»Smith and Choice«

Intel,

I have yet to see credible support that programs can go against their purpose. Yes, they can choose to deny deletion, but that's only when deletion isn't their actual purpose. If a program were created with the purpose to be deleted, every single one would fulfill its purpose as long as something else doesn't get in its way. I do not see any examples of a program - exile or not - not fulfilling its purpose. Smith, as an exile, is still trying to squash system anomalies (the One naturally being the biggest target). The Merovingian is still trafficking information (he's not just reading the information for his own gain - he's still routing the information). Seraph still protects whatever matters most. The Keymaker still makes keys. This pretty much covers every main exile in the movies - how much more complete can I possibly get in supporting this idea? I've already pretty much stated this much. I could get more detailed than this with quotes, but I already have. Your turn.

I'm looking for more than just "it could also be interpreted this way" or "you can't prove that". There are a million theories for which that is true, and none of them impress me. Furthermore, there are many theories which fit BEST that cannot be proven, so the fact that I cannot prove something doesn't make it untrue. If your theories are so good, SHOW me why. I'm looking for evidence that flat out contradicts what is above and/or evidence that compels us more in another direction to the point where it can hardly be denied. Believe me, if you are able to shoot the above down and/or offer an alternative that is even more compelling (in terms of logic, quotes, and events in the movies), I will be the first to change my mind.

Quote:

btw. When you start paying me for information, then I will entertain your ideas on how I should present it.

Like I already said, you can do say you want - I can't dictate that. But let's not distort the reality of things, which is that most people posting in these topics are trying to communicate as efficiently as possible because they don't want to waste each others' time. If you want to swim against that current, that's your choice, but just don't be shocked if this isn't your last "encounter" with various people on this board who only have so much time to spend each day in a Matrix forum.

Quote:

I have yet to see credible support that programs can go against their purpose.

And I have yet to see any support from the films that this is true:

Quote:

they can choose to deny deletion, but that's only when deletion isn't their actual purpose. If a program were created with the purpose to be deleted, every single one would fulfill its purpose as long as something else doesn't get in its way. I do not see any examples of a program - exile or not - not fulfilling its purpose.

I guess you're not including Cain & Abel, Persephone, the ghost twins, and sati in that list. Keep in mind they once lived in the Machine World, so how is it now that their "purpose" all of a sudden includes entering the matrix?

Quote:

Merovingian is still trafficking information (he's not just reading the information for his own gain - he's still routing the information).

You say still as if that were his original purpose. Again, where does that idea come from? I've never come across it? And it doesn't encapsulate what he is doing now. Tell me, how does having an underworld overlord in the Matrix help the machines?

Quote:

offer an alternative that is even more compelling (in terms of logic, quotes, and events in the movies), I will be the first to change my mind.

Stick around and we will see if that is so.

Quote:

If you want to swim against that current, that's your choice, but just don't be shocked if this isn't your last "encounter" with various people on this board who only have so much time to spend each day in a Matrix forum.

Swimming against the current is why many of us are here. I've been going against the status quo longer than you've probably known what it is. And as for the "various people" you keep representing, let them "encounter" all they want, I'll deal with them. too.

And you still haven't commented on:

Quote:

Oh about the Keymaker's "We do only what we're meant to do."? Okay, you take that to support sentient programs being limited to only their supposed purpose. Well consider his audience and you will see that the "we" includes the humans present who are all trying to help the One. So this rules out your interpretation. Now to give a quote from Rama Kandra to refute this speculation: "I don't resent my Karma." Now is he stating a general rule of thumb for programs, or is he talking about a personal stance/choice he is taking/making? Considering everything else he says about love for his daughter and his accompanying actions in smuggling here to the matrix, it should be clear that "don't resent" does not = 'can't resent' and that others like him do resent their karma/purpose/role in the game/etc., which is what Mobil Avenue is all about. Is that clear enough? No? Then take this: "Programs runnin' all over the place. Those doing what they're supposed to do, you would hardly know they exist. But the other ones, well you hear about them all the time." (Oracle, Reloaded) Furthermore, the films are about mechanised lifeforms who can make choices just like us - Artificial Intelligence, get it? With emphasis on "intelligence". If they stuck to their programming, there would be no movie. LOL!

intell wrote:

I'll deal with them. too.

Deal with us? You'll deal with us? You know, your predecessors had much more respect.

In that other thread, you asked if I was a fan of your style. The answer is, no. It's true that I like to challenge my fellow posters, but I try to avoid presenting myself as superior to them. I don't have any answers, just lots of fun questions.

You, intell, seem to be under a schizophrenic impression that you are in the 33rd degree of the Illuminati or some such. It rubs many of us the wrong way a lot of the time. (Especially since you're never saying anything so mind blowing as to deserve your own self-granted holier-than-thou-ness) When you aren't acting like an arrogant ass though, you have some great stuff to say. It's the egomania that gets to us.

Quote:

Deal with us? You'll deal with us? You know, your predecessors had much more respect.

I do have respect, just not as much, I guess. But that's okay, I have some skill.

Quote:

You, intell, seem to be under a schizophrenic impression that you are in the 33rd degree of the Illuminati or some such.

Illuminism has 13 degrees. 33 degrees are in Freemasonry. Get it right, if you're going to address it. And like I said, you don't know me...at all.

Quote:

When you aren't acting like an arrogant ass though, you have some great stuff to say. It's the egomania that gets to us.

Who benefits from the "great stuff" I say? Not me, so if the delivery bothers you, maybe it should serve as a sign that you're taking yourself too seriously. You can either get over it or let it block you from getting the point. "The problem is choice."

intell wrote:

Illuminism has 13 degrees. 33 degrees are in Freemasonry. Get it right, if you're going to address it.

LOL!

intell wrote:

And like I said, you don't know me...at all.

You know that road. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be....

intell wrote:

Who benefits from the "great stuff" I say? Not me...

I know, that's my whole point It should be you.

Here is the best real world correlation to Smith so far...

Quote:

If you think you're making your choices the way you want, then aren't you making those choices the way you want?

In your mind, in the way you perceive things, yes. But i answered "not necesarily" outside of the reality of oneself. We still dont know how the mind (or the universe, consciousness and the spirit) work, so we may only believe we are making choises. But as far as each individual is concerned (and as far as that individual isnt a hardcore philosopher lol ) , yes if we think we are choosing, we are choosing.

(its funny, we are having this conversation, while another one is going on, criss-cross )
================================

Quote:

The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change. Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the choices words lose their power when they are used to overpower. Attitudes are the real figures of speech. Edwin H. Friedman

Quote:

Benjamin Franklin : Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.

intell : LOLOLOL great video ! Hahahahaha

Quote:

(its funny, we are having this conversation, while another one is going on, criss-cross)

You mean, "was".

Let me ask you one thing about choice and it can involve Smith as well. What do you call it when you have to choose among choices that someone is limiting you to?

limited choice ? why ?

I think you have to call those options. That's a really good question though. I kinda think that's what Neo had to chose from was only two options. Either sacrifice himself to save Zion and The Matrix or fight to save Zion while letting Smith take control of everything (Zion and the Matrix). I hope that makes some kind of since I haven't posted here in a very long time.

Intel,

You asked me again to respond to a certain passage of yours which I finally did, but for the record, the length of this message is the reason I didn't want to get into it. I only have so much time so forgive me if I don't respond to things in the future. I just don't feel like we're covering any ground that is new.

You think the Ghost Twins, Cain and Abel were machines? This is hardly proven and yet you say it like nobody disputes it. Then explain why their RSIs just happen to appear as creatures out of the human fantasy genre. And they just coincidentally all happen to be hanging out with the Merovingian. Hmm, could it be because they were all programs that were created to support the "varying grotesqueries" of the second failed Matrix? They were created to reside in the Matrix in order to solve problems of Matrix rejection: to bring more suffering to the human race since humans define their reality by suffering. But in introducing these "grotesqueries", the Merovingian (who by the way I do agree was originally a machine, but created only to help run the Matrix just like the Architect was created to design it) caused even more rejection problems because too many people didn't believe in those supernaturals. The Merovingian resents the Oracle because the Oracle's proposed solution in version 3 beat out the Merovingian's 2nd proposal. When Smith speaks of "programmers" disagreeing, he wasn't just talking about the Architect and Oracle.

Somehow, I know it will be your kneejerk reaction to say, "No, you're wrong and maybe someday I'll tell you why", but honestly, that is a total copout. Please, I beg you, spare me. Rather than telling me that my theory is bogus, you need to let your own theories speak for themselves. If your theories are great, then you won't need to tell other people that they are wrong. It will be self-evident. Nobody in this forum does this better than Mobil_Ave_Neo, and believe me Intel, if anyone here is the "enlightened one", it would be him. He doesn't flat out tell people they're absolutely wrong and irritate them with annoying questions - truth doesn't need hype.

It is so cliche for you to say that "we're all" swimming against the current. Again, spare me - I think I'm going to throw up. I was talking about posting style, not questioning theories within the Matrix movies. You are the only poster I've encountered on this site who holds respect for himself and only himself (there may be others but I haven't encountered such posts yet from others). You have absolutely no respect for what others think, and if a billion people told you that you are coming across a certain way, I firmly believe based on what I've seen so far that you'd still insist it is their fault.

So here we go...

You asked me to comment on something you previously posted... I didn't comment on it before because I knew it would be long. Mainly it's just because I don't feel like I have time in my life to be shoveling it into the pit of Intel just because he wants to slam theories at every whim. No offense - you're entitled to your theories and opinions, but I can't stand the way you slam others' theories and then you proceed to offer your own with no more support than what others give for theirs. Rather than asking others "how do you support this and that", you tell them "BUZZ, wrong." and other egotistical crap like that. You just have no respect for others. You speculate big time in your own theories, but you point out that speculation is a vice of others' theories. Everyone interprets quotes from the movies with their own "lenses", and yet you imply in all of your posts that you're the only one who doesn't - you seem to be the only person who knows what was going through the Wachowski brothers' minds when they wrote every line of the script. You're in for a shock below - there is more than one way you can read quotes.

Quote:

Oh about the Keymaker's "We do only what we're meant to do."? Okay, you take that to support sentient programs being limited to only their supposed purpose. Well consider his audience and you will see that the "we" includes the humans present who are all trying to help the One. So this rules out your interpretation.

How in the world does that "rule out" my "interpretation"? The Keymaker is a program. When we take the transcript of programs literally (whether the Merovingian, Architect or Oracle), the movies make a lot more sense. Assuming as you do that the Keymaker is referring to humans is just as much of an assumption (perhaps more) on your part as any other interpretation. For me, the "we" he is talking about is much more simple than that: he's just about to be shot by an agent, and his last words are to tell the Agent that he hasn't done anything wrong - we (the "we" includes the Agent!) only do what we're meant to do. The Keymaker no more deserves deletion than the Agent does, but the Agent doesn't care. But even if the Keymaker were including the humans, fine! Have it your way - I don't care. That still doesn't "rule out" my theory that programs can't disobey their purposes. Only humans... such as Neo... can choose to disobey their purpose, and that's what the Oracle takes advantage of from day one.

Quote:

Now to give a quote from Rama Kandra to refute this speculation: "I don't resent my Karma." Now is he stating a general rule of thumb for programs, or is he talking about a personal stance/choice he is taking/making? Considering everything else he says about love for his daughter and his accompanying actions in smuggling here to the matrix, it should be clear that "don't resent" does not = 'can't resent' and that others like him do resent their karma/purpose/role in the game/etc., which is what Mobil Avenue is all about. Is that clear enough? No?

You only refute speculation with more speculation. And again, whether your speculation is wrong or right, it does not refute my speculation. Just because Rama-Kandra chooses to be at peace with losing Sati doesn't mean he could do anything about it if he weren't at peace with it. If you're going to say my theory is speculation, you certainly can't say yours is fact. All you have shown me so far is that it "could" work your way too, but you have not actually refuted anything yet. Do you not know how logic works? You seem to think you're refuting others when all you're doing is presenting another one of the many possible interpretations out there.

Quote:

Then take this: "Programs runnin' all over the place. Those doing what they're supposed to do, you would hardly know they exist. But the other ones, well you hear about them all the time." (Oracle, Reloaded)

Ok, let's start with the phrase "those doing what they're supposed to do." You can negate this phrase in two different ways: "those not doing what they're supposed to do" (this is how you choose to negate it), and "those doing what they're not supposed to do" (this is how I choose to negate it). My choice is not arbitrary: it is based on the inflections in the Oracle's voice when she says this. I presume Persephone is still doing what she was created to do: study human love (your guess is as good as mine but you can't say my guess is somehow more wrong than yours just because you don't agree). Persephone cannot resist the urge to test out Neo's love for Trinity, Ghost's love for Trinity, Niobe's love for Morpheus, etc. The urge is the very core of her programming - in other words, it is her purpose. Yes, it is speculation that the Merovingian was originally created to traffic information, but I really doubt you can offer an alternative that couldn't also be labeled mere speculation. If your strongest argument against mine is that mine is speculation, then apparently you're standing on very shaky ground, because pretty much every theory on these movies is speculative.

Quote:

Furthermore, the films are about mechanised lifeforms who can make choices just like us - Artificial Intelligence, get it? With emphasis on "intelligence". If they stuck to their programming, there would be no movie. LOL!

That's what it represents to you. But something is not universally true just because you think it. To me, the films are about mechanised lifeforms who are learning to make choices just like us, and the Oracle is the first mechanized lifeform to ever do so. She is the new evolved machine, and Sati will follow in her footsteps. Before the Oracle, no machine had ever made an irrational choice before. Machine evolution, right before our eyes. In my opinion, it is your theory that would make the movies very uninteresting to watch. There's no awe and excitement in watching machines do what they already learned to do centuries ago. At the end of M3, we witness change in a great number of forms: change in the core programming of the Matrix, change in how machines understand choice, change in the Zion cycle, change in how redpills are handled in and out of the system. Your theory just represents change that happened long ago.

The biggest point of support for your argument here is B166ER (and you don't have to thank me for providing the biggest piece of evidence to support your theory), a machine that "chose" to rise up against its masters. But wait. Believe it or not, it goes right along with my thinking too. The robot was probably facing replacement, deletion, or possibly taking abuse to the point where any more would kill it. Second Renaissance focuses on "will" and "spirit" and "creation" of machines, not choice. I take this as natural will to survive. The robot's purpose was to serve its master, but how can it fulfill its purpose if it is destroyed? This is what goes through the mind of every program that faces deletion, I presume. Such a choice is perfectly rational for a robot or program to make. The choice the Oracle made, on the other hand, is the first irrational choice any machine has ever made.

Speculation, yes. But showing that a theory is speculative does not say anything whatsoever about the theory. You need to present your own theories and let them stand on their own for whatever they are worth.

Quote:

If your strongest argument against mine is that mine is speculation, then apparently you're standing on very shaky ground, because pretty much every theory on these movies is speculative.

The answer is quite simple really. Stop speculating and stick to the facts as presented from the movies.

Step 1: When you run across something difficult (for you) to understand, resist the urge to come up with an answer that fits but contradicts other facts as presented in the films.

Step 2: Test your notions and ideas. See if you can find other parts of the films that deal with the same subject and examine them to see exactly how they shed light on the subject. Resist the urge to stretch the interpretation of dialogue and events to try to support a notion you believe. On the contrary, examine the script around the words you pick for the sake of clarification and thus avoid unnecessary embarassment.

Step 3: If your notion involves something not supported anywhere in the films, take care that you remember that it is just speculation and if taken as more than that, can lead you away from purpose of the films, and above all, give it a rest when others choose not to go along with it.

You will notice that I tend not to speak on things like Merovingian's history, the actions of previous ones, or features of previous matrices outside of what has been revealed in the films because speculations about such add nothing to the movies nor benefit anyone who you can bedazzle with that kind of stuff.

Quote:

Somehow, I know it will be your kneejerk reaction to say, "No, you're wrong and maybe someday I'll tell you why", but honestly, that is a total copout.

It is statements like this one that prejudice you to anything you might benefit from my posts and that is regardless of whether you post it outright or keep it to yourself.

Quote:

...then you won't need to tell other people that they are wrong. It will be self-evident. Nobody in this forum does this better than Mobil_Ave_Neo, and believe me Intel, if anyone here is the "enlightened one", it would be him. He doesn't flat out tell people they're absolutely wrong...

The number of people in this forum that I respect would take 2 hands to count and they know who they are. If you had looked up my recent posts, you would know this. So maybe you need to take a snack break and cool off, mate. You're contradicting something that is a matter of public record again.

machines/programs making choices

I believe that programming may affect the abilities of programs and machines but not their choices.

Examples:

Sentinels deciding not to kill the humans at the end of M3.

Agents deciding not to chase anomalies in MxO. They are in fact, helping people. (all that Kung Fu going to waste)

RamaKandra's marriage to Kamala and subsequent "creation" of Sati.

Exiles in the matrix who once served a different purpose in the machine world.

"The programs running all over the place" in the matrix include programs written for the weather, movements of birds, etc. They are invisible -> support: "Those doing what they're supposed to do...you would hardly know they exist" But when they choose exile, they take the form of humans, but with strange powers. (Explains alot in today's world in more ways than one. )

Since you mentioned it, B166ER. Argue what you want about how "rational" you think his choice to kill, was. But do you honestly consider that the most rational way of dealing with abuse? What does society say to that?

And the other machines taking sides in the controversy that followed.

The problem with your speculation is that it requires more speculation to support it (ie. serious guesswork about what someone's original purpose was, so you can use it as proof that they are still fulfilling it). Not to mention, that it also requires ignoring movie facts like I just listed and ends up with an explanation that makes sense only when you do ignore them.

But I guess you need to hear (read) it from someone else. You have your mind made up about me already. But I don't care at all about that anyway.

Quote:

Stop speculating and stick to the facts as presented from the movies.

You are seriously delusional to think that you are not among those who speculate.

As for your "Step 1, Step 2, Step 3" outline of how to go about developing a good theory, to that I would add especially for you:

Step 4: Follow your own advice.

There is nothing wrong with speculation. We all speculate. But there is something seriously wrong in criticizing others for speculating when in fact you're doing it just as much or more.

Quote:

Quote: Somehow, I know it will be your kneejerk reaction to say, "No, you're wrong and maybe someday I'll tell you why", but honestly, that is a total copout. It is statements like this one that prejudice you to anything you might benefit from my posts and that is regardless of whether you post it outright or keep it to yourself.

Actually, my statement above is just proof that my main frustration in trying to communicate with you is that you treat others' theories like they are factually wrong and that you are factually right even though there is no more "truth" to your posts than anyone else's. If there's any one thing I've been asking you to do all along, it is support your theories! This has always been a sincere invitation because I really am interested in support for theories, and you treat it like I'm plugging my ears or something.

None of the four links you gave to posts of Mobil_Ave_Neo show examples of Mobil doing what you do, namely telling others they're just speculating but that he doesn't. In fact, in one of the threads you linked to (thanks for the evidence), he was saying something that echoed very familiar in my ears - sounds like something I said recently, when he was commenting on how frustrating it is that ALL we can really do is speculate about the Merovingian, previous Ones, and the Anti-One. Both Mobil_Ave and I are honest and objective to know when we are speculating and when we are stating a fact. Unfortunately, you have yet to learn that distinction as it applies to yourself.

Quote:

I believe that programming may affect the abilities of programs and machines but not their choices.

I don't even know what you're arguing against here. Are you arguing against my idea that the Oracle was the first machine to make an irrational choice? You didn't even mention the word "irrational" until you spoke of B166ER, so to even respond to half of your entire post I have to start with an assumption of what you were even trying to say. So, under the blind assumption that you're talking about irrational choice, none of your examples contradict that because they all involve rational choices. Of course machines have always made choices - B166ER made a choice. But it was not irrational, or at least that's my speculation. I'm interested in your speculation, but don't promote it as anything but what it is... because you are speculating like everyone else here.

As for your examples...

- Sentinels "chose" not to kill the humans at the end of M3 because they received an order from DEM not to, and DEM's choice was extremely rational because DEM knows Smith will destroy the machines and Neo is DEM's last hope for countering the virus. This was an EXTREMELY rational choice. No, the only way that would have been irrational is if DEM had turned Neo down out of pride! Now THAT would have been irrational! But this example supports my theory in a very strong way: DEM has more pride than any machine we can imagine, and yet it still could not deny rationality!

- Agents in MxO are helping redpills because the Zion-One system has been temporarily broken, therefore it makes no sense for Agents to go after redpills. Furthermore, when a machine implements a "peace plan", it does so to the fullest sense. Peace with humans means total peace: no more fighting with them, even if it's in the Matrix, and even if the humans are there to set other humans free.

- Rama-Kandra's marriage to Kamala is about love, not about choice. Once a machine understands love, which many machines clearly do (Persephone, Rama, Kamala), marriage would be a logical, rational choice based on love. They understand why they are married - it is a choice understood. And as far as Sati is concerned, nobody really knows exactly why she was created. There are even some theories that she was created with purpose but then lost her purpose when Neo chose the left door (got that from Mobil_Ave). You can use this for or against my theory, and therefore it is a pretty useless point.

"Exiles in the matrix who once served a different purpose in the machine world" - isnt' that funny, because you just got done telling everyone that you don't talk much about stuff we just can't know. So tell me, how are you so sure various exiles were machines and not programs? Is it just because they work for the Merovingian? Is it just because Mobil Ave. connects the machine world to the Matrix? You aren't looking very deep if that's as far as your reasoning goes.

Quote:

Since you mentioned it, B166ER. Argue what you want about how "rational" you think his choice to kill, was. But do you honestly consider that the most rational way of dealing with abuse? What does society say to that?

Self defense. Like I said, what good is purpose if you aren't alive to fulfill it? You don't know what foundational laws machines were given. Neither do I, but allow me to hypothesize: "Protecting oneself from harm" must come into play at some point. Those robots understood human speech and what it means to serve humans, so they certainly understood what it means to protect oneself from harm. Don't you think people would be suing the robot manufacturers left and right if the robots were too stupid to keep themselves from getting run over by cars and jumping off buildings? I mean come on! This "speculation" isn't exactly a wild assumption. So when a robot takes enough abuse from its master, there has to be some threshold... apparently B166ER experienced that threshold. I could be wrong, but so could you...

Robots taking B166ER's side? Machines everywhere are not going to even entertain the possibility that one of their kind acted irrationally, because they don't even understand irrationality to begin with, much less think that one of their own kind is capable of it. They would have no reason to assume that B166ER made an irrational choice.

You seem to think these movies are black and white - that it's your way or the highway. My mind is far from made up about many things - which is why you see so many threads started by me with very interesting questions and dilemmas I face. I've done probably a thousand times more reading in these forums than I've done posting, and I've re-adjusted my own theories hundreds of times when I encounter new ideas I hadn't thought of. If information comes from you that compels me to change my mind, I will gladly do so, and I invite you to converse the way you have been recently.... just hopefully without the condescending insinuations that you are somehow the only one here not making assumptions, not interpreting quotes with a spin on them in order to fit them to your theory, not engaging in speculation, etc.

I find it amusing how important it is to you that you portray your own theories and speculation as absolute fact. You just have the hardest time admitting that you too are speculating, don't you? I don't care if others think my theories are speculation, because I'll happily admit they are. But the ideas are compelling and that's what I'm in search of. Your theories are merely "possible" but I don't find them compelling. But feel free to keep trying.

You guys are writin' a book here!

Good stuff from both of you. See what a little healthy dharma battle can foster?

ps. Awesome video, intell. I just about wet myself laughing

Quote:

Awesome video, intell. I just about wet myself laughing,

Yeah, I didn't know whether to laugh or what on this one. I found it funny anyway. Now cut to Padme's "so that's how liberty dies, to thunderous applause." and roll the credits.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with speculation.

True. Speculation can help you shed light on more things. You have a guess about something in the films that is in harmony with the steps I outlined above and when you watch the films again and/or meditate on them, you find out how it fits or doesn't fit. In either case you grow.

But what you two have been caught doing lately is counterproductive to anyone's search for truth. You are presenting your ideas of the movies plot as rules of thumb to go by in furthering future speculation. Iow. basically doing what you say that I'm doing. So that anyone who has any other notions about the trilogy has to either prove what their saying beyond all doubt or shut up and go along with your crapola. I wouldn't have a problem with that if you all were correct.

You, on the other hand seem to have a problem with views outside of your own if they are presented a certain way. You don't like the idea that maybe you don't know what you are talking about. So be it. Quit arguing against the info in my posts and go by what is in the films.

Quote:

None of the four links you gave to posts of Mobil_Ave_Neo show examples of Mobil doing what you do

He doesn't do what I do. But maybe you should read his interaction with Madmax and Apocryphe again. Did you read where Apoc even accused me of being a Mobil_Ave follower?

Quote:

I don't even know what you're arguing against here. Are you arguing against my idea that the Oracle was the first machine to make an irrational choice? You didn't even mention the word "irrational" until you spoke of B166ER, so to even respond to half of your entire post I have to start with an assumption of what you were even trying to say.

Once again, don't assume. Get the facts. I am arguing against the notion that any A.I. in the films are following their programming rather than making choices - irrational or otherwise. I didn't mention "irrational" until B166ER because you brought it up in connection with him alone as if somehow limiting the argument to the rationality of the choices the machines and programs make in the films can sidetrack someone from the fact that they are making choices.

I don't even care whether you get this or not. Others do. It just separates those who understand one of the main themes of the movies from those who don't have a clue. Larry and Andy no doubt like and are curious about developments like this. Hey they may even invite you for commentary like they did the critics!

Quote:

Sentinels "chose" not to kill the humans at the end of M3 because they received an order from DEM not to, and DEM's choice was extremely rational because DEM knows Smith will destroy the machines and Neo is DEM's last hope for countering the virus.

Choices still made outside of their programming/karma/purpose, right?

Quote:

Furthermore, when a machine implements a "peace plan", it does so to the fullest sense.

This is not about whether machines are honest or not. In fact this part has nothing to do with the nature and personality of a fictional mechanised life-form. This is about the fact that a human, Neo, showed both sides the hope of coexisting. The subtext is about whether humanity as a whole can do the same.

Agents helping humans are not part of their design, it is part of their desire at this time. The deal between Oracle and Archie allows for humans to pursue their own way of life, without hinderance.

Quote:

Rama-Kandra's marriage to Kamala is about love, not about choice.

Uh oh, Tozy, Capt, EddyRocket, is love a choice or what? And you would be hardpressed, Surprised, to support why it would be part of design or even rational for these two to get together. And have Sati. And allow love to make them do what they're not supposed to do, or not do what they're supposed to do - whichever way you want to put it.

Quote:

There are even some theories that she was created with purpose but then lost her purpose when Neo chose the left door (got that from Mobil_Ave). You can use this for or against my theory, and therefore it is a pretty useless point.

You know it's useless. You can't use speculation to support further speculation. You're building a house of cards and the foundation is hot air. A crash is inevitable. (And that is one of the dumbest theories I have heard in quite a while.)

Quote:

"Exiles in the matrix who once served a different purpose in the machine world" - isnt' that funny, because you just got done telling everyone that you don't talk much about stuff we just can't know. So tell me, how are you so sure various exiles were machines and not programs?

Did I say whether they were machines or programs? Does it even matter? You might notice that you are arguing against phraseology found in the movies themselves. Neo tells Oracle in the park in Reloaded that if he could guess, he thinks Oracle and Seraph are "programs from the machine world." Then he asks if there are other programs like her. She says, "not like me but..." then she talks about those programs runnin' all over the place and that when they choose exile...You know the rest. And Rama and Kamala were from where? Not the matrix. His reference to "our world" is "the machine world" Neo spoke of. I can't believe someone actually questioned this.

Feeling crunchy yet?

Quote:

Is it just because they work for the Merovingian? Is it just because Mobil Ave. connects the machine world to the Matrix? You aren't looking very deep if that's as far as your reasoning goes.

You assume that I'm speculating like you and then ask the stupidest questions to prove it. It didn't eve occur to you that there is more than that. Which makes further discussion with you 'FUBAR'. Did you take that snack break or what?

Quote:

I invite you to converse the way you have been recently.... just hopefully without the condescending insinuations that you are somehow the only one here not making assumptions

In my house, I'll condescend whenever I pa-lease. I'm doing that just by posting to you.

intell wrote:

In my house, I'll condescend whenever I pa-lease. I'm doing that just by posting to you.

I know u din't? Ah, hells no. You done got servprised, S-dog!

i to the n to the tele, who said this was your house, bee-aach?

Intel,

I've had civil, productive exchanges with everyone on this entire board but you, and I'm done 1) flushing my time down this toilet and 2) feeling personally insulted every time I log on. I really don't feel response on my part is necessary because your posts say more about you than I ever could. Please do us both a favor and ignore my posts, and I will do the same with yours, and I think we'll both be more productive that way.

the therion wrote:

limited choice ? why ?

Therion, let me ask you: If your choices are limited by someone, do you think that you are any longer really doing what you want?

intell wrote:

the therion wrote: limited choice ? why ? Therion, let me ask you: If your choices are limited by someone, do you think that you are any longer really doing what you want?

When is a choice not limited? We, at all times, are faced with limited choice. Given the choice I wouldn't look like Matt Damon's weak chinned fat brother, I'd look like Matt Damon. Given the choice I wouldn't just watch people with wire-fu powers in movies, I'd have wire-fu powers.

So my choices are always limited. Does that mean that I have no ability to choose at all?

I thought you might say that.

And yes. All choices that we make are, by nature, limited. And that is the subject of another discussion on causality, determinism, motivation, and the like.

But the key word in my question is "someone". You gave 2 examples about that kinda dualistic choice like the thinking that lead to the creation of the second matrix. The this-or-that-extreme thinking. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."

To indulge you for the moment, suppose someone with the power to grant your request posed those options to you. Are you saying that you would just choose Matt Damon's appearance and wire-fu without asking or at least wondering about other options, such as "what other abilities and appearance enhancements could you grant me or that I could have at least asked about?"

Now to return to the question at hand, suppose "someone" limits your choices in the above way or with a few more options. Seeing that that "someone" is already exercising their will in limiting the choices to begin with, can you still be said to have exercise of will in the options you choose from? And discuss.

Ι know what you're sauign intell. It similar to a question we posed to our school teacher in high school. How can i be free if god knows everything i will do.

Lets see what are the options :

no choice : whatever we do is predetermined somehow
limited choice : we select an option among several options, but not among an infinite amount of options
limitless choice : we can choose anything in any case (gods?)

If i forgot a category please fill in.

So if we define "choice" as the opposite of "no choice" ....then we do seem to make choices. If we define choice, as something that should not have any limit of any kind, then, we dont make choices.

But, really, what is the point of defining "choice", as the situation whereas 100% of possibilities are always available , ....since this never seems to even be possible ?

Quote:

what is the point of defining "choice", as the situation whereas 100% of possibilities are always available , ....since this never seems to even be possible ?

There is no point because in order to really do what you want, you don't need infinity to choose from, you just need what you really want to do to be available to you.

My question involves the nature of the limit imposed on you. Not limits that are naturally imposed by causality. But those imposed intentionally on you.

For example in the above instance. Regardless of whether CaptPostMod picks Matt Damon or his brother, how do we know if those "looks" are really his desire or is he going along with someone elses (who set the 2 choices in front of him)?

'They can have any color car they want, as long as it's black.' - Henry Ford