The Matrix naturally adopts the perspective of the humans: they are the victims, the slaves

cruelly exploited by the machines. But there is another perspective, that of the machines
themselves. So lets look at it from the point of view of the machines. As orpheus explains to
!eo, there was a catastrophic war between the humans and the machines, after the humans
had produced A", a sentient robot that spawned a race of its own. "t isnt known now who
started the war, but it did follow a lon# period of machine exploitation by humans. $hat is
known is that it was the humans who %scorched the sky%, blockin# out the suns rays, in an
attempt at machine #enocidesince the machines needed solar power to survive. "n response
and retaliation the machines subdued the humans and made them into sources of ener#y
batteries, in effect. &ach human now floats in his or her own personal vat, a warm and
womblike environment, while the machines feed in essential nutrients, in exchan#e for the
ener#y they need. But this is no wretched slave camp, a #rotes'ue #ula# of torment and
sufferin#( it is idyllic, in its way. )he humans are #iven exactly the life they had before. )hin#s
are no different for them, sub*ectively speakin#. "ndeed, at an earlier sta#e the atrix offered
them a vastly improved life, but the humans re*ected this in favor of a familiar life of moderate
woethe kind of life they had always had, and to which they seemed addicted. But if it had
been left up to the machines, the atrix would have been a virtual paradise for humansand all
for a little bit of battery power. )his, after an attempt to wipe the machines out for #ood,
starvin# them of the food they need: the sun, the life+#ivin# sun. )he machines never kill any of
their human fuel cells ,unless, of course, they are threatened-( in fact, they make sure to
recycle the naturally dyin# humans as food for the livin# ones. "ts all pretty.humane, really.
)he machines need to factory farm the humans, as a direct result of the humans tryin# to
exterminate the machines, but they do so as painlessly as possible. /onsiderin# the way the
humans used to treat their own factory farm animalstheir own fuel cellsthe machines are
models of carin# livestock husbandry. "n the circumstances, then, the machines would insist,
the atrix is merely a humane way to ensure their own survival. oreover, as A#ent Smith
explains, it is all a matter of the forward march of evolution: humans had their holiday in the
sun, as they rapidly decimated the planet, but now the machines have evolved to occupy the
position of dominance. 0umans are no lon#er the oppressor but the oppressedand the world is
a better place for it.
But of course this is not the way the humans view the situation, at least amon# those few who
know what it is. 1or them, freedom from the atrix takes on the dimensions of a reli#ious
'uest. )he reli#ious subtext is worth makin# explicit. !eo is clearly intended to be the 2esus
/hrist fi#ure: he is referred to in that way several times in the course of the film.
1
orpheus is
the 2ohn the Baptist fi#ure, awaitin# the Second /omin#. )rinity comes the closest to playin#
the 3od rolenotably when she brin#s !eo back to life at the end of the movie ,a clear
reference to the 4esurrection-. /ypher is the 2udas "scariot of the storythe traitor who betrays
!eo and his disciples. /ypher is so called because of what he does ,decode the atrix- and what
he isa clever encrypter of his own character and motives ,no one can decode him till it is too
late-. !eo doubts his own status as %)he 5ne%, as 2esus must have, but eventually he comes to
reali6e his destinyas would+be con'ueror of the evil atrix. But this holy war a#ainst the
machines is conducted as most holy wars arewithout any re#ard for the interests and well
bein# of the enemy. )he machines are re#arded as simply evil by the humans, with their
representativesthe A#entsa breed of ruthless killers with hearts of the purest silicon ,or
pro#ram code-. &mpathy for the machines is not part of the human perspective.
".
)his, then, is the moral and historical backdrop of the story. But the chief philosophical conceit
of the story concerns the workin#s of the atrix itself. $hat " want to discuss now is the precise
way the atrix operates, and why this matters. "t is repeatedly stated in the film that the
humans are dreaming: the psycholo#ical state created by the atrix is the dream state. )he
humans are accordin#ly represented as asleep while ensconced in their placental vats ,its worth
rememberin# that %matrix% ori#inally meant %womb%so the humans are in effect pre+natal
dreamers-. "t is important that they not wake up, which would expose the atrix for what it is
as !eo does with the help of orpheus. )hat was a problem for the atrix earlier, when the
humans found their dreams too pleasant to be true and kept re#ainin# consciousness ,%whole
crops were lost%-. 7reams simulate reality, thus deludin# the envatted humansas we are
deluded every ni#ht by our naturally occurrin# dreams. )he dream state is not distin#uishable
from the wakin# state from the point of view of the dreamer.
0owever, this is not the only way that the atrix could have been desi#ned( the machines had
another option. )hey could have produced perceptual hallucinations in conscious humans.
/onsider the case of a neurosur#eon stimulatin# a conscious sub*ects sensory cortex in such a
way that perceptual impressions are produced that have no external ob*ectsay, visual
sensations *ust as if the sub*ect is seein# an elephant in the room. "f this were done
systematically, we could delude the sub*ect into believin# his hallucinations. "n fact, this is
pretty much the classic philosophical brain+in+a+vat story: a conscious sub*ect has a state of
massive hallucination produced in him, thus duplicatin# from the inside the type of perceptual
experience we have when we see, hear and touch thin#s. "n this scenario wakin# up does
nothin# to destroy the illusionwhich mi#ht make it a more effective means of subduin#
humans so far as the machines are concerned. "ndeed, the atrix has the extra problem of
ensurin# that the normal sleep cycle of humans is subverted, or else they would keep wakin# up
simply because they had had enou#h sleep. So: the atrix had a choice between sleepin#
dreams and conscious hallucinations as ways of deludin# humans, and it chose the former.
"t mi#ht be thou#ht that the dream option and the hallucination option are not at bottom all that
different, since dreamin# simply is sleepin# hallucination. But this is wron#: dreams consist of
mental ima#es, analo#ous to the mental ima#es of daydreams, not of sensory percepts.
7reamin# is a type of ima#inin#, not a type of ,ob*ectless- perceivin#. " cant ar#ue this in full
here, but my book Mindsight
2
#ives a number of reasons why we need to distin#uish percepts
and ima#es, and why dreams consist of the latter not the former. But " think it should be
intuitively 'uite clear that visuali6in# my mothers face in my minds eye is very different from
havin# a sensory impression of my mothers face, i.e. actually seein# her. And " also think that
most people intuitively reco#ni6e that dream experiences are ima#istic not perceptual in
character. So there is an important psycholo#ical difference between constructin# the atrix as
a dream+inducin# system and as a hallucination+producin# system: it is not merely a matter of
whether the sub*ects are awake( it is also a matter of the kinds of psycholo#ical state that are
produced in themima#istic or sensory.
But could the machines have done it the second way8 /ould the movie have been made with the
second method in place8 " think not, because of the central idea that the contents of the dreams
caused by the atrix are capable of bein# controlledthey can become sub*ect to the dreamers
will. "n the case of ordinary daytime ima#ery, we clearly can control the onset and course of our
ima#es: you can simply decide to form an ima#e of the &iffel tower. But we cannot in this way
control our percepts: you cannot simply decide to see the &iffel tower ,as opposed to decidin# to
#o and see it-( for percepts are not actions, but thin#s that happen to us. So ima#es are, to use
$itt#ensteins phrase, %sub*ect to the will%, while percepts are noteven when they are merely
hallucinatory. !ow, in the atrix what happens can in principle be controlled by the will of the
person experiencin# the events in 'uestion, even thou#h this control is normally very restricted.
)he humans who are viewed as candidates for bein# )he 5ne have abnormal powers of control
over ob*ectsas with those special children we see levitatin# ob*ects and bendin# spoons. !eo
aspires toand eventually achievesa hi#h de#ree of control over the ob*ects around him, as
well as himself. 0e asserts his will over the ob*ects he encounters. )his makes perfect sense,
#iven that his environment is the product of dreamin#, since dreams consist of ima#es and
ima#es are sub*ect to the will. But it would make no sense to try to control the course of ones
perceptions, even when they are hallucinatory, since percepts are not sub*ect to the will.
)herefore, the story of the atrix re'uires, for its conceptual coherence, that the humans be
dreamin# and not perceptually hallucinatin#. "t must be their ima#ination that is controlled by
the atrix and not their perceptions, which are in fact switched off as they slumber in their
pods. 1or only then could they #ain control over their dreams, thus wrestin# control from the
atrix. 9ercepts, on the other hand, are not the kind of thin# over which one can have voluntary
control.
"n the normal case we do not have conscious control over our dreamswe are passive before
them. But this doesnt mean that they are not willed events( they may beand " think are
controlled by an unconscious will ,with some narrative flair-. "n effect, we each have a atrix in
our own brainsa system that controls what we dreamand this unconscious atrix is an
intelli#ent desi#ner of our dreams. But there are also those infre'uent cases in which we can
assert conscious control over our dreams, possibly contrary to the intentions of our unconscious
dream desi#ner: for example, when a ni#htmare becomes too intense and we interrupt it by
wakin# upoften *ud#in# within the dream that it is only a dream. But the phenomenon that
really demonstrates conscious control over the dream is so called %lucid dreamin#% in which the
sub*ect not only knows he is dreamin# but can also determine the course of the dream. )his is a
rare ability ," have had only one lucid dream in all my :; years-, thou#h some people have the
ability in a re#ular and pronounced form: they are the !eos of our ordinary human atrixthe
ones ,or 5nes- who can take control of their dreams away from the #rip of the unconscious
dream producer. )he lucid dreamers are masters of their own dream world, captains of their
own ima#ination. !eo aspires to beand eventually becomesthe lucid dreamer of the atrix
world: he can override the atrixs desi#ns on his dream life and impose his own will on what he
experiences. 0e rewrites the pro#ram, *ust as the lucid dreamer can sei6e narrative control from
his unconscious atrix. "nstead of allowin# the fi#ures in his dreams to make him a victim of
the atrixs desi#ns, he can impose his own story line on them. )his is how he finally
van'uishes the hitherto invulnerable A#ents: he makes them sub*ect to his willas all
ima#inary ob*ects must in principle be, if the will is stron# ,and pure- enou#h. "t is as if you
were havin# an ordinary ni#htmare in which you are menaced by a monster, and you suddenly
start to dream lucidly, so that you can now turn the tables on your own ima#inative products.
!eo is a dreamer who knows it and can control it: he is not taken in by the verisimilitude of the
dream, cowed by it. "t is not that he learns how to dod#e real bullets( he learns that the bullets
that speed towards him are *ust ne#otiable products of his ima#ination. As orpheus remarks,
he wont need to dod#e bullets, because he will reach a level of understandin# that allows him
to reco#ni6e ima#inary bullets for what they are. 0e becomes the ruler of his own ima#ination(
he is the a#ent now, not the %A#ents% ,this is why the spoon+bendin# child says to him that it is
not spoons that bend%you bend%-. And this is the freedom he seeksthe freedom to ima#ine
what he wishes, to #enerate his own dreams. But all this makes sense only on the supposition
that the atrix is a dream machine, an ima#ination manipulator, not *ust a purveyor of sensory
hallucinations.
"".
/ypher plays an interestin# subsidiary philosophical role. As the atrix raises the problem of our
knowled#e of the external worldmi#ht this all be *ust a dream8/ypher raises the problem of
other mindscan we know the content of someone elses mind8 /ypher is a cypher, i.e.
someone whose thou#hts and emotions are inscrutable to those around him. 0is comrades are
completely wron# about what is in ,and on- his mind. $e could ima#ine another type of atrix
story in which someone is surrounded by people who are not as they seem: either they have no
minds at all or they have very different minds from what their behavior su##ests. A#ain,
massive error will be the result. And such error mi#ht lead to dramatic conse'uences: everyone
around the person is really out to #et himhis wife, friends, and so on. But this is concealed
from him. 5r he mi#ht one day discover that he is really surrounded by insentient robotsso
that his wife was always fakin# it ,come to think of it, she always seemed a little mechanical in
bed-. )his is another type of philosophical dystopia, tradin# upon the problem of knowin# other
minds. /ypher hints at this kind of problem, with his hidden interior. )he A#ents, too, raise a
problem of other minds, because they seem on the borderline of mentality: are they *ust
insentient ,virtual- machines or is there some #limmer of consciousness under that hard
carapace of software8 And how was it known that A" was really sentient, as opposed to bein# a
very #ood simulacrum of mindedness8 &ven if you know there is an external world, how can you
be sure that it contains other conscious bein#s8 )hese skeptical problems run ri#ht throu#h The
Matrix.
/ypher also raises a 'uestion about the pra#matic theory of truth. 0e declares that truth is an
overrated commodity( he prefers a #ood steak, even when it isnt real. So lon# as he is #ettin#
what he wants, havin# rewardin# experiences, he doesnt care whether his beliefs are true. )his
raises in a sharp form the 'uestion of what the value of truth is anyway, #iven that in the atrix
world it is not correlated with happiness. But it also tells us that for a belief to be true cannot be
for it to produce happiness ,the pra#matic theory of truth, rou#hly- since /ypher will be happy
in the dream world of the atrix without his beliefs bein# trueand he is not happy in the real
world where his beliefs are true. )ruth is correspondence to reality, not whatever leads to
sub*ective desire satisfaction. /ypher implicitly re*ects the pra#matic theory of truth, and as a
result cannot see why truth+as+correspondence is worth havin# at the expense of happiness.
And indeed he has a point here: what is the value of truth once it has become detached from
the value of happiness8 "s it really worth riskin# ones life merely in order to ensure that ones
beliefs are trueinstead of *ust en*oyin# what the dreams of the atrix have to offer8 "s contact
with brutish reality worth death, when virtual reality is so safe and a#reeable8 $hich is better:
knowled#e or happiness8 $hen these are pulled apart, as they are in the atrix, which one
should we #o with8 )he rebel humans want to #et to <ion ,meanin# %sanctuary% or %refu#e%-,
but isnt the atrix already a type of <ionyet without the dubious virtue of #eneratin# true
beliefs8 $hats so #ood about reality8
3
""".
" want to end this essay by relatin# The Matrix ,the movie- to my #eneral theory of what is
psycholo#ically involved in watchin# and becomin# absorbed in a movie. "n brief, " hold that
watchin# a movie is like bein# in a dream( that is, the state of consciousness of bein# absorbed
in a movie resembles and draws upon the state of consciousness of the dreamer.
4
)he ima#es of
the dream function like the ima#es on the screen: they are not %realistic% but we become
fictionally immersed in the story bein# told. "n my theory this is akin to the hypnotic statea
state of hei#htened su##estibility in which we come to believe what there is no real evidence for.
ere ima#es command our belief, because we have entered a state of hyper+su##estibility.
$hen the li#hts #o down in the theater this simulates #oin# to sleep, whereupon the mind
becomes prepared to be absorbed in a fictional productas it does when we enter the dream
state. "n neither case are we put into a state of consciousness that imitates or duplicates the
perceptual state of seein# and hearin# the events of the story( it is not that it is as if we are
really seein# flesh and blood human bein#s up on the screen ,as we would with %live% actors on
a sta#e-nor do we interpret the screen ima#es in this way. 4ather, we imagine what is
represented by these ima#es, *ust as we use ima#ination to dream.
!ow what has this #ot to do with The Matrix8 )he film is about dreamin#( most of what we see
in it occurs in dreams. So when we watch the movie we enter a dream state that is about a
dream state( we dream of a dream. " believe that the movie was made in such a way as to
simulate very closely what is involved in dreamin#, as if aimin# to evoke the dream state in the
audience. "t is tryin# to put the audience in the same kind of state of mind as the inhabitants of
the atrix, so that we too are in our own atrixthe one created by the filmmakers. )he
$achowski brothers are in effect occupyin# the role of the machines behind the atrix
puppeteers of the audiences movie dreams. )hey are our dream desi#ners as we enter the
world of the movie. )he specific aspects of the movie that corroborate this are numerous, but "
think it is clear that the entire texture of the movie is dreamlike. )here is the hypnotic
soundtrack, which helps to simulate the hypnotic fascination experienced by the dreamer. )here
is a powerful impression of paranoia throu#hout the film, which mirrors the paranoia of so many
dreams: who is my enemy, how can he identified, what is he #oin# to do to me8 /haracters are
styli6ed and symbolic, as they often are in dreams, representin# some emotional pivot rather
than a three+dimensional person ,this is very obvious for the A#ents-. )here is a lot of strikin#
metamorphosis, which is very characteristic of dreams: one person chan#in# into another, !eos
mouth closin# over, bul#es appearin# under the skin. )here is also fear of hei#hts, a very
common form of anxiety dream ," have these all the time-. 7efiance of #ravity is also an
extremely common dream theme, as with dreams of flyin#and this is one of the first tricks
!eo masters. y own experience of the movie is that it evokes in me an exceptionally
pronounced dreamy feelin#( and this of course enables me to identify with the inhabitants of the
atrix. So " see the film as playin# nicely into my dream theory of the movie+watchin#
experience. "n this respect " would compare it to The Wizard of Oz, which is also about enterin#
and exitin# a dream worldthou#h a very different one. "n the end 7orothy prefers reality to
the consolations of dreamin#, *ust as the rebels in the atrix do. Both films tap powerfully into
the dream+makin# faculty of the human mind. )his is why they are amon# the most
psycholo#ically affectin# of all the movies that have been made: they know that the surest way
to our deepest emotions is via the dream. And it is their very lack of %realism% that makes them
so compellin#because that, too, is the essential character of the dream.