Matrix morality

[EduChris]

I just got around to watching the move, The Matrix. In this movie, intelligent machines have taken over the world, and are "farming humans" as a source of renewable energy. The humans have subjective mental thought lives which seem to be just like our own; the humans do not appear to be suffering any more than we do, but objectively they are constrained within vats, connected with tubes and wires, and have no actual contact with each other or with the "real" world outside their vats. They are, in actuality, enslaved, but subjectively they do not know this.

Question: on what basis can the situation in which these humans find themselves be considered "evil" or "wrong"?

[sleepyhead]

Hello eduChris,

I'll be responding from the perspective of my understanding of reincarnation. God, or the angels that are in control of the earth are the ones who are assigned to ensure that we obtain the lessons we came here to learn. If the experiences are being provided by machines, then the machines wouldn't know what experiences we need.

[Furrowed Brow]

One of the characters chooses to re-enter the matrix because the life on offer is subjectively better than the alternative of being out of the vat: in the Matrix food has more taste than out. He wanted back in because he wanted to eat steak.

The moral problem is what would folk choose if they could see themselves in the vat and knew they were a battery. They are robbed of this choice and exist at the whim of the machines. Individually they are no more valuable than farm animals and are literally washed down the drain when they are used up.

Great movie by the way .

[EduChris]

...I'll be responding from the perspective of my understanding of reincarnation. God, or the angels that are in control of the earth are the ones who are assigned to ensure that we obtain the lessons we came here to learn. If the experiences are being provided by machines, then the machines wouldn't know what experiences we need.

Okay, so your response is that it would contradict God's best intentions for our lives. I agree with you on this point, but I cannot see how reincarnation has anything to do with it. Whether we have one life or many, the point remains that God's best intentions are being subverted by the actions of the intelligent machines.

[EduChris]

One of the characters chooses to re-enter the matrix because the life on offer is subjectively better than the alternative of being out of the vat: in the Matrix food has more taste than out. He wanted back in because he wanted to eat steak...

He wanted to imagine he was eating steak, and ultimately he didn't want to have any memory that it wasn't real, or that he was actually in a vat. He chose to re-enter the illusion, with all memories of reality erased.

...The moral problem is what would folk choose if they could see themselves in the vat and knew they were a battery...

How is that choice any more significant than the choice to wear blue underwear, or red?

They are robbed of this choice and exist at the whim of the machines. Individually they are no more valuable than farm animals and are literally washed down the drain when they are used up...

Right. So what's wrong with this? No one is really getting hurt, are they?

...Great movie by the way.

Yes.

[Furrowed Brow]

He wanted to imagine he was eating steak, and ultimately he didn't want to have any memory that it wasn't real, or that he was actually in a vat. He chose to re-enter the illusion, with all memories of reality erased.

Yes. Thank you. I have not watched the movie for a few years. Some of the details escaped me.

How is that choice any more significant than the choice to wear blue underwear, or red?

The difference is its significance to the life lived.

Right. So what's wrong with this? No one is really getting hurt, are they?

Their real bodies are invaded with tubes and implants without their permission so they are physically violated. They have no control over their real body so there physical freedom is denied. They are not allowed to know their real condition so their knowledge and self knowledge is is controlled by the power hegemony. Their choices are limited and thus their freedoms are harmed. They are not being granted many of the basic rights and freedom that independently minded humans value.

[EduChris]

How is that choice any more significant than the choice to wear blue underwear, or red?

The difference is its significance to the life lived.

Why not simply say, "What we don't know won't hurt us"? Why should the machines care about us? They just need to keep the human equipment functioning at maximum output, and so they give us whatever illusions further those ends. As it turns out, the best illusions (apparently) give the humans pretty much what they have anyway now, in our present-day "real" world.

Right. So what's wrong with this? No one is really getting hurt, are they?

Their real bodies are invaded with tubes and implants without their permission so they are physically violated. They have no control over their real body so there physical freedom is denied. They are not allowed to know their real condition so their knowledge and self knowledge is is controlled by the power hegemony. Their choices are limited and thus their freedoms are harmed. They are not being granted many of the basic rights and freedom that independently minded humans value.

Why should the machines care about human rights? They are higher than us on the evolutionary totem pole, and they're not causing any obvious suffering. And besides, if we don't have any free will, how is a subconscious (subjective) experience (with no personal agency) any different from the exact same sort of conscious (objective) experience (again with no personal agency)?

[Furrowed Brow]

Why not simply say, "What we don't know won't hurt us"?

We often don’t know what will hurt us or what isgood for us but for most of us red or blue is not going to significantly harm our life conditions.

Why should the machines care about us? They just need to keep the human equipment functioning at maximum output, and so they give us whatever illusions further those ends.

Some do. I can’t remember if this was in the first movie but the oracle is not human she is an AI programme and part of the Matrix. If the machines value the freedom of sentient beings then they should care. However the controlling machine ethic is forced on the unsuspecting humans.

As it turns out, the best illusions (apparently) give the humans pretty much what they have anyway now, in our present-day world.

But as you say it is an illusion and it is an illusion forced on them.

Their real bodies are invaded with tubes and implants without their permission so they are physically violated. They have no control over their real body so there physical freedom is denied. They are not allowed to know their real condition so their knowledge and self knowledge is is controlled by the power hegemony. Their choices are limited and thus their freedoms are harmed. They are not being granted many of the basic rights and freedom that independently minded humans value.

Why should the machines care about human rights?

Whilst they remain machine-centric then they have no reason. But if they are AI and they respect their own intelligence and ability to feel and think then they have no reason - other than being machine-centric - to treat humans to a different standard.

They are higher than us on the evolutionary totem pole,

Evolution has totem pole or heirarchy? But sure the machines have the advantage.

And besides, if we don't have any free will,

I have never argued in any thread on DC&R that we do not have free will. I have often stated that I believe we do so I don’t feel a pressing need to accept this presumption.

how is a subconscious experience (with no personal agency) any different from the exact same sort of conscious experience (again with no personal agency)?

This amounts to an argument that both are equal. It would be moral if the freedoms granted one are granted the other.

[EduChris]

...I can’t remember if this was in the first movie but the oracle is not human she is an AI programme and part of the Matrix...

I only watched the first movie, so I can't comment on the sequels. The oracle was in the first movie, but it wasn't clear that she was part of the Matrix as opposed to a real human (or maybe I'm just slow to notice any clues).

...If the machines value the freedom of sentient beings then they should care...

Apparently the machines do not value the freedom of sentient beings, and therefore(?) they have no reason to care.

...However the controlling machine ethic is forced on the unsuspecting humans...

Perhaps, but their ethic is benign enough. Our subjective experiences are roughly equivalent either way.

Why should the machines care about human rights?

Whilst they remain machine-centric then they have no reason. But if they are AI and they respect their own intelligence and ability to feel and think then they have no reason - other than being machine-centric - to treat humans to a different standard...

So as long as they are machine-centric, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing?

...Evolution has totem pole or heirarchy?

We humans seem to think so.

...I have never argued in any thread on DC&R that we do not have free will. I have often stated that I believe we do so I don’t feel a pressing need to accept this presumption.

Fair enough. Have you ever argued your point of view against the non-theists here who mock theists who subscribe to the concept of free will? In other words, how non "non-theist centric" is your personal ethic? This is not a rhetorical question or an accusation, I'm simply curious.

how is a subconscious experience (with no personal agency) any different from the exact same sort of conscious experience (again with no personal agency)?

This amounts to an argument that both are equal. It would be moral if the freedoms granted one are granted the other.

Moral according to whose standards? Your own?

[Furrowed Brow]

So as long as they are machine-centric, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing?

Not if you are a human battery. They trample human freedoms.

Put this the other way around. If there was machine AI that was self conscious and humans imprisoned them or fed them false signals to use them as batteries, then the humans would be wrong.

.

..Evolution has totem pole or heirarchy?

We humans seem to think so.

Humans often think they are higher than other creatures but this is not evolutionary theory.

Fair enough. Have you ever argued your point of view against the non-theists here who mock theists who subscribe to the concept of free will? In other words, how non "non-theist centric" is your personal ethic? This is not a rhetorical question or an accusation, I'm simply curious.

Some examples to give you a flavor. A, B, C, D, E, F, G

This amounts to an argument that both are equal. It would be moral if the freedoms granted one are granted the other.

Moral according to whose standards? Your own?

Possibly. I always try to avoid speaking for others. Maybe I should have just used the word �equal� instead of “ moral�.