USH'S MATRIX GAME 2006 THIRD ASSIGNMENT- 'The Fortress'

Well, let's throw in something.

What does Seraph say to Neo in Reloaded?

But "result" is too much of a vague term. Sometimes it isn`t easy to decide which result is better- people have diffrent criterias, preferences etc.

I think that the goal of this programme was to understand how human mind works in regards to warfare- the unpredictable element.

Edit- San said it well, I think.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, let's throw in something.

What does Seraph say to Neo in Reloaded?

I don't actually remember as I haven't seen that in a long time...

(goes to look it up)

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
But "result" is too much of a vague term. Sometimes it isn`t easy to decide which result is better- people have diffrent criterias, preferences etc.

I think that the goal of this programme was to understand how human mind works in regards to warfare- the unpredictable element.

Edit- San said it well, I think.

'Result' has a very specific and important meaning in warfare, though.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
But how do you classify the work of genius as having value?

If the work produced benefits or enhances humanity in some way, I'd say that would be genius having value.

From a war standpoint (and in answer to Ush) genius can have an edge over pure logic, I think. Primarily because genius can be spontaneous and entirely illogical, while still being genius.

For example, the first humans freed from the Matrix re-engineering Machinery so that they can get back into the Matrix, but still be in control. Not a logical action at all from a self-preservation view, but as it helps slightly to level the ground between sides I would say it was genius.

So is "military genius" just the person who has the best results? Why we admire the likes of Hannibal when there were generals who are not well known but likely never lost a major battle?

Originally posted by Lana
I don't actually remember as I haven't seen that in a long time...

(goes to look it up)

Nvm, found it!

Seraph said that you don't really know someone until you've fought them.

But take my point from a dry perspective- A result in a battle is whether you win. You can apply a difference to that tactically or strategically, but there is still a definite result.

When it comes to battle, if the Machines win with the same, or even superior, margin as that produced by a genius, why need genius? The result is all that mattters.

So if they aim for a system that gives them those results, you could see how such factors as genius would be ignored by them.

Besides, 'Genius' implies some meausre of accident of birth, and life development. Machines, though, don't work like that. They are created with purpose. A machine 'genius' would be built to be one.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
So is "military genius" just the person who has the best results? Why we admire the likes of Hannibal when there were generals who are not well known but likely never lost a major battle?

Well, that is a fair question. But when it comes to battles, no-one ever got a reputation of genius for failing, no matter how unfair that was.

In warfare, it's ALWAYS been about winning. It's not a nice environment.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
If the work produced benefits or enhances humanity in some way, I'd say that would be genius having value.

From a war standpoint (and in answer to Ush) genius can have an edge over pure logic, I think. Primarily because genius can be spontaneous and entirely illogical, while still being genius.

For example, the first humans freed from the Matrix re-engineering Machinery so that they can get back into the Matrix, but still be in control. Not a logical action at all from a self-preservation view, but as it helps slightly to level the ground between sides I would say it was genius.

Hmm, but if we analyze the famous battles of the likes of Hannibal or Ceasar, aren`t their plans usually logical? Perhaps it is just the logic others cannot grasp at the moment?

And also non-military factors can greatly affect warfare- like leader`s charisma affecting morale, for example.

Originally posted by Lana
Nvm, found it!

Seraph said that you don't really know someone until you've fought them.

Well, did you want to make anything of that?

Well, this quote may refer to the purpose of the likes of this "King".

Machines needed to understand how human mind may react while in battle in order to win- beyond this we have the pure propabilities and they may as well play Go and chess. But human fear, determination, loyalty etc... those are all relevant factors that are not easy to grasp for mere Machine.

This is also a fair point, and perhaps is something you might want to consider in how the Machines would go about creating a General. He does noeed to do more than play chess.

What does a Machine general have to be able to do?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, did you want to make anything of that?

Well, I do think it's a fair point, really - people generally reveal far more of their thoughts through their actions then they think they do. You can think you have the measure of a person just by talking to them, but unless you actually see them act, it could very well not be so - whether they're being deceptive or simply keeping things to themselves. However it's far harder to hide things through actions.

And again it ties to what I was saying about acts of genius and desperation - these are largely unpredictable but by studying someone's actions you can at least get some sort of idea of what they may do in a situation where they are truly desperate (I would say sheer genius is far more unpredictable but you could eventually possibly get an idea of what someone may come up with). And what better way is there to see how someone may react like that than if you are the one that made them like that?

Obviously this won't ALWAYS work - you could think you completely have the measure of a person and they could still manage to surprise you. But largely yes, the idea does have a lot of merit and if you can figure out how someone thinks, you could predict how they may likely act.

As I said, predict how humans can react..... this is the key

Hey, doesn`t this guy seem a bit of megalomaniac so far? But how is this requirement for his job? Too much of a pride may be a huge problem- Napoleon`s ego destroyed him at the end, for example.

Ok then, well, we have some ideas down. But also some gaps- like the selective nature of these battles, as Berserker mentioned.

Straw poll- what's going on here?

Well, aside from the fact that the King was likely studying the human warfare for a very long time, isn`t he likely to know that we are inside? What if he wants to show it to us for particular reason?

Second Diorama wasn`t Issus?

Sorry- no, but you are on the right track.

---

That this is to your benefit aside, what is going on here in a more theroetical sense, aka related to what we have just been talking about?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok then, well, we have some ideas down. But also some gaps- like the selective nature of these battles, as Berserker mentioned.

Straw poll- what's going on here?

General Kaliero actually had an idea about why the particular battles that were picked are shown, and what it might mean Sennacherib thought about the war between man and machine, but I'll let him post that as I'm sure he'd kill me for stealing his idea...

As to what it could mean? Could possibly just be an attempt at intimidating us. Could be showing us the fact that he's studied human tactics and psychology extensively. Could be an implication that he knew we were coming and has studied us. Could be a way of saying that for all that humanity has done, they were still defeated.

Hmmm.

King was studying certain interesting battles, for the possible reasons I mentioned above.

Though at this point it is likely that he is just doing it for his own pleasure and ego- hasn`t his purpose ended?

Edit- does the Diorama 2 contain elephants?