The title of this collection of
essays edited by Glenn Yeffeth, is "Taking the Red Pill, Science,
Philosophy and Religion in The Matrix" and based on the proverbial
question, "What is real?" this is the fundamental theme of the film, The
Matrix.  Some viewers think the theme is about robots inheriting (or taking
over) the earth from humans, or that within "thinking" computers is
an intrinsic evilness, or simply the theme is but a backdrop to some great
kick-butt kung fu. Many sub-themes exist within the main theme but certainly
anyone that falls into the film’s cult following knows that the real point of
the movie is the question that Morpheus put to Neo–Will you take the red pill
and see what the world really offers or take the blue and go back to the womb,
with no memory that there is a choice?

It seems that this philosophical
instantaneous cult classic*
provides the viewer with many more questions, that as a species, we love to ask
ourselves but loathe to answer. This series of essays explore the question and
create new questions. The answers, however, are left to the readers, cult
following, and fans of The Matrix, because maybe, or more to the point probably,
the answers are too complex, too personal, and way to scary to be taken on by
mere mortal consciousness.

The first essay by Mercer
Schuchardt presents the first question, "What is the Matrix?" And
this is quickly followed by a series of new questions, "Is this story
supposed to be an allegory for the messiah and Christianity? What is the nature
of pure love? Pure perception? Are we all trapped in a matrix today, and do we
have technology or does it have us?" Because Mercer cannot answer these
questions he challenges us, the readers, to open our eyes and seek true
reality.

Robin Hanson in "Was Cyher
right? Part one: Why we stay in our matrix" explores the reason we aren’t
free to pick and choose as we think. He believes that our genes make our
choices for us–and that we are slaves to our "mating minds."
Hanson’s question becomes, "Do you really think there is such a thing as
free will?" Think again, we may already be living in the Matrix of our
minds.

In "Was Cyher Right? Part
Two" Lyle Zynda explores the character of reality and why it matters.
Zynda’s explorations lead us to yet other questions, questions first posed by
Descartes. How can we possibly trust our senses, and if we can’t trust our
senses, then how can we ever know what is real? In the end it is only our
consciousness that we can count on and then the question arises, "Does
‘real’ have a meaning independent of what we see and feel?"

Robert Sawyer gives a great history
lesson on SciFi in essay 4, writing on Artificial Intelligence (AI) taking us
from Karel Uapek’s 1920’s play RUR (where the history of the invention of the
word ‘robot’ emerges), through Arthur Clarkes’s "Dial F for
Frankenstein," to Isac Asimov’s 1940 "Robbie" to the
"Terminator" in 1984. It is a fascinating historical account with
facts only the most dedicated SciFi fan (with no life), could possibly know.
Sawyer’s explanation of what was going on with HAL in "2001" is an
answer I have been seeking for decades. Hats off to Robert–or should I say
"Hard-wired hats off to Robot?" (No, I won’t do a spoiler. It’s a
good reason to get you to read his essay and worth the whole price of the book
by itself). In the end, he tells us that "as long as SciFi authors write
about robots and AI nothing can possibly go wrong…go wrong…go wrong…"

"The Reality Paradox in The
Matrix" starts off by quoting definitions from the Encyclopedia of
Science Fiction. We eventually learn, following a virtual reality (VR) lesson
of sorts, that VR "is the use of a direct electronic interface between the
human brain and AI which gives the plugged-in person the illusion of occupying
and interacting with a reality whose apparent locus may extend beyond the AI to
those of the data networks of which it is a part." What fan of The
Matrix wants to read this dull stuff?  The only saving grace in this VR
lesson is the conclusion. The reason the AI of the Matrix uses humans is not
for battery power, but for power power. In other words, the Matrix AI has
become God-like and what is the point of being God if there is no one to wield
power over? Only a SciFi teacher like James Gunn could come up with something
like that.

Dino Felluga explores, in essay 6,
the "Paradigm of Postmodernism or Intellectual Poseur?" Frankly, I
suspect Dino of being not a bio, but a virtual author. His words tried to
simulate meaning but never quit conveyed anything. The second essay on
Postmodernism, by Andrew Gorden, states we are not only living in the postmodern
age but the post human. He doesn’t have a healthy outlook on life much less
SciFi. Gorden complains that the Matrix is built on and has borrowed from
stories before it. But just as good research does not stand alone and is built
upon the foundation of prior good research, I feel that the Matrix’s obvious
foundation on the SciFi before it, makes it a better story, not a borrowed
story.

Peter Lloyd gives us some very
intriguing answers to some of the so-called "Glitches" in the movie
and James Ford demonstrates why the matrix metaphor is a better fit for
Buddhism mythology than Christian. With no mention of "God" in the
Matrix, Paul Fontana set out to prove God does exist there in
"Finding God in the Matrix." Finally Bill Joy, Ray Kurzweil, and Nick
Bostrom explore in their respective essays the probability of a human/machine
merger and the impact on human kind.

OK. All these essays were written by
men. Why? As a woman I wonder why one half the human race was not
considered "expert" enough to ask the questions upon questions upon
questions explored in "Taking the Red Pill." Could it be that we, as
women, not only ask the questions but quite intuitively answer them as well? Or
could it be that what we see might be even scarier than what our paternal and
very male Scifi philosopher, theologian, teacher, scientist sees?

 Most of the guys writing the
essays grasp the fact that ending up as "batteries" for AI is a
dilemma of our own making. Human kind is definitely suffering the consequences
of their own actions. But all the guys here are missing a much more fundamental
truth, getting bogged down in the explaining of "How." After all,
using humans as batteries to fuel the Matrix doesn’t make software sense
(constructing a whole world to placate the restless bodies when using cows and
creating a world of chewing cuds in meadows would create less of a problem) or
electro engineering sense (the energy it takes to feed the bodies makes a
no-win energy outcome). Morpheus was wrong about humans being used as battery
power. The fans know that. How could Morpheus know, we ask ourselves? His
resources were limited by circumstances. Any dedicated fan can easily overcome
that glitch.

So the expert male essayists try to
solve the puzzle, a guy thing to be sure. In this collection of essays,
they came up with:

1. The AI keeps us there because
they are god-like and have to have something to be god-like with.

2. Humans are not in the Matrix
for battery power but brain power (AI using our ‘excess’ brain power to run
cold fusion that really keeps them fueled)

3. AI can never have TRUE
consciousness and so they keep us alive for the true nature of the
consciousness we offer

4. Humans are not fuel for AI as a
power-source but as an experience source.

These explanations are all
fascinating but leaves out a fundamentally obvious truth. We are living in the
matrix not usurped by evil or indifferent AIs. We live there because we want
to. Yes, this is a dilemma of our own making but not because of AI lust for
power, or dominance, or survival. It wasn’t something forced on us hapless
humans. The obviousness is astounding: It happened because we wanted it to
happen. It happened by design. The future of 2199 is so unbearable (I’ll
let the guys answer the ‘Why’ on that one), we could not stand it. Human
intelligence created AI to return us to 1999 where we can live perpetually in
pre 2000 bliss until some preordained change takes place on planet earth! AI is
our steward, not our enemy.

And thus concludes the essays by
the guys and the conclusion by the gal reviewer. In the end, each essay
generates a new question on the nature of our reality. Man or woman can not
answer, only ponder and give opinions. The very nature of our pondering and
opining are suspect as well. Questioning the Matrix (a metaphor for our
reality) is an advanced intellectual parlor game that in the end only homo
sapien can play. We are desperate to create an opposing player in AI. Once we
do, homo sapien becomes homo-deity and we have won.

 

© 2005 Shelly Marshall

 

Shelly Marshall, B.S., CSAC is
an Adolescent Chemical Dependency Specialist and Researcher. You can visit her
sites at www.day-by-day.org and www.YouAreATarget.com

Categories: Philosophical