»Problem that underlies Matrix-unwanted choices/Anomaly«

This post is both dicussing the above subject and following another post.

matrix-explained.com...

Everything that could not be in “accordance” with the “Harmony of Mathematical Precision” is “Imperfection” to Architect. Perfection like all other “abstract” subjects is a production of human psyche which could only be defined by its opposite: “Imperfection”. Hence, like all other abstracts, “Imperfection” could not exist without human beings.

A.I. is the creation of mankind based upon his knowledge; most basic of all being “Mathematic” and the logic derived form it. Human does not interact with his environment and other humans “logically”, therefore A.I applies the same abstract concept of “Imperfection” to describe Humans. –which like all other abstract subject is a product of human psyche- Basically in the opinion of A.I, we are considered “Imperfect” when compared to A.I.

If Architect is in fact A.I, this is the explanation why humans are considered “Imperfect”.

The Architect: “I have come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind….or perhaps, a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an “intuitive” program initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche.”

“Intuition” is not based upon “Logic”. Since A.I. (The Architect) could not make any “Illogical” conclusion, it is not able to find the “Solution”. An “intuitive” “Program” could resemble the human psyche, but it’s also bound by “logic” or “Parameters of Perfection” to a “lesser” degree, hence it could never find a non-flawed solution toward the “Consequence of human Imperfection”.

No program based on or “bound” by “Mathematical Parameters” could ever find a solution toward an abstract human concept which defies “Mathematical Logic”: “Imperfection”

The answer to the question: “Is the problem really 'choice'? “, could be derived from the above statement and the following arguments:

First “This problem was not solved (the Matrix doesn't crash anymore) by implementing (the illusion of) choice.” because no “Program” is able to solve this problem. Second “The System continues crashing, if not reloaded.”

From now on most of your arguments are based upon “choice” being the problem.

'Choice' is not in contradiction to "a harmony of mathematical precision" and to "flawless". Every mathematical algorithm is built upon “choosing” different routes.
“Choice” is an essential and defining integral part of A.I., which can not exist without it. Also “Choice” is not an “Anomaly” in the world of “Causality”, it’s an integral part of cause and effect, acting both as cause or effect.

Humans connected to the Matrix are “potentially” given a “choice”, since they are not “freed” against their will and “can” choose their “freedom” of their will –even considered an illusion of choice-. They are refusing the program and constituting an escalating probability of disaster, which unchecked will result in a “cataclysmic system crash”, which means the system is still susceptible to “Crash”, in spite of “choice” existing. In the first version of Matrix humans were not given a “choice”, the disaster also occurred.

From above, It’s obvious that “choice” could not act as the equilibrant for this “unbalanced equation” which results in the “Systemic Anomaly”, because it does not affect the outcome of the equation by itself -without introducing control mechanisms-. Therefore existence or nonexistence of choice is not a determinant of this equation. And “choice” as a determinant cannot be "creating the... contradictory... anomaly"

Most Important of all : 'choice' itself is not the problem, but wrong choice, of course (=a choice, that is different from what the system wants to be chosen)
What could be the problem that underlies Matrix-unwanted choices?

Wrong or right are attributes of “choice”, defined by a reference, in this case we define them as A.I. does. If the reference applies “validity” to “choice”, it’s applied to the outcome of the “choice”, not to the “choice” it self.

Now in our algorithm, we have certain “Data”, which will result in non-valid outcomes, the discussed “Data” are those provided by the Matrix Reloaded, and could be expanded with the arrival of the last and third installment.

I)”Purpose” precedes “choice”. It’s independent of choice, also defined by A.I as existent or nonexistent or any other attribute. “Purpose” can be controlled and defined by A.I.
Smith says: "Without purpose, we [Neo+ Smith] would not exist.” But as we see they still exist, therefore, “Purpose” still exists for both of them.
“…I’m unplugged…” The “purpose” which defined the existence of Smith, was taken from him, without being replaced by A.I. and his current “purpose” is interpreted as non-valid by A.I. Smith having been a part of Matrix designed by A.I. could have not known any non-valid purpose, unless introduced by Neo. Ergo his new “purpose” was not of his “choosing”.
“We’re here because we are not free. We’re not here because we’re free. “Either they were not given the “choice” to be “Free”, or the “choice” does not alter the outcome, as discussed above.
The Problem is not “purpose”.
II) Discussed later
III) 'The need to believe' or 'Hope' – Two separate Data. Hope could be shaped by believe; not by the “necessity to believe”, but it exist without belief. Hope contradicts a negative belief.
'The need to believe' as you adequately put could be resolved through providing “Believes” sampled from Human history by A.I.
'Hope' although not a delusion as mentioned by Architect, otherwise is exactly how he/it defines it. It precedes choice, but does not alter the outcome from A.I. point of view.
There’s no denying the strong religious themes in the matrix, and as you find out at the end of Reloaded, the Oracle represents a religious belief, but serves as control mechanism for A.I., guiding the “One”. But you have certainly noticed that even in Zion, there remains a majority of non-believers. As you see neither Choice, nor Believe did not compose a “Perfect” trap.
IV) 'Seeking for truth' and 'Death wish' are categorized as “purpose”, hence subject to its definition.

Emotion: Not defined through its effect on “choice”, but itself could be the “Anomaly”. We already argued that neither “Choice” nor the other proposed “Data” could be the “problem”.
A.I. by definition is Non-Carbon based Intelligence. (Unless having a cytoplasmic matrix or only composed of Carbon based molecules –nucleotides- like Viruses carrying the scripts that need a host to be activated and copied from, which contradicts its definition.)
Hence A.I. does not possess the “the chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason", is simply “devoid” of Emotion. (A.I. could be programmed to manifest and resemble physical properties of emotions, not to feel them) First due to its Non-Carbon based nature and second, because complex emotions (Love being the most complicated) still remains undefined by Humans and could not be programmed into A.I.

This very fact separates us from A.I. and is the “cause” behind A.I. interpretation: “Imperfection inherent in every human System”, which actually is the “Perfection” of mankind, A.I. not being able to understand and trying to solve.

Thanks for your patience.

Regartds,
Atreides

I would like to see more supporting "logic" for the following, which I don't currenty agree with.

atreides wrote:

'Choice' is not in contradiction to "a harmony of mathematical precision" and to "flawless". Every mathematical algorithm is built upon “choosing” different routes.

Perhaps the human interpretation of the algorythm, but the algorythm itself follows "rules" which eliminate choice.

atreides wrote:

“Choice” is an essential and defining integral part of A.I., which can not exist without it.

I wish you'd given a reason for this, I have a hard enough time reconciling that intelligence has choice and so cannot accept that Artificial Intelligence would have it.

atreides wrote:

Also “Choice” is not an “Anomaly” in the world of “Causality”, it’s an integral part of cause and effect, acting both as cause or effect.

Causality is the tracking of a stream of events. This stream has a start (the cause) and an end (the effect). If choice were involved the stream would branch and lead to more than one end.
This would be cause and effect and effect.

And now my two testicles worth...

Choice is an illusion.

Tomorrow when you wake you have the choice the get up right away, or stay in bed longer. Clearly a choice right?

Wrong, the outcome is already predetermined and you can't change it. Even if you do the opposite to what you want, no difference.

Everytime you make a decision (which is different from a choice), it is based on a series of weights and triggers. (dunno if that's the correct term)

All through life you have been gaining experience of how one thing effects another (cause and effect). These are stored conciously as memories and unconciousy as weights. Pleasant experiences place a positive weight on an outome, unpleasant experiences place a negative weight.

For example.

You might enojy lying in on a morning, this woud be a positive weight equivalent to how much pleasure it gives you.

If you are late for work you might be disciplined, which would have a negative weight based on how distressing the disciplining is PLUS a second factor of how much this threatens your income (if you get sacked).

As you lay in bed, pondering whether to stay in bed, your mind (whether you realise it or not) is comparing the positive weight of staying in bed against the negative weight of being late for work.

Ultimately the decision woud be (in mathematical terms) the sum of the two. If it's positive you will stay in bed, if its negative you'll get up.

This is of course a very simplistic example and is adjusted by additional factors;

You could stay in bed and still not be late for work
You might not worry about being sacked
etc.

Further you coud DECIDE to do the opposite just to disprove the theory, but in reality this is just another weight.

The negative weight casued by the fear of actually not having a choice.

Once you accept that decisions are predetermined (not in some big book of fate or anything like that, but by our experience of causality), you can concentrate on the really important part of understanding why we make the choices we do.

"You've already made the choice, now you have to understand it".

---

You might not like this, you might not agree with it, but don't blame me.

I had no choice

@marl64

I would like to thank you for reading this tiresome post. Reading your reply, I presume we don’t have a mutual concept of the word “choice”. I think you have confused “choice” with “will”. I define “choice” as the presence of more than one pathway radiating from any point in the time-space continuum. This is the case with any algorithm, although following any pathway is by design based on the underlying “rules”, nevertheless existence of “more than one pathway”.

You may or may not agree with this definition, but it’s the key point of the whole argument.

“Choice” is an integral part of Intelligence regardless of its type, to the point that there is no definition for intelligence without “choice”. The “ability to choose” is not “choice” itself.

Quote:

"You've already made the choice, now you have to understand it".

You clearly see that “choice” regardless of its definition “has to be” understood, and comprehension is one of the defining concept for “Intelligence”.

Quote:

Causality is the tracking of a stream of events. This stream has a start (the cause) and an end (the effect). If choice were involved the stream would branch and lead to more than one end.

Instantiating ‘Causality” to tracking of a ‘stream” of events, could act as a pitfall. In contrary to your statement, no stream has a beginning or end, rather than two points defined as beginning and end. Therefore “choice” could simultaneously be the “effect” of the preceding events, and the “cause” of its following events.

And what I assumed from your “two testicles worth….” ss that “conditioning” precedes “choice” and determines it. This does not eliminate the “choice”, but it could “limit” and act as one the determining factors affecting the “ability to choose” or “will”.

Since I’m not familiar with your concept of “predetermination”, I would like you to elaborate more on this issue. Although not relevant to this argument, since if “choices” are predetermined as you put, “choice” could not be the problem.

I see no "cause" which "effect" will be "I balming You", nevertheless I do have "choice" to blame you, which did not even occured to me until reading that very same sentence.

atreides wrote:

I would like to thank you for reading this tiresome post. Reading your reply, I presume we don’t have a mutual concept of the word “choice”. I think you have confused “choice” with “will”. I define “choice” as the presence of more than one pathway radiating from any point in the time-space continuum. This is the case with any algorithm, although following any pathway is by design based on the underlying “rules”, nevertheless existence of “more than one pathway”.

Agreed, differences in our definition may have affected our perception of the others point of view.

I agree that "choice" is a branch in the pathway, the difference is I see choice as being where any of the possible routes can be taken without predjudice. Yes this could be linked with free will.

If the outcome is predetermined, it is no longer a matter of choice, the other possible paths are alternatives which wil not be realised.

Quote:

You may or may not agree with this definition, but it’s the key point of the whole argument. “Choice” is an integral part of Intelligence regardless of its type, to the point that there is no definition for intelligence without “choice”. The “ability to choose” is not “choice” itself.

So to deny the existance of choice is to deny the existance of intelligence?

Quote:

Quote: "You've already made the choice, now you have to understand it". You clearly see that “choice” regardless of its definition “has to be” understood, and comprehension is one of the defining concept for “Intelligence”.

Yes and no.

Yes, Comprehension is a defining concept for intelligence
No, Understanding of choice is not a prerequisite for the choice to exist.

In fact, Thinking about it you may (either intentionally or otherwise) have found a better definition for A.I.

Not the ability to make a choice, but the ability to understand the choices available.

Quote:

Quote: Causality is the tracking of a stream of events. This stream has a start (the cause) and an end (the effect). If choice were involved the stream would branch and lead to more than one end. Instantiating ‘Causality” to tracking of a ‘stream” of events, could act as a pitfall. In contrary to your statement, no stream has a beginning or end, rather than two points defined as beginning and end. Therefore “choice” could simultaneously be the “effect” of the preceding events, and the “cause” of its following events.

Granted that no beginning is ever a beginning unto itself and the same applies for the end. Any cause is ultimately the result of some preceding cause/effect loop and so by definition is itself an effect.

However to define causailty in such broad terms could lead to overcomplication of the concept, which is the relationship between an effect and its cause and not the relationship between an effect and the history of the universe.

You don't want to get infinity involved or it's trouble all 'round

Quote:

And what I assumed from your “two testicles worth….” ss that “conditioning” precedes “choice” and determines it. This does not eliminate the “choice”, but it could “limit” and act as one the determining factors affecting the “ability to choose” or “will”.

Exactly, you got it in one. This was the basis of my point of view irrespective of our differences over definitions.

Quote:

Since I’m not familiar with your concept of “predetermination”, I would like you to elaborate more on this issue. Although not relevant to this argument, since if “choices” are predetermined as you put, “choice” could not be the problem.

To be honest, I don't see that choice is the problem - certainly not in the context it was raised in (yeah lets get back to the matrix).

In Reloaded, the architect was unable to fully grasp the choices neo was making. At first this might seem sensible since it was beyond his "perfect" logical mind.

But throw in predetermination and it gets a whole lot more interesting.

Accept for a moment my suggestion that all decisions are made based on experience.

Psychologist today beleive that if they have a complete picture of a persons history, they can accurately predict their behaviour.

It would be fair to presume that the Matrix monitors the behaviour of its occupants. Its not too far to suggest (as the screens do) that the architect has a full and complete record of every action neo has taken, every decision he has made.

Here we have a computer program with more detail than any psychologist will ever see and yet it cannot accurately predict the outcome of one decision. And it's driving him mad.

Ultimately, if causality is to be beleived and you have a whole bucket full of cause, the effect should be predictable. But in this case it isn't.

So perhaps we should look to what the merangue said and what smith said.

"Purpose".

The architect would be able to predict the outcome of any choice if he had a better understanding of purpose, the driving force which can modify the outcome of any choice.

"The purpuse of the one" was intended to be to get recompiled and save zion, however this was overriden by his love for trinity. An emotion. This is also commented on by the architect.

Can it be any coincidence that the character of the architect was played absolutely emotionless.

So my take on all this is that the problem isn't "choice", it's "purpose".

more specifically, choices influenced by purpose based on emotion.

Quote:

I see no "cause" which "effect" will be "I balming You", nevertheless I do have "choice" to blame you, which did not even occured to me until reading that very same sentence.

I like to present more possibilties where I can.

The fact that the option didn't occur to you, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

"What if I hadn't mentioned the vase?"

atreides wrote:

Second “The System continues crashing, if not reloaded.”

Every system crashes, if....

Quote:

'Choice' is not in contradiction to "a harmony of mathematical precision" and to "flawless". Every mathematical algorithm is built upon “choosing” different routes.

You are not talking about "free choice". You mean "conditions": IF...THEN...ELSE while free choice is something like IF...THEN THIS or THEN THAT.

Quote:

Now in our algorithm, we have certain “Data”

Or non-Data, like emotions, insanity, concepts of beauty etc.

Quote:

Smith says: "Without purpose, we [Neo+ Smith] would not exist.” But as we see they still exist, therefore, “Purpose” still exists for both of them.

That's not what he says. Without my parents I wouldn't exist. Now my parents died. So?

Quote:

As you see neither Choice, nor Believe did not compose a “Perfect” trap.

Since now nobody escaped from Zion (if it is a fake). Thus Choice (to trap the most in the Matrix) and Faith (to trap Zionites) works perfectly.

Quote:

Thanks for your patience.

Hey, Atreides, great post! I mean it!

marl64 wrote:

Tomorrow when you wake you have the choice the get up right away, or stay in bed longer. Clearly a choice right? Wrong, the outcome is already predetermined and you can't change it.

What the heck? Of course you have the choice to stay in your lazy bed and get fired. It is up to you.

knnknn wrote:

marl64 wrote: Tomorrow when you wake you have the choice the get up right away, or stay in bed longer. Clearly a choice right? Wrong, the outcome is already predetermined and you can't change it. What the heck? Of course you have the choice to stay in your lazy bed and get fired. It is up to you.

What? did you stop reading at that point?

I covered the very same thing later in the post

marl64 wrote:

What? did you stop reading at that point? I covered the very same thing later in the post

Yeah you did, but I still don't discard my post. No matter what. You still have the free choice to choose as you wish. What you are talking about are probabilities.

knnknn wrote:

No matter what. You still have the free choice to choose as you wish. What you are talking about are probabilities.

No what I'm talking about is psychological conditioning.

That the outcome of any "choice" is based not on free will, but on accumulated experience and underlying influences.

"I choose this because I want to" simply don't cut it.

you need to ask "why did I want to?"

do you really believe that? Do you think that absolutely no real choices have ever been made? Of course you make choices based on reasons, but that doesn't negate the fact that you are choosing it.

stinkz wrote:

do you really believe that? Do you think that absolutely no real choices have ever been made? Of course you make choices based on reasons, but that doesn't negate the fact that you are choosing it.

Not only do I beleive it, I beleive it's a fundamental part of the trilogy.

Sure Neo made the choice to save trinity, but the underlying cause cannot be ignored. Would the choice have been different if trinity had stayed out.

"You've already made the choice, now you have to understand it"

And from elsewhere

"You must seek clarity, for where there is clarity, there is no choice and where there is choice, there is misery"

marl64 wrote:

"I choose this because I want to" simply don't cut it.

Well, it's a matter of belief systems then.

marl64 wrote:

"You've already made the choice, now you have to understand it"

The Oracle said that, but
a) She is part of the system
b) She is just a program
c) She guides Neo into "prophecy lies"
d) She probably just repeats what every reloading cycle featured. Thus she doesn't know anything about real choices, because she talks as if Neo was a program: "You made your choice already. Now you need to understand it"

marl64 wrote:

you need to ask "why did I want to?"

OK, you don't NEED to ask that, in fact almost 99% of test subjects would be happy not to.

@Atreides

Just read your original post

atreides wrote:

LOVE

and have a question.

When Neo meets the agents at the start of reloaded;

Neo: "Hiya Fellas"

Agents: "It's Him", "The Anomaly", "Do we proceed?", "Yes", "He is still", "Only Human"

Are the agents actually saying "Hey, It's Loverboy"?

@marl64

An overall interpretation of your post, hints that you are not yourself clear if “choice” exist or not, but your conception tends to disregard the “ability to choose”, or “will”, which you refer to as “choice”, leading to the confusion.
You argue that choice could not exist without the “ability to choose”. I don’t suppose as you do, I argued the reason; I could not find any reason for your argument from your post.

Quote:

If the outcome is predetermined, it is no longer a matter of choice, the other possible paths are alternatives which wil not be realised.

My philosophy on your argument could not be better expressed than: "The path cannot be left, even for a minute. If it could be left, it would not be the path.", nevertheless it does not deny the existence of other paths.

Quote:

So to deny the existance of choice is to deny the existance of intelligence?

Yes, I thought it was obvious from the above statement, would you please explain your reason for asking an affirmation? Intelligence could not exist without “choice”, nevertheless it could exist without the “ability to choose”. Without “choice”, “intelligence” would be rendered to “instinct”.

Quote:

Yes and no. Yes, Comprehension is a defining concept for intelligence No, Understanding of choice is not a prerequisite for the choice to exist. In fact, Thinking about it you may (either intentionally or otherwise) have found a better definition for A.I. Not the ability to make a choice, but the ability to understand the choices availa

Exactly, but “intelligence” would not exist without “choice”, since “intelligence” exist – for the argument sake, you may not agree with this statement -, “choice” also exists.
Existence of “choice” does not prove the existence of “intelligence”.

I don’t know what you mean by (intentionally or otherwise), at least I did not intend to improve the definition of intelligence, but your conclusion was conveyed all along within my argument.

Then again I did not intend to define “Causality”, although aside from being a theory, “Causality” is also a mechanism enhancing the process of storing memory by providing smaller segments of events as input. Regardless of my intention, “infinity” is an integral part of any “existence”.

Quote:

To be honest, I don't see that choice is the problem - certainly not in the context it was raised in

At least we both agree that “choice” could not be the anomaly.

Quote:

Accept for a moment my suggestion that all decisions are made based on experience.

I can try to view your suggestion as an explanation, which I do, but I cannot accept it. ”Experience” is the stored bits of data of preceding events in the memory. Memory is not circumscribed by “intelligence”, but the memory of an intelligent being is considered as an “intrinsic factor”, versus the environment of the “intelligence” which is regarded as “extrinsic factor”*.

Quote:

Psychologist today beleive that if they have a complete picture of a persons history, they can accurately predict their behaviour.

Behaviour toward what?

Only, if all the “extrinsic factors” are accounted for, hence psychologists could not predict the choices one makes or his behavior –which is much facilitated trough the concept of instinct-** toward “unknown” only based upon one’s experiences.

On the other hand, there could exist an A.I., which knows every single “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” factor incorporated in its creation and the result of their interaction with each other, the matrix as the extrinsic factor and its occupants as intrinsic factor, therefore there is no need for prediction –this very term results from our comprehension of time- , the A.I. knows everything about its creation regardless of beginning or end.

It seems that the Architect does not do so. Since he is the creator of Matrix*** or something that its knowledge circumscribes Matrix, we could safely presume he is not the Creator of its occupants, or the allegedly Humans.

Quote:

"Purpose"

Please read the section about purpose from my original post :

Quote:

I)”Purpose” precedes “choice”. It’s independent of choice, also defined by A.I as existent or nonexistent or any other attribute. “Purpose” can be controlled and defined by A.I. Smith says: "Without purpose, we [Neo+ Smith] would not exist.” But as we see they still exist, therefore, “Purpose” still exists for both of them. “…I’m unplugged…” The “purpose” which defined the existence of Smith, was taken from him, without being replaced by A.I. and his current “purpose” is interpreted as non-valid by A.I. Smith having been a part of Matrix designed by A.I. could have not known any non-valid purpose, unless introduced by Neo. Ergo his new “purpose” was not of his “choosing”. “We’re here because we are not free. We’re not here because we’re free. “Either they were not given the “choice” to be “Free”, or the “choice” does not alter the outcome, as discussed above. The Problem is not “purpose”.

The Architect could easily override "purpose".

Knnknn writes :

Quote:

Quote: Smith says: "Without purpose, we [Neo+ Smith] would not exist.” But as we see they still exist, therefore, “Purpose” still exists for both of them. That's not what he says. Without my parents I wouldn't exist. Now my parents died. So

Not funny you should mention that, but if your parents are your "purpose" which is defined by smith as "It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us. That guides us. That drives us. It is purpose that defines. Purpose that binds us.", if they pass away, no doubt you`ll too.......... , Nevertheless the parents created you...Please pay more attention....

Quote:

Can it be any coincidence that the character of the architect was played absolutely emotionless. So my take on all this is that the problem isn't "choice", it's "purpose".

If he acted as you would say, how did you deduct the fact that "something is driving him mad", you certaily have noticed the wrinkling around the eyes, the jaw pulsating......

Quote:

more specifically, choices influenced by purpose based on emotion.

Back to emotion.........

marl64 wrote:

Quote:

Quote: I see no "cause" which "effect" will be "I balming You", nevertheless I do have "choice" to blame you, which did not even occured to me until reading that very same sentence. I like to present more possibilties where I can. The fact that the option didn't occur to you, doesn't mean it wasn't there. "What if I hadn't mentioned the vase?"

Thank you for enforcing my opinion, the "choice" of blaming you existed all along, regardless of me realising it, or my "ability to choose" it.

* You could argue that nothing exists than "intelligence"....you`ll certainly know where it does lead to.

**Much of our behaviour is based upon instict -exact chemical percursors and neural pathways, and their anatomical origin-
*** The Architect: "The first Matrix I designed was naturally perfect, a work of art." He is the creator of Matrix unless........

Knnknn wrote:

atreides wrote: Smith says: "Without purpose, we [Neo+ Smith] would not exist.” But as we see they still exist, therefore, “Purpose” still exists for both of them. That's not what he says. Without my parents I wouldn't exist. Now my parents died. So

Not funny you should mention that, but if your parents are your "purpose" which is defined by smith as "It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us. That guides us. That drives us. It is purpose that defines. Purpose that binds us.", if they pass away, no doubt you`ll too.......... , Nevertheless the parents created you...Please pay more attention....

atreides wrote:

An overall interpretation of your post, hints that you are not yourself clear if “choice” exist or not, but your conception tends to disregard the “ability to choose”, or “will”, which you refer to as “choice”, leading to the confusion.

We are all subject to conditioning as we develop through life, be it by peer pressure, religious and social values or the various types of education.

I have long attempted to see past this conditioning to better understand the way we work. Having no schooling on the subject matter it is easy to use terms which might not be "acceptable" to the academic or academia in general and may in fact confuse the issue in their use.

Similarly when expressing my beleifs on the subject, it is not uncommon to revert to the standard language I am comfortable with, which (again through conditioning) may contain references which appear to betray my argument on the subject. This is particulalry relevant in discussing subjects such as "choice".

This is much the same way that saying "Jeez" or "God" in response to something startling does not suggest a beleif in either, its a conditioned response.

I think the issue is further complicated by the context of the word choice.

"There are several choices available" is a phrase I hear in regular use where in fact the meaning is "there are several options available". This might seem like nit-picking at semantics, but further discussion could only deteriorate unless we have a clear understanding of the terms in use.

Quote:

You argue that choice could not exist without the “ability to choose”. I don’t suppose as you do, I argued the reason; I could not find any reason for your argument from your post.

Point in case.

"The ability to choose" here refers to "free will" and in this you are correct, my assertion is that without free will there is no choice, the outcome is predetermined in some way.

So perhaps a better phrase woud be "Free will is an illusion", choice is just a casualty of the war.

As to my argument of why "free will is an illusion", this is the majority of my previous posts. Because much of our behaviour is conditioned from birth.

Quote:

Quote: If the outcome is predetermined, it is no longer a matter of choice, the other possible paths are alternatives which wil not be realised. My philosophy on your argument could not be better expressed than: "The path cannot be left, even for a minute. If it could be left, it would not be the path.", nevertheless it does not deny the existence of other paths.

OK, I'm not sure if you're agreeing here or simply showing you understand the point I made. Either way, yes your philosophy is in agreement with the statement.

Quote:

Quote: So to deny the existance of choice is to deny the existance of intelligence? Yes, I thought it was obvious from the above statement, would you please explain your reason for asking an affirmation? Intelligence could not exist without “choice”, nevertheless it could exist without the “ability to choose”. Without “choice”, “intelligence” would be rendered to “instinct”.

Because I cannot see the reasoning behind this and wanted to establish in the simplest terms this is what was being said.

Taking this a step further, does the limitation of choice lead to the limitation of intelligence?

Should a person be totally paralysed, the choices (Sorry "Options") available to them would be reduced. "shall I just Lay here, or..."

At what point does such a person cease to be intelligent.

The notion is difficult to express without sounding sarcastic or fesetious (sorry, spelling is not a strong poiint either) but that was not the intent.

Quote:

...Exactly, but “intelligence” would not exist without “choice”,

This is the part I'm having difficulty with

[quote]

Quote:

Quote: Psychologist today beleive that if they have a complete picture of a persons history, they can accurately predict their behaviour. Behaviour toward what?

Anything you like. Specifically the quote was related to the study of crime, but also encompasses what are regarded as "Social" problems.

Quote:

Only, if all the “extrinsic factors” are accounted for, hence psychologists could not predict the choices one makes or his behavior –which is much facilitated trough the concept of instinct-** toward “unknown” only based upon one’s experiences.

Exactly, which is why it is a beleif (that the psychologists have) rather than a proven fact.

Quote:

On the other hand, there could exist an A.I., which knows every single “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” factor incorporated in its creation and the result of their interaction with each other, the matrix as the extrinsic factor and its occupants as intrinsic factor, therefore there is no need for prediction –this very term results from our comprehension of time- , the A.I. knows everything about its creation regardless of beginning or end.

Similarly a system such as the Matrix which acts as an interface for all (virtual) "extrinsic" factors of its occupants could conceivably analise data from any one subject and know the outcome of any future event within its (virtual) environment.

That only leaves "intrinsic" factors which could be calculated based on "extrinsic" influences and genetic history.

In simple (Matrix) terms, the Architect could figure out what's in Neos head based on what was in there to start with and what's gone in there since.

Quote:

It seems that the Architect does not do so. Since he is the creator of Matrix*** or something that its knowledge circumscribes Matrix, we could safely presume he is not the Creator of its occupants, or the allegedly Humans.

The screens in his room seem to suggest that not anly does he have such information at hand (various scenes of Neo's life) but is actively exploiting that information (the screens showing mutliple possdible reactions of Neo).

Quote:

I)”Purpose” precedes “choice”...

Here we must disagree, I feel that Purpose negates choice. If my purpose of the day is to buy an apple, that negates the need to choose between an apple and an Orange for example.

Quote:

The Architect could easily override "purpose".

Perhaps in entities within his control.

Quote:

If he acted as you would say, how did you deduct the fact that "something is driving him mad", you certaily have noticed the wrinkling around the eyes, the jaw pulsating......

A figure of speech.

(I can't find a way of stating my response without using emotive diction)

The Architect was (Frustrated/Dissapointed/Concerned etc.) at Neos choice (SIC)

He understood it and even explained it, but it is not the outcome he would have (liked/wanted/predicted etc.)

@Atreides

(Off topic, but worth a mention I though, while I've got your attention)

From Iran eh?

Have you ever considered the possibility that you could be at the location of the Matrix?

Extended from the Idea that "01" was created in the cradle of humanity, which is just next door.

I would like to state that I took much delight in discussing the above issue with you. I could only hope the same applies to you.

marl64 wrote:

Have you ever considered the possibility that you could be at the location of the Matrix?

Aiiiiiii*….From Iran…..Tehran…..

You are referring to “The Second Renaissance Part One”, where the camera zooms in the world map to “Mesopotamia”, in “Iraq” the allegedly “Cradle of Human Civilization”** – not of humanity-, just “next door”…….maybe in the old Persian kingdom when it would take me years to reach there from my location…….

Nevertheless the concept of machines settling down in “Mesopotamia” was a sweet surprise……

I)The Architects bless Ali G….
II) with permission from Zion Archive – Historical file 12-1

atreides wrote:

I would like to state that I took much delight in discussing the above issue with you. I could only hope the same applies to you.

Absolutely, it's nice to exchange views with with someone who can make their point without resorting to insults and denial (no names)

atreides wrote:

You are referring to “The Second Renaissance Part One”, where the camera zooms in the world map to “Mesopotamia”, in “Iraq” the allegedly “Cradle of Human Civilization”** – not of humanity-, just “next door”…….maybe in the old Persian kingdom when it would take me years to reach there from my location…….

Yes, sorry my mistake, I was quoting from memory - so it's clear I need to watch Animatrix again.

Are you originally from there? Your English is Excellent.

Sorry, I havent responded to this thread in a while because for some reason it didn't show up as being replied to. Oh well. Anyways, here's my take on the whole "Choice" thing.

It seems to me that science today is entirely based on cause and effect. So, in essence, human behavior could technically be predetermined if the exact interactions between molecules effecting the person were taken into account. But can we really know that an effect occurs because of a specific cause? If ball A rolls into ball B, and ball A stops and ball B keeps rolling, can we really know that ball A caused all B to rollor could there be a separate cause? It seems to me, the more we discover about atoms and their interactions, the more we discover we cannot discover. For instance, Heisenberg's principle states that the exact position and velocity of an electron cannot be determined at the same time. Therefore, assuming that by looking at the interactions of atomic particles we could determine causality, we would never truly be able to measure the cause anyway.
What do I mean by all this? Well... according to modern science's outlook, which is totally based on cause and effect, every effect can be traced back to its cause. That cause can be traced to its previous cause, and so on, until we come to the conclusion that there must be an initial all-encompassing cause. Could not this causer (if I may personify this concept - see note), who caused all things to occur, have created something outside the laws of cause and effect to show his power to those locked inside a world governed by this cause-effect relationship? Could he not have given us a choice which defies all causality and upon which causality is determined?

note: I think that a personification of the initial causer is necessary to get the reader thinking about the possibility that this initial cause be something greater than a normal everyday cause (e.g. and explosion - which the big bang theory uses).



Sidenote: Personification is often needed for humans to understand that which is not of this realm. e.g.: a conscience which is often depicted as the little voice in your head. God used this method himself when he chose to personify himself in the person of Jesus Christ that we might have an understanding of who He is.