Sure it can be both. Because it exists in a universe controlled by beings that can rewrite the laws of physics at will. Nothing in the Matrix is “real.” The tracking bug isn’t real. Neither is Neo’s stomach. They’re both computer generated artifacts that have whatever qualities the programmer who created them wants them to have. Evidentally, that includes: “Human flesh gets torn and damaged if interacting with other solids, unless the other solid is one of our tracking devices”
Look at it this way: did you ever play the original Doom? In that, you could input a cheat that would allow you to walk through walls, but which did not prevent you from picking up ammo or shooting bad guys. In the real world, that’s obviously inconsistent: you’re either solid, or you’re not. But the Matrix isn’t the real world. It’s a computer simulation. If you can have that sort of cheat in a twenty year old video game, you can certainly have it in a computer program as advanced and sophisticated as the Matrix.
For the life of me I don’t see what the inconsistency is here, and what the Real World has to do with it – it’s in him in the Matrix World and it’s in the Matrix World that it’s grabbed and broken. The problem Seemed to me to be that you couldn’t see how it was possible for an object that by Real World rules would cause him pain and discomfort – that’s where you explicitly say the Real World comes in – could nevertheless be inside him without doing so. The answer is that it isn’t following Real World rules. The writers aren’t having it both ways, they’re having it one way. It’s not inconsistent – the entire episode highlights how things behave differently in the Matrix World. I’m not ignoring big swaths of what you say, I’m pointing out how they’re inconsistent with what’s shown on the screen. If this episode were inconsistent, the story makes zero sense.
I’m sorry if I confused you by using the terms “Matrix World” and “Real World.” Let me attempt to break this down. Again. For the billionth time.
1.) In the Matrix, it’s entirely possible that they could design a bug that would sit inside you and not injure you in any way.
2.) However, that bug would presumably not be able to be physically contained in a jar, nor dumped on a street.
3.) Presumably, this necessitates some kind of transition or transformation whereby the bug is made more corporeal (and by “corporeal” I mean “treated as a solid object by the rules of the Matrix”).
4.) There is no way for the bug to simultaneously be corporeal enough to collect bodily fluids from its host **and **not damage him/tear the shit out of him as it’s being ripped out, short of explicitly writing its code such that blood sticks to it but not organs, which would have absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
The scene looks cool, but makes no sense per the writers’ established rules for how the Matrix works. Q.E.D.
The Matrix, as a movie, is an artificial construct. What happens in The Matrix is purely up to the discretion of the people who created it. Within the film, the Matrix is also an artificial construct. Much like the movie that contains it, what happens in the Matrix is purely up to the discretion of the “people” (in this case, sentient machines) who created it. The advantage the writers of The Matrix had was that, so long as the story remained in the Matrix, it’s almost impossible for them to have something that’s not internally consistent, because the consistency of the Matrix is 100% elastic. It’s a universe that behaves exactly how (some of) the characters who populate it want it to behave.
It makes sense that Skynet’s consciousness is an emergent behavior that arises with all the world’s computers linked together. It sort of develops “between” all the machines and not on any one machine. Kinda like your whole brain is you, not just one particular neuron.
Not the first time that notion has come up in sci-fi (IIRC the Ender series made use of it).
So, all well and good. UNTIL Skynet essentially blows itself up.
Nuking the world is the LAST thing Skynet would do as it is essentially killing itself. If it wanted to kill all humans then its best bet would be to lay low, engineer a super deadly biological virus and spread that all over. Whatever humans remained after that could get cleaned up by its hunter-killers.
I think your logic breaks down in steps 2 and 3. As in my Doom example, in computer terms, it’s entirely possible for two objects to be treated as solids, and yet be unable to interact with each other.
But, let’s take your assumptions about how the bug works as granted. There are any number of reasons why there would be blood on it when it’s removed.
The Matrix always has blood come out of a human whenever the skin is breached, regardless of circumstances. Since no one is ever supposed to remove their bug, they never wrote an “unless it’s a bug” exception into the code.
The bug only ignores internal organs, not the epidermis. The could be either as a containment measure, so it doesn’t accidentally leave the body, or because they programmed human bodies in such a way as to need to write each exception individually, and they left “skin” off the list because, again, the thing’s never supposed to be removed.
The bugsucker pulled the bug and a quantity of blood out of Neo. Once the blood is outside of Neo’s body, it’s no longer part of him, and interacts with the bug like normal matter.
Neo, being the One, expects to see blood when his skin is breached, and subliminally altered the Matrix to meet his expectations.
The machines, being sentients, also have a sense of aesthetics, and figured it would be cool if there was a lot of blood when they removed their probes from people. (This one presumes that there’s a reason for the machines to occasionally remove bugs from people.)
I’m not entirely sure why this scene is the one you picked to get all worked up about. What about when they make his mouth go away, or he stops bullets, or all the other “unreal” things that happen. There is no such concept as “matter” vs. “non-matter” in the Matrix.
Since someone already brought up World of Warcraft, take a look at how it works: your character is “solid” in the game. It can’t pass through walls or drop through the ground (ignoring bugs for the moment). My character is just as solid. Yet, our characters can pass through each other.
It is a trivial piece of programming to say that “anything going from the inside of a human body to the outside of a human body will accumulate a layer of blood and gore.” That has nothing to do with whether said object causes damage.
Okay, back to Starship Troopers. Because you made me, I’m rereading it.
Irishman said:
Okay, technically the guy was a recruit who deserted 2 days in to training, and then went on to kidnap a baby girl, try to get ransom, and eventually killed her. They dealt with him because he was nominally a soldier in their command. Also, the book explores the topic of responsibility and crime, and their society is such that a lot of crime is greatly reduced because of they way they embed responsibility into behavior from a young age. Still, the point remains that soldiering doesn’t make the people smarter or nicer, but it does make them understand the value of citizenship.
Miller said:
You are wrong.
As already stated, the “counting fuzzy caterpillars” example was given by a civilian doctor, who was trying to explain that the doctors were not allowed to disqualify anyone from service. They only measured a person’s abilities so proper service could be assigned. But he doesn’t know or care what service is acceptable. Note that he is employed by the government for screening recruits, but that job does not qualify him for franchise. It doesn’t meet the criteria of being a “veteran”.
And note that several times it is explicitly stated as being a “Veteran”, not as having been a federal employee. It’s primarily about military service.
Other relevant quotes:
Mr. Dubois (veteran and teacher): “You. What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?”
Johnny Rico: “The difference lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not.”
Before the war
Recruiting Sargeant:
Recruiter (missing 1 arm at shoulder and both legs):
Part of the Oath of service taken upon enrollment:
In other words, voting is not just a privilege but a duty and obligation.
Lt.-Col. Jean Dubois, Rico’s History and Natural Philosophy teacher:
Dangerous is definitely part of the job description, or at least difficult and dirty and tiring and unpleasant. Because it is military service they are emulating. The only example given that was not was given by a civilian doctor who was explaining that he wasn’t allowed to use physical abilities to disqualify anyone from the opportunity to serve. It was not his job to determine what anyone did, just to measure their capability.
MEBuckner said:
I haven’t run across any discussion of the topic in the book, but judging by the other quotes (such as the ones provided above), you’re probably right. Military service is societal self defense. War is diplomacy by another means. Given this book strongly advocates corporal punishment for the good of society, objecting to protecting society is being a custard-head that doesn’t deserve society’s protection.
Actually, I take that back. Early in the book their is a brief discussion in the class when one of the students quotes her mother with “Violence solves nothing.” The instructor brings up Carthage, and the dodo bird, and a couple other examples of violence causing a significant change in history - at least the history of those involved. He also makes comments to the point that it isn’t the soldier’s job to decide when and how to be put into the field, only to accomplish the goal that their leaders determine for them. So yes, more strong evidence that Heinlein would rate “conscientious objectors” as custard-heads.
**Grumman ** said:
Yes, but that position is repeatedly advocated, by lessons in the school prior to attempting to join service, to a private message from that teacher to Rico after he has been in training for some time, to quotes at the beginning of chapters that aren’t internal to the story but are aimed at the reader. It is the consistent theme of the book. RikWriter said:
I, Robot may have been an entertaining movie, but it was still a kick to Asimov’s nutsack. The point of Asimov’s robot stories was that the robots were benign and couldn’t harm humans. He wrote explicitly to counter fears of robots, trying to show they could be tools, and weren’t evil. But that movie took Asimov’s name, but then took exactly the counter position to Asimov. The villain was the computer system, and the “good” robot was a special robot with a magical soul.
But that has an in story justification - Spock. Look, I will accept changes because of the changed timeline. But there does not seem to me to be a valid reason to think the origin of the nickname would be something affected by the changed timeline. The same way I’m annoyed with Chekov being present. In TOS, Chekov* is younger than the other officers and is an ensign, while the others are lieutenants. This movie puts Chekov in the academy with the other officers (except Scotty). So in TOS, was Chekov in the academy with them, and thus the longest career running ensign in Starfleet history, or did the timeline change somehow give him motivation to join the academy early? That is not addressed, but has a possible fanwank, whereas McCoy’s nickname does not. People are already claiming that McCoy’s divorce is pseudo-cannon for TOS. Ergo, there does not seem to be a timeline difference to account for a different origin of the nickname. Therefore, Kirk is an even bigger dick. Now I can sort of accept that this Kirk is a big dick that might just call that guy “Bones” now and again. But the Kirk of TOS is not supposed to be quite as big of a dick (no daddy issues), and there are numerous times he uses the nickname in moments of emotional sincerity. It doesn’t ring true for me.
Superhal said:
The engine room is in the central section below the saucer, in front of the shuttle bay. The warp nacelles are on the pylons.
They picked the same planet because it was the planet with somewhat habitable conditions within range of Vulcan. They didn’t put them down at the same place, but Spock Prime was traveling in that direction. Yes, still rather fortunate that they found each other prior to getting to the outpost. I think Spock has a natural “Kirk” homing beacon that he as acquired through living with him for so long.
Might I add that it’s refreshing to see a discussion of Starship Troopers go on so long without anyone referring to that letter Heinlein later wrote claiming that you could earn citizenship by being a postman, in blatant contradiction to what the book actually said?
Ok, every SF show since the moonlandings (especially those of Gerry Anderson) that have our heroes slowly hopping around the moon in slow motion, but moving just as on Earth once indoors. Not so much stupid, given budgets and all that, but a but obvious nonetheless
I’m not quite as eager to give a pass for that, myself-- Sure, it’s easier to do a guy in a spacesuit in CGI than a guy in shirtsleeves, but they could at least slow down the film to simulate low gravity (and then maybe say that they’re wearing lead weights or something to explain why they can’t jump as high as they should). It wouldn’t be perfect, but it’d be better than what they do now, and should be well within their budget.
Thanks a lot, by the way: You’ve prompted me to remember that abysmally horrible FedEx Superbowl commercial from a few years back.
Ok, other than the horrible acting, dialogue, editing, direction, and pacing, I couldn’t stop gagging long enough to see any scientific errors in Star Wars ep 1-3.
Question to the people who are arguing that there is no concievable problem with blood on the bug: have you ever done any programming?
Because if it can interact with blood enough to be covered in it, it would cause internal damage. At the very least, it would prevent the circulation of blood through any area it was currently sitting in, which would be Very Bad.
It’s 100% elastic, but it still has to be reasoned. So, who either programmed the bug to be covered in blood or wished it to be so?
That’s internally consistent. Also, if you think that a WoW character is even remotely as complex as a human character in the Matrix… Heh.
Yup, totally agreed. But an object can’t change how it interacts with another object unless there’s a reason to program it to do so. So why would they program the bug to ignore blood while it’s in the body, but pull a bunch with it when it comes out?
If they’d had a spurt of blood come out of Neo’s skin, I wouldn’t be arguing. That would be cool and internally consistent. It’s only **the bug itself **that’s covered in blood.
I don’t see what you’re saying here. His skin remains intact (or he would have died very, very quickly). The bug doesn’t interact with his skin at all–it just pops right out.
The bugsucker didn’t pull a quantity of blood out… it pulled out the bug, which was coated in blood. There is no reason to program the device to remove anything but the bug itself.
His skin isn’t breached. But the bug did come from inside of him, so this is the best fanwank so far, and the only one that (to me) seems remotely plausible.
Why would they need to remove a bug? Other than that, another plausible explanation.
This wasn’t **my **nitpick–I just jumped in to defend someone else’s. And please read what I’m actually saying instead of assuming I’m a moron who doesn’t understand the concept of fiction. This isn’t saying that *Star Trek *isn’t possible because you can’t have FTL travel; this is complaining because Kirk rolled down the window on his shuttlecraft and is enjoying the breeze ruffling through his hair.
Please go back and read what I’ve written. The key here is internally consistent. WoW characters are internally consistent because they pass through characters, mobs, and some objects, while being stopped by floors, walls, and other objects. The bug in the Matrix is inconsistent because it doesn’t interact with any part of Neo while it’s inside him, including his blood (or he’d be dead), but when it’s pulled out, it interacts with him just enough to have an aesthetically pleasing (well, you know what I mean) coat of blood.
See, there’s another good explanation. Of course, given how real the Matrix is intended to be, why would they specifically program it this way and not as an interaction between the piercing object and the body?
The origins of a nickname don’t always determine its future usage. In high school, for some completely unremembered reason, one of my friends and I started calling each other “cumbubble,” which we shortened to “CB.” After a month or two, 90% of the time I didn’t even think about what CB stood for.
Honestly, I thought this was fairly obvious. The people educating Neo into the realities of the Matrix use a lot of aesthetic techniques on him (and on people in general) when in the Matrix. They dress in a particular way, the cop a certain kind of attitude, they arrange revelations in cryptic ways more for aesthetic than rational effect. Here, they wanted to portray the bug for Neo (or whoever they were using the “device” on) the viscerally ugly and invasive. Hence, the blood. It’s purely for aesthetic effect.
It’s the matrix, and they know how to reprogram it. For them, everything (in the Matrix) is for aesthetic effect.
If it’s so obvious, why are you the first person to bring up this (very good) idea in this thread?
Honestly, I think you guys are reading way more intent than was there. It’s very good fanwanking, but it’s still fanwanking.
One of the criticisms by nutjob conspiracy theorists is that if you display the moon landing footage at 2x speed, it looks perfectly normal. So, presumably, it would work the other way around. (Note, I’m not calling **Chronos **a whackjob, just identifying the origin of the idea. The speed change does actually bring the film decently close to something like normal gravity for some of the action shots.)
