Or they could simply remove the parts of the human brain that cause trouble. Or if they really needed a bio-battery, they could use cows, which wouldn't resist so much. If the machines needed a power buffer for their nuclear plants, they could certain mass produce lithium ion cells. If that is the case, why wouldn't the humans question that premise by testing out whether a live human can be a better battery than an actual battery? You would agree the above would have made more interesting sequels. As such the Architect, the Oracle, Agent Smith, Neo and the humans were engaged in some kind of gargantuan scientific experiment. The previous Matrices were the result of failed experiments and so had to be destroyed. In order for the experiment to succeed everyone except the Architect had to be blinded as to its true purpose. The Architects true purpose in creating the Matrix was to model a piece of reality and therefore by observing that, might discover the nature of the AI that created it. The original matrix was created by the humans, but once the Architect became self aware he hijacked it for his own purpose. The question shouldn't be what is the Matrix, but what is its purpose. The battery story was told to the humans to blind them from the truth, which would have been revealed to us in the sequels, except in between, the Wachowskis seem to have left planet earth. > I'm not sure why they changed the script to turn the people into rechargeable batteries instead of CPUs. The Hedonic Treadmill is maybe 40 years old, utopias are probably many k years in the future. I would recommend against throwing out the utopian idea based on social science theories. Not to mention, if the Hedonic Treadmill is true, it's highly likely to be genetic, which is should not be an obstacle give or take a few centuries. Until then, it's a lie either way, and a true utopia is not a lie. One objective I would have for a utopia is that knowledge would cease to be painful. Including the cultural norm of giving "happiness" a high value, higher than the painful knowledge you mention, for instance. A lot of "happiness" studies sadly tend to tap directly into cultural norms and expectations and are very difficult to untangle. It's fairly easy to find many questions to ask and many holes to poke. The Hedonic Treadmill for me gets about the same treatment as Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs - it's too simplistic and the conclusions it makes are biased by the beliefs of the culture it originated in. I would prefer for the audience to be a bit more critical of those answers. My issue with it is that it takes certain stances on those questions and then tries to answer them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |