I posted this on my philosophy module blog. Thought I might as well post it here cos I found it kinda fun to write about =D
Well, since the good professor's post was about the Matrix, I'm going to talk about some of the things that I find interesting about the movie. Now that I'm taking this module and I think back, there are actually a lot of simple philosophical statements littered all over the movie.
For example, there's this scene when Neo has his first meal after 'waking up' from the Matrix. They are serving some goop that looks like oatmeal porridge.
Mouse (the scrawny digital pimp who programmed the Women in Red) makes a passing comment: how would you know that chicken tastes like chicken inside the Matrix?
Being devoid of a sense of taste, the Machines couldn't possibly know what chicken tasted like. For all you know, they could have gotten it wrong and erroneously programmed chicken to taste like marshmallows or something.
Descartes agrees with this notion that “the senses deceive” (pg. 250). There is no way that we can trust our senses when the data we gather from our senses are, as Morpheus puts it, “just electrical impulses sent to your brain”.
My question is this: how do the Machines know what signals to send to your brain? How do you actually digitize taste?
To create the neurological signal of the experience of eating a chicken, do they actually cook a chicken and then plug in wires from a device into the cooked chicken that converts taste into binary?
Decartes suggests that a “study of composite things…are doubtful” (pg.251). Instead of looking at the taste of chicken (hereafter ‘chicken’) as something unique by itself, what if we were to break down the taste into the “simplest and most general of things” – as a combination of a certain percentage of saltiness, sweetness, bitterness and sourness – would we have “something certain and indubitable” (pg. 251) ?
By this argument, certainly all the Machines have to do to get ‘chicken’ is to decide quantitatively how salty, sweet, bitter and sour the chicken tastes, and feed in the correct permutation to your brain. Oh yes. Might I add in texture as well (because I really hate dry chicken that tastes like it’s been on a trip through the Sahara).
The major flaw in this argument is that these basic forms of taste are open to the same interrogation as ‘chicken’. How do the Machines know what ‘salty’ tastes like? Granted, it’s a word that should be “[simple] and …universal” (pg. 251). It is one of those ‘base’ words that we use to build our perception of reality. However, a quick look through some online dictionaries reveals that there is no actual definition for the word! How strange! We have stumbled upon a empirical road block – language is not enough to define our reality.
Yet it is bizarre that even when we do not know what ‘salty’ means, we use the word often in our daily exchanges about food, and the other person seems to know what we’re talking about! Pretty amazing.
It is not a leap of logic that can be explained rationally. So how is it that the Matrix, a computer programme based on the back-and-forth conversion of such experiences into algorithms, be able to define taste for us?
Maybe there is no chicken.