# Inception the movie

Inception the movie, I think it is one of the most beautiful and mind-boggling movies I have ever seen.

Of course, the average audience does not really understand what the movie is about, hence I.Q. =78.

Many people are baffled by the ending. Because it seems Cobb (Leonardo Dicaprio). the movie did not play long enough to show whether or not the spinning top, stops spinning! This actually became a huge debate and people were putting up their own theories.

Well, I can’t help but feel Chagrin for all the people. But since so many people find that ending so fascinating, I will tell you my take on it!

Using probably and statistics, and since I am phenomenal at pattern recognition. I come to realization that the two children play a gigantic role, regarding whether or not he is still in a dream state. If you go back you will realize his children were wearing the same cloth, of color and pattern and in the same position throughout the movie. His children are of the same height, age and doing the same thing and that is playing on the ground.

So I ask a fundamental question, What is the probability? of his children being in the same state, doing the same thing, wearing the same clothing, twice in a roll? We know throughout when Cobb was obviously in the dream state his children are projections of his unconscious mind, so it is obviously very possible his children will be the same throughout. But when he is, in reality, this becomes almost impossible, it will be like winning a super lottery 5 times in a roll!

Ultimately I don’t know the answer, because the movie does not last long enough for us to see whether or not the top stop spinning!

Contradictorily, in the final scene of him and his children, that is where Cobb and us the audience get to see his children face.

Ultimately, it does not matter whether Cobb is still stuck in a dream state. What matters is, he is now happy because once again he is with the love of his life, his children! And this I am 100% sure!

1 Like

I’ve found myself seated at an exceptionally slow-playing table this evening (seriously, lol), so one take I had on that movie (I had several) is that it was intended to make people think about the nature of what is real vs. what might not be, and how we might go about telling the difference. The ending was perfect in that regard, IMO.

In this era of fake news and deepfake video (i.e., the real-world version of how Inception worked, aka ‘deception’), it’s probably not an exaggeration to claim that determining how to separate the signal from the noise-that-looks-identical-to-a-signal is an existential issue facing civilization as we know it. And time is not our friend in that regard; that top ain’t gonna spin forever no matter where it’s at.

So does our increasing abstraction and estrangement from what is tangibly real matter if we’re feelin’ the love all the same? I guess we’re going to find out soon enough, and in the meantime here’s to hoping we don’t get hit by a car while crossing the street with a phone in our face, or get lost in someone else’s (or an algorithm’s) arbitrary conception (inception?) of the sublime…

I completely agree with what you said! The movie is asking a fundamental question.

Does it really matter whether or not your world is real? When all that matters is whether or not you think it is real. And therefore, what is real is ultimately what your mind thinks and believes!

1 Like

I would argue (at the moment anyway) that the nature of the reality that is external to us vs. our internal perception of that reality is indeed relevant regardless of how we feel about whatever it is we’re perceiving.

This is because we are still biological organisms whether we like it or not, so while we may be able to construct an imaginary world and then live in it full-time, the external world (here loosely defined as all the stuff that doesn’t vanish after we quit believing in anything, or unplug our goggles) is still there nonetheless. We still gotta eat, after all. For now, anyway.

That ‘external’ world is the one that our physical bodies occupy and rely on, and if the real world can no longer support our real body then we won’t be able to live inside our heads in a virtual reality either, rendering concepts such as ‘happiness’ moot.

Also, there is the possibility that selling people on the idea of living entirely inside their own heads (as facilitated by VR and AI technology) is partly agenda-driven insofar as it blinds people to things happening ‘out there’ that may be a direct threat to them (such as the developing global ecological disaster or our continued regression into a new intellectual Dark Age (v2.0), etc…) while protecting the proverbial ‘bottom line’ of our inherently-unsustainable civilization. It’s also quite profitable, and likely to be effective at helping pacify the growing sense of general discontent among the bewildered masses (i.e. the general public).

Incidentally, I’ve stumbled upon a kind of test for determining what is real vs. not in one particular context: Living hunter-gatherer style in the wilderness. Walk out into a big patch of trackless wilderness with just a knife (after learning some basic skills) and live in it for a month or so.

I’ve done this experiment, and it becomes vividly apparent real quick that parsing what’s tangibly real from my wishful thinking, fantasies, expectations, or what seemed ‘fair’ was literally a matter of life and death. I guess this is why we evolved to be able to tell the difference between dreams/our imagination vs. what we perceive with our external senses.

So if you go out into the wilderness for a while and survive by your own hand, you probably have a decent handle on determining what is real. If you die, you either didn’t have a good grasp of reality (e.g., you starved or died of thirst) or else you just had some real bad luck (got eaten by a bear or something).

1 Like

Mhmmm, a lot of what you said is vey good… I feel I am not smart enough to understand the meaning of it all! But thank you for your replay!

Wait, what ?! Cat, don’t say such nonsense.

have to be honest, I found what he said hard to understand…

I found that too!

Which part (or parts)? There is always the possibility that I didn’t describe what I was getting at as well as I could have. It’s a highly likely possibility since what I’m getting at is hard to describe.

I like to try to push my thoughts to the frontier of what can be talked about, and where that limit will be found is a function of the common vocabulary we posses that enables us to talk about a given subject. As such, it’s hard to discuss things for which there isn’t a specific and commonly used vocabulary available (yet).

I guess my main point was that people merely believing that they are happy isn’t good enough, at least not for humans. It may work okay for raising livestock destined to be someone’s dinner, but so long as the animals never learn the unhappy truth about the reality they inhabit then they will always end up ‘happily’ being someone’s dinner. And “politics” is arguably the art and science of how the lords keep the peasants/livestock (that’s us) from realizing this (and all that that implies).

1 Like

a good way to put your thought and emotions into understandable formate is to describe them as related to something. in literacy, when the write describe a beautiful girl, he will say," she is so beautiful, her presence alone makes everyone smile and her perfume only exaggerate her sensuality, the scent of her drives everyman insane, not in the way of paranoia or disillusionment, but rather something akin to the first time when a man lays his eyes on a beautiful women!

The above quote every emotional or conclusion statement such as beautiful, sensuality are compared to events or things everyone had experience one way or another and therefore it gives the reader a better way to understand what the writer is talking about, when he or she says, beautiful, sensuality, etc, etc!

I think what you need in the above-aforementioned quote of yours, you must compare what you feel to something everyone can relate to…

“After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill —the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill —you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I’m offering is the truth.” The Matrix

Similar idea, different movie, how many people would Wonderland over truth?