Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ?

In message <zyzTf.62669$Ug4.5532@dukeread12>, JPM III
<jpmccord.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes
>"Claudio Daffra" <daffra.claudio.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1141194426.990527.70550@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> hi all
>>
>> Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ?
>> He is trap in half real world and half matrix world.
>> but 'the man of train' has programmed this place differently from
>> matrix.
>> He 's programmed this place with his 'rules'.
>> so neo can't escape or control ... why ?
>
>Because the Trainman's place isn't part of the Matrix. The code is obviously
>much more secure, which is entirely within the realm of plausibility if you
>consider that it's so much smaller than the Matrix. The Train Station
>doesn't have to accommodate humanity and its flaws, therefore it is designed
>to be much more secure and not allow the strengths of the anomaly (Neo) mean
>anything.

Although IMO Neo would have succeeded in overcoming the additional
security in time - as suggested by his contact with the Source, i,e his
vision of the tram lines.

>(This explanation is not official or anything; just something close to my
>understanding of it.)

What he said. :)

--
Gavin Smith
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <zyzTf.62669$Ug4.5532@dukeread12>,
"JPM III" <jpmccord.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? He is trap in half
>> real world and half matrix world. but 'the man of train' has
>> programmed this place differently from matrix. He 's programmed
>> this place with his 'rules'. so neo can't escape or control ... why
>> ?
>
> Because the Trainman's place isn't part of the Matrix. The code is
> obviously much more secure, which is entirely within the realm of
> plausibility if you consider that it's so much smaller than the
> Matrix. The Train Station doesn't have to accommodate humanity and
> its flaws, therefore it is designed to be much more secure and not
> allow the strengths of the anomaly (Neo) mean anything.

That doesn't make much sense. Mobile Ave. is most certainly meant to
accomodate humans since it is - just like the Matrix - developed with
the human mind in mind (heh) for perceiving it. We can assume that at
01 programs aren't actually walking around with RSI's to get the work
done, they are actually programs executing code in mainframes. How Neo
"sees" this in M3 sort of strengthens that, in that the human eye
would only see big industrial buildings, but with Neos vision, he can
see the environment with the sentience of the computers in it.

With that in mind, Mobile Ave is most certainly meant to accomodate
humans. I can't tell on how many levels you can "accomodate" humans
on, but even if this is a "light" version of the Matrix (i.e. it
doesn't have programs that govern wind, or time or things like that)
the code must be pretty much identical, or Neo would have made some
remark about it being different. If he couldn't see the code, hw
wouldn't have assumed that he could kick trainman's ass. But he did.
He assumed he could since he had no reason to believe he couldn't,
which implies that to Neo, and everyone else, Mobile Ave was identical
to the Matrix.

Which begs the question - why couldn't he kick Trainman's ass? Heck,
Neo (would have) kicked Seraphs ass even though his code most
certainly was different.

And I think it's a copout to claim that Trainman somehow could build a
system that resisted the Anomaly when the Architect could not. The
anomaly doesn't - as far as has been told - get his strength from the
matrix being very complex and having programs that govern pigeons and
trees - the things that could be claimed are missing from Mobile Ave.



--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>>> Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? He is trap in half
>>> real world and half matrix world. but 'the man of train' has
>>> programmed this place differently from matrix. He 's programmed
>>> this place with his 'rules'. so neo can't escape or control ... why
>>> ?
>>
>> Because the Trainman's place isn't part of the Matrix. The code is
>> obviously much more secure, which is entirely within the realm of
>> plausibility if you consider that it's so much smaller than the
>> Matrix. The Train Station doesn't have to accommodate humanity and
>> its flaws, therefore it is designed to be much more secure and not
>> allow the strengths of the anomaly (Neo) mean anything.
>
> That doesn't make much sense. Mobile Ave. is most certainly meant to
> accomodate humans since it is - just like the Matrix - developed with
> the human mind in mind (heh) for perceiving it. We can assume that at
> 01 programs aren't actually walking around with RSI's to get the work
> done, they are actually programs executing code in mainframes. How Neo
> "sees" this in M3 sort of strengthens that, in that the human eye
> would only see big industrial buildings, but with Neos vision, he can
> see the environment with the sentience of the computers in it.
>
> With that in mind, Mobile Ave is most certainly meant to accomodate
> humans. I can't tell on how many levels you can "accomodate" humans
> on, but even if this is a "light" version of the Matrix (i.e. it
> doesn't have programs that govern wind, or time or things like that)
> the code must be pretty much identical, or Neo would have made some
> remark about it being different. If he couldn't see the code, hw
> wouldn't have assumed that he could kick trainman's ass. But he did.
> He assumed he could since he had no reason to believe he couldn't,
> which implies that to Neo, and everyone else, Mobile Ave was identical
> to the Matrix.
>
> Which begs the question - why couldn't he kick Trainman's ass? Heck,
> Neo (would have) kicked Seraphs ass even though his code most
> certainly was different.
>
> And I think it's a copout to claim that Trainman somehow could build a
> system that resisted the Anomaly when the Architect could not. The
> anomaly doesn't - as far as has been told - get his strength from the
> matrix being very complex and having programs that govern pigeons and
> trees - the things that could be claimed are missing from Mobile Ave.

That's just it. The Trainman's system was isolated and perfect. Because it's
so small, it can crash and be rebuilt virtually any time. It doesn't
accommodate all of humanity and doesn't need to, and while the structure of
the code is the same, the rules are different.

I know I'm speaking ambiguously, because since the system is fictitious, I
definitely don't have any real explanations for how it would work. But
suffice it to say that the Trainman could safeguard his system much more
easily because, unlike the rest of Matrix, there is no problem with
"choice".
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>> > It "was" nothing of the sort, as far as we know. All we know is that
>> > it is his world, and down there, he is God.
>> >
>> > Well, the Matrix is the architects world and in it, he is God, yet
>> > that doesn't really bother Neo.
>>
>> [I think it's a] Different system. [I think it has] Different rules.
>> [I think is has ] Different restrictions. [I think it has] Less
>> capability
>> (no flexibility to accommodate humans or human choices), so [I think]
>> more
>> security. It's an inverse proportionality common in real life and
>> computer systems -- as security improves, freedoms decline.
>
> Yeah, I know you think that - but that's not anything we've shown in
> *any way* onscreen. Any attempt to explain events on screen is by
> using references to other events onscreen, not making up wild
> assumptions. They don't lead anywhere but to "Yeah, interesting
> thought, but anyway..."

Specific director/writer commentary (verbal and written in the script) also
contributes. I know the difference between "canon" and speculative material,
and I know the difference between my wild assumptions and the Wachowski's
story. There is a lot of room for speculation, but I think some of the
specifics go beyond what you allow. There are some things never said or seen
on screen that are still part of the fictitious Matrix world.


>> >> Because it's
>> >> so small, it can crash and be rebuilt virtually any time. It doesn't
>> >> accommodate all of humanity and doesn't need to, and while the
>> >> structure
>> >> of
>> >> the code is the same, the rules are different.
>> >
>> > How? Perhaps you should have begun your statement with "Maybe it's
>> > like this..."
>>
>> Good lord, you still don't get it. Anything non-canonical is likely to be
>> speculation or creative interpretation. Take your pick or come up with
>> some
>> other explanation, and if you don't like it, then ignore it. Or insult
>> it,
>> whatever. It's what you do, I guess.
>
> Actually, it's what you do. But you keep trying to *tell* me how it
> is, when you have no clue. It's all about your wording, Paul. What's
> the point of speculating anything with you when you present everything
> as if they were facts?

If it's just my *wording* and you know what I mean (as does everyone else),
then the problem obviously isn't on my end.

I don't present my speculations as fact. I do write declarative sentences,
but I also clarify, when I think it's necessary, that it's just speculative
(obviously you think it's necessary more often than I do, but I think the
people reading this group are intelligent enough to know the difference --
after all, you're the only one who seems to notice or even care).

Besides, adding "I think" before every speculative thought would be
monotonous and silly. If you want to do that, you go right ahead. I'm going
to focus on what I actually think, though, and just clarify what is or isn't
factual or speculative when someone can't tell the difference. But, so far,
no one has had a problem telling the difference. (You pitch a fit about it,
but you obviously know the difference between fact and speculation, so
what's the point of this discussion, again?)


>> > Choice is in the mind of the people that exist in a given virtual
>> > reality, not a function of said environment. Neo didn't have less
>> > capacity for "choice" in Mobile Ave than he had in the Matrix.
>>
>> Not so. The Architect acknowledged, although not with the specific
>> details,
>> that the current version of the Matrix (unlike the "perfect" versions
>> described by Agent Smith in the first film) is coded to partially depend
>> on
>> human choice.
>
> Yes, in the way humans are *connected* to the Matrix, and how they are
> *fooled*. This has nothing to do with the ones that hack the Matrix
> since they can't be fooled.

What makes a hacker impervious to being outwitted?


>> Neo is effectively a virus whose code spreads to Smith upon their
>> interaction, which then causes/allows Smith to break the rules and
>> effectively become the viral software we see in the second and third
>> movies.
>
> I don't see any "viral software" in M3, I see Smith taking over
> people, something Agents can do - but he doesn't do it temporarily, he
> copies his code to the RSI (or something like that). A virus is a
> program that automatically propagates without manual interaction. I'm
> quite sure each instance of Smith copies himself to a person by choice
> and by action, not automatically. My point is that I think it's
> misplaced to use terms from todays computers to explain events in
> Matrix.
>
>> > "Choice" is, as far as can be understood, only a factor in how the
>> > Matrix connects to the human mind and fools it to believe that virtual
>> > world really exists. It wouldn't seem to be an important fact for the
>> > ones that hack the matrix and connect to it from a pirated signal.
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> It seems to me that choice is mostly, but not entirely, understood by the
>> machines. The machines can predict every response in almost every
>> situation,
>> but the system isn't perfect. Once in a while, a human choice defies the
>> machines' logic, and that's what keeps the system imperfect and allows
>> the
>> anomaly to exist.
>
> ...which all happens inside the farms where people are fooled to
> believe in the Matrix. This has nothing to do with Neo, once he is
> hacking the Matrix. No degree of "choice" is needed for him to be able
> to interact inside the Matrix, since the software doesn't have to
> trick his mind that this is the real world.

Perhaps I should ask you what you think the anomaly actually is (or could
be), in terms of its origin during each cycle/reload of the Matrix. What
does the code Neo carries that the Architect so badly wants returned to the
Source represent? What is it?


>> > As such, any lack of "choice compatibility" in MA would presumably be
>> > irrelevant to Neo since his presence in Matrix/MA doesn't rely on
>> > choice on any level.
>> >
>> > 1. Mobile Ave is connected to the Matrix
>> >
>> > 2. Neo can't hack MA, or at least not to the same degree.
>> >
>> > 3. Neo does not appear to be aware of that, which implies that MA,
>> > to him, appears just as the Matrix to him
>> >
>> > So, the only real explanation which I can find to Neo vs. Mobile Ave
>> > is that it was just harder to hack, and in the time period he was
>> > there, he failed to figure it out, which is contradictory to:
>>
>> I agree, but without something conclusive, I don't see it as
>> contradictory.
>> Also, this goes back to Mobil Avenue being structured in exactly the same
>> way as the Matrix, but... well, maybe it's the difference between
>> read-only
>> and write modes? Just a thought.
>
> Again, such a simple thing could be used by the Architect to protect
> against Neo, but isn't.

The Architect is a program, part of the machines' world, and is programmed
to allow Neo to do what Neo must do in order to preserve the Matrix, but
perhaps only up to a certain point. (Maybe if Neo had tried to attack the
Architect, the Architect could have flexxed his Matrixy muscles, but at
least as far as we could see, he didn't have to.)

The point is that the Matrix *needs* Neo, which sets up a paradox -- the
problem is choice for the machines too, except as programmed automotons,
there is no choice, only conditional tests. If ... then ... else ... etc.

Humans aren't much different, except as analog mentally functioning within a
digital system, there must be *some* incongruences. What those are, we can
never know for sure. We can only...... speculate.


>> > Throughout the movies, we see Neo adapting to new conditions all the
>> > time in the Matrix, yet as soon as he is in Mobile Ave, he can't do
>> > anything of that.
>> >
>> > All I can say is that the Architect should hire Trainman for coding
>> > Matrix. :P
>>
>> I think there's a considerable difference. Mobil Avenue connects to the
>> Matrix, but it is isolated from it.
>
> You don't know that. What deegree of "isolation" do you _think_ there
> is?
>
>> The Oracle specifically says it is
>> "between your world and ours".
>
> Exactly, that's not a problem.
>
>> All I can say is that the system is simply
>> more secure there.
>
> Well, at least you think it is. We see nothing that suggest that Neo
> failed to do anything there because there was more security.

Last I checked, he failed to get on the train because he lacked permission.

You're speculating that Mobil Avenue is the same as the Matrix. I also
presume you're somewhat familiar with various types of computer systems and
a little about virtual environments, and you understand what I'm saying
about the difference between structural code and security/permissions
attributes. Is it feasible to you that the Matrix and Mobil Avenue can be
structurally and syntactically coded the same (so as to fool Neo into
believing he can hack through Mobil Avenue), but that he simply doesn't have
the same access in Mobil Avenue as he does in the rest of the Matrix, since
it's actually (apparently, possibly) a separate system? Or at least a more
restricted part of it...


>> The best analogy I can use to try to understand it is: write and
>> read-only
>> attributes.
>
> Think about it this way - any speculated reason you can think of - ask
> yourself, why isn't the Architect also using the same mechanism in the
> Matrix to protect not only from the One, but from hacking altogether?

Because the Matrix NEEDS Neo to do what he's doing. We don't know how
exactly, but the emergence of the anomaly is effectually what triggers the
system's reload. It's a necessary function in the Architect's Matrix.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <4a9Zf.27453$EZ6.22209@dukeread12>,
"JPM III" <jpmccord.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Yeah, I know you think that - but that's not anything we've shown in
> > *any way* onscreen. Any attempt to explain events on screen is by
> > using references to other events onscreen, not making up wild
> > assumptions. They don't lead anywhere but to "Yeah, interesting
> > thought, but anyway..."
>
> Specific director/writer commentary (verbal and written in the script) also
> contributes.

So quote them. I know that your memory isn't very good, so I really
can't take your word for it.

> I know the difference between "canon" and speculative material,
> and I know the difference between my wild assumptions and the Wachowski's
> story. There is a lot of room for speculation, but I think some of the
> specifics go beyond what you allow. There are some things never said or seen
> on screen that are still part of the fictitious Matrix world.

Such as? Surely you're not trying to apply this to Mobil Ave?

> > Actually, it's what you do. But you keep trying to *tell* me how it
> > is, when you have no clue. It's all about your wording, Paul. What's
> > the point of speculating anything with you when you present everything
> > as if they were facts?
>
> If it's just my *wording* and you know what I mean (as does everyone else),
> then the problem obviously isn't on my end.

Of course it is - whatever do you mean? I don't choose your words, you
do.

> I don't present my speculations as fact. I do write declarative sentences,
> but I also clarify, when I think it's necessary, that it's just speculative
> (obviously you think it's necessary more often than I do, but I think the
> people reading this group are intelligent enough to know the difference --
> after all, you're the only one who seems to notice or even care).

You and I are the only ones here, Paul. :P

> Besides, adding "I think" before every speculative thought would be
> monotonous and silly.

So you don't do it at all?

> If you want to do that, you go right ahead.

Actually, I am. I am very catios about stating things as fact and
always use words such as "assuming that...", or "presumably he
would..." and "It's fair to assume that..." when I am speculating.

> I'm going
> to focus on what I actually think, though, and just clarify what is or isn't
> factual or speculative when someone can't tell the difference.

Which is why I am telling you that you're writing to other people, not
yourself.

> But, so far,
> no one has had a problem telling the difference.

How would you know? You may actually appear to be a knowledgable guy
to some people and they be led to believe that you actually know what
you're talking about when you claim things as fact high and low. I
know for a fact that you have no idea whatsoever if what you say is
true or not, and call you on it - other people might actually believe
you, which is even worse.

> (You pitch a fit about it,
> but you obviously know the difference between fact and speculation, so
> what's the point of this discussion, again?)

To educate you in proper discussion manner.

> > Yes, in the way humans are *connected* to the Matrix, and how they are
> > *fooled*. This has nothing to do with the ones that hack the Matrix
> > since they can't be fooled.
>
> What makes a hacker impervious to being outwitted?

What?? A hacker presence in the Matrix isn't dependant on whether his
mind is fooled to believe that the Matrix is the real world. He knows
it isn't. He allows the Matrix to enter his mind in spite of him
knowing that it isn't the real world.

> >> > "Choice" is, as far as can be understood, only a factor in how the
> >> > Matrix connects to the human mind and fools it to believe that virtual
> >> > world really exists. It wouldn't seem to be an important fact for the
> >> > ones that hack the matrix and connect to it from a pirated signal.
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that choice is mostly, but not entirely, understood by the
> >> machines. The machines can predict every response in almost every
> >> situation,
> >> but the system isn't perfect. Once in a while, a human choice defies the
> >> machines' logic, and that's what keeps the system imperfect and allows
> >> the
> >> anomaly to exist.
> >
> > ...which all happens inside the farms where people are fooled to
> > believe in the Matrix. This has nothing to do with Neo, once he is
> > hacking the Matrix. No degree of "choice" is needed for him to be able
> > to interact inside the Matrix, since the software doesn't have to
> > trick his mind that this is the real world.
>
> Perhaps I should ask you what you think the anomaly actually is (or could
> be), in terms of its origin during each cycle/reload of the Matrix. What
> does the code Neo carries that the Architect so badly wants returned to the
> Source represent? What is it?

It's a arbitrary choice of words to describe the conflict in the
movies. It's like the force in star wars. No one can explain how it
works since it's based on fiction.

What the anomaly is or isn't is irrelevant in this discussion anyway,
where we're talking about whether choice is needed or not needed to
keep a matrix-like system secure. I say it's irrelevant since Neo's
(or any other hackers) presence in any system was never about choice
after they were awaken.

> >> > As such, any lack of "choice compatibility" in MA would presumably be
> >> > irrelevant to Neo since his presence in Matrix/MA doesn't rely on
> >> > choice on any level.
> >> >
> >> > 1. Mobile Ave is connected to the Matrix
> >> >
> >> > 2. Neo can't hack MA, or at least not to the same degree.
> >> >
> >> > 3. Neo does not appear to be aware of that, which implies that MA,
> >> > to him, appears just as the Matrix to him
> >> >
> >> > So, the only real explanation which I can find to Neo vs. Mobile Ave
> >> > is that it was just harder to hack, and in the time period he was
> >> > there, he failed to figure it out, which is contradictory to:
> >>
> >> I agree, but without something conclusive, I don't see it as
> >> contradictory.
> >> Also, this goes back to Mobil Avenue being structured in exactly the same
> >> way as the Matrix, but... well, maybe it's the difference between
> >> read-only
> >> and write modes? Just a thought.
> >
> > Again, such a simple thing could be used by the Architect to protect
> > against Neo, but isn't.
>
> The Architect is a program, part of the machines' world, and is programmed
> to allow Neo to do what Neo must do in order to preserve the Matrix, but
> perhaps only up to a certain point.

What??? The Architect isn't in any way "programmed to allow [the
Anomaly] to do what it must do". What gave you that idea? The
Architect outright states that he wants to get rid of the anomaly.

> The point is that the Matrix *needs* Neo

Why?

> > Well, at least you think it is. We see nothing that suggest that Neo
> > failed to do anything there because there was more security.
>
> Last I checked, he failed to get on the train because he lacked permission.

Where did you "check" to obtain that information?

> You're speculating that Mobil Avenue is the same as the Matrix.

In such a way that Neo can't tell them apart. And Neo continually sees
the code of the Matrix.

> I also
> presume you're somewhat familiar with various types of computer systems and
> a little about virtual environments, and you understand what I'm saying
> about the difference between structural code and security/permissions
> attributes. Is it feasible to you that the Matrix and Mobil Avenue can be
> structurally and syntactically coded the same (so as to fool Neo into
> believing he can hack through Mobil Avenue), but that he simply doesn't have
> the same access in Mobil Avenue as he does in the rest of the Matrix, since
> it's actually (apparently, possibly) a separate system? Or at least a more
> restricted part of it...

Which is fine, if it weren't for the fact that the Architect would
have used the same restrictions in the Matrix if it were possible.

> >> The best analogy I can use to try to understand it is: write and
> >> read-only
> >> attributes.
> >
> > Think about it this way - any speculated reason you can think of - ask
> > yourself, why isn't the Architect also using the same mechanism in the
> > Matrix to protect not only from the One, but from hacking altogether?
>
> Because the Matrix NEEDS Neo to do what he's doing.

What gives you that wild idea?

> We don't know how
> exactly, but the emergence of the anomaly is effectually what triggers the
> system's reload. It's a necessary function in the Architect's Matrix.

If it were a function, it wouldn't be an anomaly, Paul. The anomaly is
the result of a "remainder of an unbalanced equation". The anomaly is
the result of Oracles way of interacting with the human mind.



--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>> > Yeah, I know you think that - but that's not anything we've shown in
>> > *any way* onscreen. Any attempt to explain events on screen is by
>> > using references to other events onscreen, not making up wild
>> > assumptions. They don't lead anywhere but to "Yeah, interesting
>> > thought, but anyway..."
>>
>> Specific director/writer commentary (verbal and written in the script)
>> also
>> contributes.
>
> So quote them. I know that your memory isn't very good, so I really
> can't take your word for it.

It's not that. I just don't bother memorizing director commentaries of all
things, because there are more useful things to remember. When/if I
hear/read something relevant and feel like quoting from it, I will. :)


>> I don't present my speculations as fact. I do write declarative
>> sentences,
>> but I also clarify, when I think it's necessary, that it's just
>> speculative
>> (obviously you think it's necessary more often than I do, but I think the
>> people reading this group are intelligent enough to know the
>> difference --
>> after all, you're the only one who seems to notice or even care).
>
> You and I are the only ones here, Paul. :P

Heh.


>> Besides, adding "I think" before every speculative thought would be
>> monotonous and silly.
>
> So you don't do it at all?

I do it when I'm talking to someone who doesn't already know the difference.
You know the difference, and as you said, we're the only ones here. Why
insult your intelligence by clarifying little details that need no
clarification?


>> If you want to do that, you go right ahead.
>
> Actually, I am. I am very catios about stating things as fact and
> always use words such as "assuming that...", or "presumably he
> would..." and "It's fair to assume that..." when I am speculating.

I am too... with things important in my real life. But discussions of The
Matrix, while fun, aren't that important to me beyond the entertainment
value and comradery due to common interests. So I'm not quite as cautious
about distinguishing all facts and speculations until someone displays a
lack of understanding of what I just said. Usually, there's no problem,
because it's clear enough regardless of how much room for error I've left.


>> I'm going
>> to focus on what I actually think, though, and just clarify what is or
>> isn't
>> factual or speculative when someone can't tell the difference.
>
> Which is why I am telling you that you're writing to other people, not
> yourself.

Just to you, Jonas. :)


>> But, so far,
>> no one has had a problem telling the difference.
>
> How would you know? You may actually appear to be a knowledgable guy
> to some people and they be led to believe that you actually know what
> you're talking about when you claim things as fact high and low. I
> know for a fact that you have no idea whatsoever if what you say is
> true or not, and call you on it - other people might actually believe
> you, which is even worse.

I'm a Socratic. I know that I know nothing. I just simply enjoy the
discussions, that's all. I'm here to spread the ideas, not tell people who's
right and who's wrong. Everyone is allowed to have their own thoughts about
things, and they don't have to agree with me.

However, when it comes to how *I* interpret the story, *I* am not wrong,
because I am accurately representing *my* interpretation. Maybe I miss a
detail you caught or took something a different way, but that doesn't
matter -- because what I got from the film is still what it is, and that's
what I share.

So maybe you should separate what I write from what the Wachowskis wrote,
because they aren't the same. They are artists; I'm just a fan.


>> (You pitch a fit about it,
>> but you obviously know the difference between fact and speculation, so
>> what's the point of this discussion, again?)
>
> To educate you in proper discussion manner.

According to your beliefs. I, on the other hand, think you have MUCH to
learn. That is to say, where I come from, your "manner" leaves much to be
desired.


>> > Yes, in the way humans are *connected* to the Matrix, and how they are
>> > *fooled*. This has nothing to do with the ones that hack the Matrix
>> > since they can't be fooled.
>>
>> What makes a hacker impervious to being outwitted?
>
> What?? A hacker presence in the Matrix isn't dependant on whether his
> mind is fooled to believe that the Matrix is the real world. He knows
> it isn't. He allows the Matrix to enter his mind in spite of him
> knowing that it isn't the real world.

So what happened to Neo when he was taken to Mobil Avenue? Did he allow
that? Was he aware that the system wasn't exactly the same?


>> Perhaps I should ask you what you think the anomaly actually is (or could
>> be), in terms of its origin during each cycle/reload of the Matrix. What
>> does the code Neo carries that the Architect so badly wants returned to
>> the
>> Source represent? What is it?
>
> It's a arbitrary choice of words to describe the conflict in the
> movies. It's like the force in star wars. No one can explain how it
> works since it's based on fiction.

Ah, see that's where we differ. Fiction can be explained, even if it's still
just a fictitious explanation.

Also, do you deny the Episode I "midichlorians" stuff? As far as I'm
concerned, that was an explanation and it was canonical. Even if it was a
cop-out.


>> The Architect is a program, part of the machines' world, and is
>> programmed
>> to allow Neo to do what Neo must do in order to preserve the Matrix, but
>> perhaps only up to a certain point.
>
> What??? The Architect isn't in any way "programmed to allow [the
> Anomaly] to do what it must do". What gave you that idea? The
> Architect outright states that he wants to get rid of the anomaly.

Good point. My point, though, is that the Architect is a machine/program,
and as such he is subject to the causal rules of his existence. And, yes, he
wants to get rid of the anomaly, but he also shares that the Oracle helped
build the current Matrix that depends on the anomaly. So, as such, the
anomaly must do what it must do, and the Architect must allow it to happen.

However, unlike humans, the Architect has no objective choice in the matter.
The Architect is a machine and simply responds in much the same way that the
Merovingian ambiguously describes in his speech about causality.

>> The point is that the Matrix *needs* Neo
>
> Why?

Because it's built to. Read the dialog of the Architect and the Oracle some
more.


>> > Well, at least you think it is. We see nothing that suggest that Neo
>> > failed to do anything there because there was more security.
>>
>> Last I checked, he failed to get on the train because he lacked
>> permission.
>
> Where did you "check" to obtain that information?

Um, the movie. Neo lacked the Trainman's permission to board the train, so
Neo was unable to board the train.


>> You're speculating that Mobil Avenue is the same as the Matrix.
>
> In such a way that Neo can't tell them apart. And Neo continually sees
> the code of the Matrix.

In that Neo can't tell them apart, I agree. But the reason is because the
code that determines the virtual visual environment as Neo sees it is still
the same. It's still Matrix code. But they're not the same system.


>> I also
>> presume you're somewhat familiar with various types of computer systems
>> and
>> a little about virtual environments, and you understand what I'm saying
>> about the difference between structural code and security/permissions
>> attributes. Is it feasible to you that the Matrix and Mobil Avenue can be
>> structurally and syntactically coded the same (so as to fool Neo into
>> believing he can hack through Mobil Avenue), but that he simply doesn't
>> have
>> the same access in Mobil Avenue as he does in the rest of the Matrix,
>> since
>> it's actually (apparently, possibly) a separate system? Or at least a
>> more
>> restricted part of it...
>
> Which is fine, if it weren't for the fact that the Architect would
> have used the same restrictions in the Matrix if it were possible.

I disagree. The Matrix needs to be open for the hacking for various reasons.
For one thing, it allows the anomaly to do what it does, which is a
necessary step to develop itself before returning to the Source. How all
this happens? Well, I don't know...

Maybe the Architect would do it that way if the anomaly weren't so
important, but it is.


>> >> The best analogy I can use to try to understand it is: write and
>> >> read-only
>> >> attributes.
>> >
>> > Think about it this way - any speculated reason you can think of - ask
>> > yourself, why isn't the Architect also using the same mechanism in the
>> > Matrix to protect not only from the One, but from hacking altogether?
>>
>> Because the Matrix NEEDS Neo to do what he's doing.
>
> What gives you that wild idea?

Every single word about it in all three movies.


>> We don't know how
>> exactly, but the emergence of the anomaly is effectually what triggers
>> the
>> system's reload. It's a necessary function in the Architect's Matrix.
>
> If it were a function, it wouldn't be an anomaly, Paul. The anomaly is
> the result of a "remainder of an unbalanced equation". The anomaly is
> the result of Oracles way of interacting with the human mind.

And, as such, it is a function ... resulting from her involvement. They are
machines, and no matter how the Architect describes the anomaly, it still is
a functioning part of the system.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

You misunderstand many fundamental things about the arguments I make. As
such, it is not pertinent for my part in this conversation to continue.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

"JPM III" <jpmccord.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HpUZf.184$ZW3.30@dukeread04...
> You misunderstand many fundamental things about the arguments I make. As
> such, it is not pertinent for my part in this conversation to continue.
>

Hi guys,

Is there anything left about the Matrix trilogy you haven't argued about?
Maybe we should bring up the discussion about fries with mayonaise ;-)

I'm just wondering how you are doing. I'm okay, have lost 25 pounds and
look gorgeous :-)

Phoenix
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

> Hi guys,
>
> Is there anything left about the Matrix trilogy you haven't argued about?

Perhaps you should be careful not to ask questions you don't want answers
to! You'd be surprised what else we could find to argue about... except that
I'm growing tired of it again.


> I'm just wondering how you are doing. I'm okay, have lost 25 pounds and
> look gorgeous :-)

Yay! I'm happy for you.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <HpUZf.184$ZW3.30@dukeread04>,
"JPM III" <jpmccord.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You misunderstand many fundamental things about the arguments I make.

I nailed them perfectly, which is why you try to ignore it. That's
what you always do.


--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <oI1_f.233$ZW3.232@dukeread04>,
"JPM III" <jpmccord.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you should be careful not to ask questions you don't want answers
> to! You'd be surprised what else we could find to argue about... except that
> I'm growing tired of it again.

So why are you doing it?? That's just stupid, Paul.


--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>> Perhaps you should be careful not to ask questions you don't want answers
>> to! You'd be surprised what else we could find to argue about... except
>> that
>> I'm growing tired of it again.
>
> So why are you doing it?? That's just stupid, Paul.

Because I choose to. It's stupid for you not to understand that.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>> You misunderstand many fundamental things about the arguments I make.
>
> I nailed them perfectly, which is why you try to ignore it. That's
> what you always do.

Wrong. But I'm tired of you. Good bye.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ?