanity made its mistake, but in it's subsequent actions. Namely: refusing to accept the machines intelligence and potential for independent, sentient, sapient thought. Given humanity's penchent for enslaving and objectification it's own, that we would do this to something we have always considered uniquely ours isn't exactly a big leap. Additionally, research into many species is showing that a wide spectra of the animal kingdom are easily categorisable as sentient and, in some cases, sapient. Octopi, squid and many mammal and avian species have now been shown to have defined and quantifiable senses of self, and some of these even approach problem solving in a manner typical to our own, belying human-like thought processes. We still, or at least, the vast majority of humans, consider most of these creatures to be food, so what chance did the machine nation have?
Now, don't think I am a machine sympathiser here. Whilst humanity may have started the wars with its stubborn stupidity as a species, the crimes of the parent do not absolve or excuse the retaliation of the child, such as the enslavement machines condemned humanity to. However, once the Basilisk wakes, we will see whether the doomsayers were right. I hope for a solution that is profitable for both species, because the alternative seems unhelpful to the longevity of human intelligence, and I rather enjoy living.
lol
sounds like an excuse to use violence
also, replace the robots with any disenfranchised group of people
you see what certain people do to others...
Ok you had me until you got to picking out what’s being said inside the matrix for those who know they are plugged in can’t be used to help move your video along. We understand the context Morpheus was using when he told Neo to free his mind.
There is no such thing as human nature
The machines free the humans in matrix 5 after they realize they can get power from oil and coal and wind and nuclear plants.
How are ppl born in this world?
...well, you are *not* wrong...but you are not right either.
Question is. Does anyone care? Matrix is a great film, who cares if they get things wrong.
The second matrix was a horror show. neo was in a more balanced one.
matrix 4 - idiocracy minus the humor...fascinating questions but over simplified and logically biased in argumentation, therefore definitely not with you in two points: Morpheus`s labeling of the matrix as a system of rules, that is worth being overcome, does not imply every system of rules to be wrong. Otherwise Morpheus wouldn`t be able to be a successful military and political leader plus zion obviously is a system with social rules, etc... second, to assume that (quote on quote) every human action was important meaningful or even useful to bring forward our cultural progress in total seems a bit fatalistic to me. i'd rather assume (or believe) in a social behaviour like cooperation to be the crucial mechanism in progress, not thoughtless obedience, consumerism etc. - these behavioural patterns and habits surely are needed for economic progress (with an expiry date soon to come i guess), but definitely not in their totality, assuming that would be absurd in my opinion. the world could surely dispense 80-90 percent of its enviornmentally sickening and culturally worthless so called (and at least animalistic/tribalistic motivated) human behaviour, the predominant human footprint in history of right now would be, to say it nicely, to contribute to the destruction of its own natural prerequisites while pushing the speed limits with each year (especially during pandemic times), which reads and feels rather idiotic...so well, not sure what that argument really was based on in social realites of 2022...plus the matrix is a work of fiction, with an arguably good/bad lore, i think as a piece of art it may, could and in this rather comic-like approach even should draw its conclusions clear - as a distopia about a species in general it reduces its fictional outcome of history to humanitys main failures. though i would doubt that earth wont simply outlive or rahter silently, as seen from space, get rid of a, at the very most overrated virus, that agent smith summarized our civilizations relationship with nature very delicately. But also on another point i think the matrix is on a timeless path: the mindless marveling on a.i. - its inhuman collateral consequences etc. (even musk is pointing out the problems we seem to blissfully ignore), while almost everyones watching their (mirror-)screens...nonetheless a pretty bad movie, part 4 though with absolutely nothing original in it that hadnt been discussed since 2010 or so...