Philosophy and the Matrix - Kant

[SirJamestheIII]

ludwig von mises action axiom. look it up

[lastruebeliever]

Kant's remark that we cannot know anything beyond the bounds of experience was precisely to prevent this kind of bollocks.

[chevalier577]

The computer generated world is coming soon. it is our destiny. the matrix shall be the eye of everyones mind. the one eye.

[Bredli37]

@chevalier577 Nice try of trying to be wise, but no.

[chevalier577]

@Bredli37 that is not wisdom but a prophesy read if you can undersatand. a prophet can only be true if their prophecy comes to pass. watch and see.

[lanceawatt]

Hmmm can't change the sky from blue to pink, but I can change somebody's face from pink to blue if I punch them with enough enthusiasm.. so does that mean I control that persons reality? (Sorry bad joke using ambiguous terms.)

[Coteincdr]

kant is bs!!!

[Xyrgra]

"Polyverse" is a completely different concept, it does not mean multiple universes. It means that what we regard as a universe is not self-sustaining and actually interacts and relies upon adjacent universes to function...therefore, it is more like one fraction of a polyverse rather than it's own individual entity and structure - an analogy to this in contrast to the "unique" person would be like siamese twins.

[iakodu]

dear lord, the commentators act as if they're Aristotle or someone of great knowledge and wisdom, haha!

[kurdtkobain674]

We are the cause our reality is the effect

[plato1socrates]

To the physical senses it is true that the sun moves around the earth. To the intellect it is true the earth moves around the sun. The TRUE state of things is that there is a change in the relation of sun-consciousness and earth-consciousness. The mind in it's innate limitations experiences True reality through a screen which alters the true form of reality. What needs to be done to correct this error is to transcend the individual consciousness and individualise the transcendent consciousness.

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

Plato was a KANT!

[sparkyinbath]

Kant was a twat.

[DreadfulMusic]

@jimjim28 I'm sorry, but you as all of us are underqualified to make a few word statement about what we're 'merely' here for.

[DreadfulMusic]

@jimjim28 and where is that?

[DreadfulMusic]

@jimjim28  In your mind

[luckynumber58]

@jimjim28 cyberspace

[luckynumber58]

hopefully we are all insane....otherwise we'd have no reason to live.

[luckynumber58]

@jimjim28

we are here

[DreadfulMusic]

@jimjim28 I'm in my bedroom where r u?

[NewYork17]

If only people saw the Matrix for what it truly is. A work of genius. A work of art. Not just a cool action movie that no one understands. There's not a lot of movies today that can top the Matrix in my book on a deep level. Ultimately, Matrix = Best movie trilogy ever created, for the same reason your watching this video. Tell everyone you know to watch the Philosophy of the Matrix. I swear it will open their eyes.

If your into simple movies the Matrix isn't for you.

[LeoAdd0]

1:31

"I can't change it from blue to pink. There's something out there, which is generating these sense perceptions, these phenomena and giving it to us."

Would I be wrong for disagreeing with this? We as a species may see light and darkness one way, but consider a nocturnal animal with a different set of eyes. Members of both species perceive said objects emitting the same properties in two entirely subjective ways. Yes / no?

[Rabbitthat]

@LeoAdd0 I think Kant talks about this.. but i can't remember what he says... you're gonna have to find it. Most of his stuff is out of copyright and available online.. but i'm trying to find pop-culture stuff to explain it to me first so that it's not so fricking daunting.

I think the fact that our world is subjective is very central to what he says, he says that there is some other reality we are not capable of seeing because of our senses, and who knows if the owl is closer or we are

[Rabbitthat]

@LeoAdd0 I think that both we and the owl are wrong, and his point is that not only are we wrong in the obvious way, in the way our brain reads light as sight, not only is that different to what i guess you call "reality" but also every other sense we have and maybe even reason and thought... all we are capable of seeing are things distorted by our own perception... but i dunno i only started trying to learn this, i'd love if someone could correct me.

[latkeeeeeeee]

sdsdsdsd.

[vargulf19]

it's pronounced kunt...it's german

[TheHomelessCripple]

I wonder what Helen Keller's take on philosophy would have been

[ising2love]

pro·pri·o·cep·tion...: the reception of stimuli produced within the organism next year ;-)

[VoiceOfReasonQQ]

this is next year ;-)

my comment 9 mos ago isn't very clear...apologies

level 3...welcome

the connection between the two philosophies is "prudence"

[ZenWolf777]

Just because you can't consciously change the color of the sky doesn't mean that you're not creating the color of the sky. When we dream, we're not aware that we're dreaming, and we have no conscious control over the dream, but it is our own mind that is creating everything in the dream, even the monster that's chasing us is of our own creation.

[christophcooneyoff]

Basically guys, Kant developed a theory called Conceptual schema's. This theory is that our senses bombard the mind with raw sense data, and the mind, rather than being a passive absorber of this data, actually analyses it, categorises it. The real aim of this theory was too unite the two warring schools of epistemology, and of course,defeat the ever annoying sceptics.

[archdeaconj]

Kant held that all phenomena, everything that we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, even space and time, are constructs of mind or consciousness.

[VoiceOfReasonQQ]

unless you are introduced to a setting where there are two...and objective & subjective reality...

one inflexible and the other...quite

;-)

[VoiceOfReasonQQ]

the magic is between two things...example of the two in reality related to physics is likened to forces and there action on earth vs forces and the same force & action in space...

get it?

they both follow rules...howver applied much differently...i would say more...but you guys are quite ready for level 3...next year

;-)

[cerda579]

do you know where i can get the full documentary for this video. I used it for philosophy class. i thought it was interesting

[yamaha893]

bleh....wilber!

[soccom8341576]

I think it is mostly true, but at a much deeper level of the unseen, I think there is something we can call reality. If we make it more abstract, I think we can find what we can call reality.

All this is not to discredit the idea that the mind's structures result in us interpreting the world differently.

[Xyrgra]

There is always an absolute reality, however it's also reasonable to conclude we will never see that true reality. No matter what technology we create or how we evolve, our efficiency at viewing the true reality will never be more than a perception, even albeit a sharp one.

This is because lifeforms will always interpret reality depending upon how they are structured mentally and physically, which is governed by what they need to survive and thus evolution controls the perception of reality.

[FreeeeS]

@Xyrgra FUCKING WELL SAID!!!

[alliant]

@Xyrgra

have you ever considered death as possibly being the 'seeing' of true reality?

[Xyrgra]

@alliant Haha, I've thought about death being any number of things all as impossible to discern as each other! All I know is death is scary :(

[soccom8341576]

@alliant

True reality?

That's interesting because in the matrix, dead people are unplugged and disposed of.

But how would that be seeing?

[TreeLuvBurdpu]

@Xyrgra When I hit a billiard ball into another billiard ball the second ball responds according to "how it is structured", as a billiard ball. Does that mean it is not responding to reality "as it is"?

We see the depths of the Milky Way, seeing farther and deeper than any other species we have ever met, in the same way that we live in more environments than any other species we have ever discovered.

How is it that perceiving reality according to our nature means not perceiving reality?

[Xyrgra]

@TreeLuvBurdpu How you see the billiard ball react is based upon how light interacts with the billard balls. As an example, imagine a different universe where light acted differently: you hit one billiard ball into another in exactly the same way you did in our Universe but it looks completely different. Your perception would tell you that the reaction was different when in reality it was the same.

The gap between perception and absolute reality is the effectiveness of sense.

[TreeLuvBurdpu]

@Xyrgra said, "Your perception would tell you that the reaction was different when in reality it was the same."

When you say, "when in reality it was the same.", you mean it was the same, in another universe, where light acts differently?

People who talk about polyverse of omniverse theory as if it was a universe obviously don't understand the word "universe". The clue to it's meaning lies in the first three letters, "uni", meaning one. There is only one universe, or it's not a universe.

[Xyrgra]

@TreeLuvBurdpu A bit presumptious, you assume that for light to behave differently it must be in another universe. My point was an analogy for a real-life example would be the effect of light dilation; the point is simple: what you perceive as reality is entirely based upon what you're told by other phenomenom. In other words, your experiences are always second source and just like in statistics are often only an accurate estimation.

[Xyrgra]

@TreeLuvBurdpu In addition, your statement about the meaning of the word "universe" is incorrect. It's entirely possible to say "there to be multiple universes" and be correct, not that I once said "universe" in my original post. The meaning of the word is a self-sustaining, self-contained, singular and/or individual verse not that there is only one, like a person can be "unique" even though they are one of 6 billion people on the planet simply because they are unlike any other person.

[Freethinkin14]

@Xyrgra i agree and too much of this thinking can make u a schizoid! hahaha

[sujumayas]

@Xyrgra True reality is the reality of phenomenom. Because Truth is a logical form deduced of the binary world we have perception of. There's maybe something as a background for truth reality, but we can't see it without the structure of our mind, that is logical, that is a priori, as Kant says, and that menas, we are the origins of that reality.

[rbl777]

@Xyrgra we have to let go of the ego to be in the ultimate reality

[divineoblivion1]

@Xyrgra very well said

[Bramboterhamm]

@Xyrgra I think it is not only evolution which provides this perceptional bias, it is also that the things one sees are immediately interpreted as being something; meaning is immediately attached to perception.

[problyout]

@Xyrgra fractals will allow us to see as much as possible

[muzokskittles]

if you do alot of acid, metaphysics makes so much more sense.

[pablo11122235]

too simplistic. confuses Berkeley and Kant...

[6gording6]

Simplicity results in complexity.One string after another

[domenriono]

or, to coin the phrase, simplicity in design. complexity in reality.

of course if you throw in the fact that reality is nothing more than a set of rules our mind sets to discern what it sees and what it believes. then you get a whole new damn problem. reality is our minds filter for the insane. so how do we know when it filters out the truth?

[domenriono]

thank you.

[Xyrgra]

It needn't filter the truth, just put a spin on it. As an example, if an object is red, and another is green, then the interactions those objects have with light are different. We can't say how they are different, beyond perception, but we know there is a difference.

Also "insanity" is a hugely subjective term.

The set of rules for reality are essentially the mathematical rules of physics (albeit incomplete).

[patrickledford420]

@Xyrgra no, the different colors dont interact with the outer world diffrently but our brain sees them different

[Xyrgra]

@patrickledford420 How would our brains see them differently if they didn't interact with outer world differently? Our brain just randomly applies colours to objects for no reason? Our brain sees them differently because the way light interacts with different coloured objects changes and our eyes interpret those differences leading our brain to relay those differences as colour.

All colours are in light rays but when they hit objects only certain segments of the ray are reflected, hence colour.

[patrickledford420]

@Xyrgra the different colors absorb differently but the reason the different wave lengths are different colors is because out brain is wired to see each wave length as a color, some animals see UV and some see infrared light because their eyes detect them and their brain gives them a color. amagine what color UV or infrared might be if we could see it.

[Xyrgra]

@patrickledford420 Yes, I know, but the point is that our brains are interpreting a difference in the way light behaves, therefore there -is- a REAL difference between a red object and a yellow object. That difference can be perceived in an infinitely different number of ways but the point is there is still an absolute and real difference.