Philosophy, Film, Politics, Etc.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Games and The Liar Paradox

Over at Blog & ~Blog, Ben says that the sentence "this sentence is false" (which I will refer to as P), and similar sentences, are meaningless. Ben says that the Liar Paradox (which occurs whenever we try to decide whether P is true or false) disappears once we accept that P is meaningless. I'm not convinced, which is not to say I think the Liar Paradox poses a real problem. I just prefer a different approach.

Ben's view is that the predicate "is true" does not add any content to a sentence, and therefore, a sentence which only has "is true" as its predicate cannot be meaningful. While it may be true that "'Snow is white' is true" means the same as "Snow is white," this analysis (called disquotationalism) does not clearly apply to all cases where "is true" is the predicate of a sentence. I think it only applies to cases where "is true" is predicated of a sentence. Thus, we may find semantic equivalence between "This sentence is true" and "'This sentence is true' is true." I see no reason to claim that either of these sentences are meaningless.

(As an aside, I wonder about disquotationalism in general. We might say that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a meaningless sentence, yet, "'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously' is true" might be meaningful. It might be the expression of a false belief.)

In fact, there are situations in which P is clearly meaningful. Consider pointing to a sentence which reads, "the earth is five days old," and saying P to a colleague. That would be a meaningful statement. So P can be used to make meaningful statements. We need some reason to think the relevant uses of P are meaningless.

We might say that sentences cannot state their own truth or falsity; however, there is no clear motivation for this view. If we just say, "you can't do that!", then we are winning by fiat. Alternatively, we might say that sentences cannot be used to make statements about themselves. However, "this is an example of a sentence in English" seems meaningful even when self-referential. None of these approaches seem to work.

To get at my alternative approach, first consider writing the Liar Paradox this way: On one side of a piece of paper, write "the sentence on the other side of this paper is true," and on the other side, "the sentence on the other side of this paper is false." For another interesting variation, we could write "the sentence on the other side of this paper is false" on both sides. In this variation, there might not obviously be a paradox at first; we might just think that the first side we look at is true and the second side is false. The second side we look at tells us that the first sentence is false, but since we believe the second sentence itself is false, we are only affirmed in our original belief that the first sentence is true. This is only a problem when we realize that we could have looked at the other side first and come to the opposite conclusion about which was true and which was false. Now we have a paradox.

These variations on the Liar Paradox are reminiscent of a trick children sometimes play on each other. They give a friend a piece of paper with the words "read the other side" written on both sides. The way adults respond to the Liar Paradox is much the way children respond to the "read the other side" game: They find it amusing and play with it a little, until they realize how it works and lose interest in repeating the same procedure over and over again.

The Liar Paradox is a game in which we look for a meaningful statement which might be true or false, but we never find one. At no point are the sentences we considering meaningless, however, because we understand them just as the game requires.

We might suppose that it is not the sentences, but the game itself, which is meaningless. Perhaps the game is meaningless in the sense that it is of no consequence to anything outside of itself. The sentences in the game do not refer to anything outside of the game. This is part of learning the game: realizing that there is nothing to make the sentences true or false apart from the play of the game. The only way to win the game is to figure out the rules of the game, at which point there is no reason to play. However, the fact that we can learn the rules suggests that the game is meaningful. The trick works. The sentences direct our behavior in intended ways, leading us consistently towards conflicting notions of truth and falsity.

The logic of the game is easy enough to understand: To judge that the statement is true, we must judge that a negation of the statement is also true, and this judgment cannot be made without negating that negation, ad infinitum. The only way to end the series is to stop playing. The sequential negations can occur by trying to evaluate a single, self-negating sentence, or with a pair of sentences, or through any arbitrarily large series of sentences. The logic seems obvious. What is more interesting, perhaps, is why we enter the game in the first place. We enter because we want to find out the truth value of a statement, just as the child turns over the card to find out what they are supposed to read.

[Updated Jan. 11, 2011, 23:08 GMT: As has been pointed out in the comments section, I need to more clearly spell out my answer to this paradox. My answer is that (1) sentences themselves are never true or false, but can be used to make true or false statements; (2) not every utterance of a sentence is a true or false statement; and (3) the liar's paradox is a game in which we think we are making a true or false statement, but only find ourselves saying sentences which the rules of the game do not permit. We never say anything true or false while we're playing this game. We're trying to, but the game won't let us.]

(I may not be the first person to come up with this approach, but there isn't anything quite like it mentioned in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry. P. F. Strawson's approach is very similar, though. There are obvious parallels between my approach and Wittgenstein's philosophy, as well.)

Updated again on Jan. 21, 2011, 10:40 GMT to clarify some issues raised by Martin in the comments section.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Musical Interlude: The Music of 1974

It was about two years ago when I realized that many of my favorite albums were released in 1974, the year I was born. King Crimson's best two albums, Brian Eno's first two solo albums, two of Queen's best albums, my favorite James Brown, Roxy Music and Herbie Hancock. The list goes on. Inspired to learn as much about the music of 1974 as I could. I foraged for months, turning up some wonderful rarities and overlooked classics. To share some of the fruits of that labor, I've compiled a list of notable albums (posted below).

(A live version of Brian Eno's "Baby's On Fire," with Eno on vocals and synthesizer, John Cale on piano, Olie Halsall on guitar,
Kevin Ayers on bass, and Robert Wyatt on percussion.)

If 1974 was not quite the end of a musical era, it was a transformation, an explosion of vast and diverse areas of musical inspiration. Maybe people hadn't come down from the high of the '60s, the cultural victory of the Civil Rights movement and the rock n' roll revolution. The Vietnam War was coming to an end. Music wasn't quite as political or social as it had been in the late '60s, though sometimes there was a sociopolitical agenda, such as when James Brown made bladders splatter in Zaire (for the "Rumble In The Jungle," when Muhammad Ali splattered George Foreman).

For the most part, musicians weren't trying to change the world; they were trying to change music, and they succeeded in spades. Across genres, across the world, new forms of music were enjoyed solely for the pleasure of music, for aural inspiration and journey, for dance and play as well as revelation and innovation. Glam rock, progressive/art rock, experimental rock, electronica, funk, fusion, disco, heavy metal, and even rap . . . So many genres that define the history of late 20th century music had just been born and were still coming to fruition. Queen even planted the seeds for thrash metal with "Stone Cold Crazy." The Ramones and Talking Heads (then "The Artistics") started playing in New York City, establishing the foundations for the punk and new wave movements. Less monumental, though also interesting: 1974 is also the year Van Halen started performing in California.

Some of the most influential bands of the time did not release albums in 1974. Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath were touring after the 1973 releases of what are arguably their best albums (Dark Side of the Moon and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath). The Who was also touring after 1973's Quadrophenia. Led Zeppelin had released Houses of the Holy in 1973, but instead of touring, spent '74 launching its own record label (Swan Song) and finishing Physical Graffiti, which would be the band's last legendary album.

There were also some great televised performances in 1974.  For example, 'The Midnight Special' featured great performances by Labelle, Marvin Gaye, Sly & The Family Stone, Aerosmith, and much more.

1974 also saw tragedy and loss. In May, Duke Ellington died at the age of 75. (Miles Davis' deep and introspective "He Loved Him Madly," from the 1974 album Get Up With It, is a 32-minute tribute to the lost legend.) In July, after two sold-out performances at the London Palladium, 'Mama' Cass Elliot died of a heart attack at the age of 32. In November, Nick Drake overdosed on antidepressants at the age of 26. Earlier in the year, Drake had cut four tracks for what would have been his fourth album.

Before I get to the list, here are a few notable singles from '74:

Just a couple more I gotta share, the first because it's easy to forget how amazing Al Green was, and the second because Tom Jones surprised me with this solid cover of "Right Place, Wrong Time" on the otherwise forgettable album, Somethin' 'Bout You Baby I Like.

And now for the list . . . These are my favorite albums originally released in 1974. The order only vaguely reflects my degree of appreciation for each album.

Top Albums of 1974

("Ctrl"+click to open links in a new tab.)

  1. Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy), Brian Eno
  2. Starless and Bible Black, King Crimson
  3. Red, King Crimson
  4. Slaughter On 10th Avenue, Mick Ronson
  5. Here Come the Warm Jets, Brian Eno
  6. Thrust, Herbie Hancock
  7. Inspiration Information, Shuggie Otis
  8. Fulfillingness' First Finale, Stevie Wonder
  9. They Say I'm Different, Betty Davis
  10. Country Life, Roxy Music
  11. Sheer Heart Attack, Queen
  12. Apostrophe, Frank Zappa
  13. In For The Kill, Budgie
  14. La Finestra Dentro, Juri Camisasca
  15. Crime Of The Century, Supertramp
  16. Nightbirds, Labelle
  17. Expansions, Lonnie Liston Smith & The Cosmic Echoes
  18. Walls And Bridges, John Lennon
  19. Rocka Rolla, Judas Priest
  20. One, Bob James
  21. You, Gong
  22. Rejuvenation, The Meters
  23. Tudo Foi Feito Pelo Sol, Os Mutantes
  24. Hell, James Brown
  25. Sneakin' Sally Through The Alley, Robert Palmer
  26. Burn, Deep Purple
  27. Phaedra, Tangerine Dream
  28. Blue Jeans & Moonbeams, Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band
  29. Yèkatit: Ethio Jazz, Mulatu Astatke
  30. Aerolit, Czeslaw Niemen
  31. Bridge Of Sighs, Robin Trower
  32. Unrest, Henry Cow
  33. Fly To The Rainbow, Scorpions
  34. Rock Bottom, Robert Wyatt
  35. Get Up With It, Miles Davis
  36. Desolation Boulevard, Sweet
  37. Autobahn, Kraftwerk
  38. New Skin For The Old Ceremony, Leonard Cohen
  39. Where Have I Known You Before, Return To Forever
  40. Alagbon Close, Fela Kuti
  41. Luiz Gonzaga, Jr., Gonzaguinha
  42. Queen II, Queen
  43. Clic, Franco Battiato
  44. Fear, John Cale
  45. Average White Band, Average White Band
  46. The Conversation Motion Picture Soundtrack, David Shire
  47. Skin Tight, Ohio Players
  48. The Psychomodo, Cockney Rebel
  49. The Civil Surface, Egg
  50. Death Wish Motion Picture Sountrack, Herbie Hancock
  51. Us, Maceo Parker
  52. Back To Oakland, Tower Of Power
  53. Seligpreisung, Popol Vuh
  54. Angelo Branduardi, Angelo Branduardi '74
  55. Cincinnato, Cincinnato
  56. Everyone Is Everybody Else, Barclay James Harvest
  57. Rags To Rufus, Rufus & Chaka Khan
  58. The Man In The Bowler Hat, Stackridge
  59. L'Incendie, Brigitte Fontaine & Areski
  60. Anima Latina, Lucio Battisti
  61. Live, April Wine
  62. The Colours of Chloe, Eberhard Weber
  63. Kwanza, Archie Shepp
  64. Caution! Radiation Area, Area
  65. Casablanca Moon, Slapp Happy
  66. The End, Nico
  67. Court And Spark, Joni Mitchell
  68. Now We Are Six, Steeleye Span
  69. Afro Blue, Dee Dee Bridgewater
  70. Meet The Residents, The Residents
  71. Apocalypse, Mahavishnu Orchestra
  72. On The Beach, Neil Young
  73. The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, Genesis
  74. Pick A Dub, Keith Hudson
  75. Hijack, Amon Düül II
  76. Relayer, Yes
  77. Body Heat, Quincy Jones
  78. Caught Up, Millie Jackson
  79. Cartola, Cartola
  80. Up For The Down Stroke, Parliament
  81. Pretzel Logic, Steely Dan
  82. Green, Steve Hillage
  83. The Power And The Glory, Gentle Giant
  84. Malicorne 1 ("Colin"), Malicorne
  85. Sama Layuca, McCoy Tyner
  86. The Blackbyrds, The Blackbyrds
  87. Gambler's Life, Johnny "Hammond" Smith
  88. Hero And Heroine, The Strawbs
  89. Mirage, Camel
  90. The Elements, Joe Henderson & Alice Coltrane
  91. Ptarmigan, Ptarmigan
  92. Amancio Prada, Vida E Morte
  93. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three Motion Picture Sountrack, David Shire
  94. Zinc Alloy And The Hidden Riders Of Tomorrow - A Creamed Cage In August, Marc Bolan & T. Rex
  95. Invitation, Andrew Hill
  96. Zuckerzeit, Cluster
  97. Power Of Soul, Idris Muhammad
  98. Upon This Rock, Joe Farrell
  99. The Storm, The Storm
  100. Sun Supreme, Ibis
  101. Mourner's Rhapsody, Czeslaw Niemen
  102. Truck Turner Motion Picture Soundtrack, Isaac Hayes
  103. Power, Stanley Clarke
  104. Contrappunti, Le Orme
  105. Todd, Todd Rundgren
  106. Musik Von Harmonia, Harmonia
  107. Blackdance, Klaus Schulze
  108. Temporada de Verão, Gal Costa
  109. Desitively Bonnaroo, Dr. John
  110. Winter Light, Oregon
  111. Together Brothers Motion Picture Soundtrack, Barry White & Love Unlimited Orchestra
  112. The Loud Minority, Frank Foster
  113. Cosmic Vortex (Justice Divine), Weldon Irvine
  114. But Beautiful, Bill Evans Trio w/ Stan Getz
  115. Standing On The Verge Of Getting It On, Funkadelic
  116. Discipline 27-II, Sun Ra
  117. Dark Magus, Miles Davis
  118. Jaco, Jaco Pastorius / Pat Metheny / Bruce Ditmas / Paul Bley
  119. The Cosmic Jokers, The Cosmic Jokers
  120. Hatfield & The North, Hatfield & The North
  121. Feel, George Duke
  122. Point Of No Return, Funkees
  123. Galactic Supermarket, The Cosmic Jokers
  124. The Silent Corner & The Empty Stage, Peter Hammill
  125. Crystals, Sam Rivers
  126. Virtues & Sins, Kin Ping Meh
  127. Elis & Tom, Elis Regina & Antonio Carlos Jobim
  128. The Giants, Oscar Peterson / Joe Pass / Ray Brown
  129. I'm In Need Of Love, Lou Courtney
  130. Visions Of The Emerald Beyond, Mahavishnu Orchestra
  131. Journey To The Centre Of The Earth, Rick Wakeman
  132. Sally Can't Dance, Lou Reed
  133. Sweet Bitter Love, Marcia Griffiths
  134. Flying Start, The Blackbyrds
  135. Total Eclipse, Billy Cobham
  136. Damn Right I Am Somebody, Fred Wesley & The J.B.'s
  137. Rocking Time, Burning Spear
  138. Paradise And Lunch, Ry Cooder
  139. Aqua, Edgar Froese
  140. The Jewel In The Lotus, Bennie Maupin
  141. Einsjäger & Siebenjäger, Popol Vuh
  142. Big Fun, Miles Davis
  143. Burglar, Freddie King
  144. Palle, Squallor
  145. Belonging, Keith Jarrett with Jan Garbarek
  146. Loki?, Arnaldo Baptista
  147. Phases & Stages, Willie Nelson
  148. It Is Finished, Nina Simone
  149. Sweet Exorcist, Curtis Mayfield
  150. Al Green Explores Your Mind, Al Green
  151. From The Album Of The Same Name, Pilot
  152. Prelusion, Patrice Rushen
  153. Dreams, Toad
  154. Okie, JJ Cale
  155. Not Fragile, Bachman-Turner Overdrive
  156. Eléctronique Guérilla, Heldon
  157. Fare Forward Voyagers, John Fahey
  158. Seasons In The Sun, Terry Jacks
  159. Kimono My House, Sparks
  160. Radio City, Big Star
  161. From The Mars Hotel, Grateful Dead
  162. I Want To See The Bright Lights Tonight, Richard & Linda Thompson
  163. Hamburger Concerto, Focus
  164. Kansas, Kansas
  165. Plume Pou Digne, Plume Latraverse
  166. Rush, Rush
  167. A Tabúa de Esmeralda, Jorge Ben
  168. Breakaway, Kris Kristofferson & Rita Coolidge
  169. Green Mango, Tommy McCook & Bobby Ellis
  170. Twet, Tomasz Stanko
  171. In The Beginning, Roy Buchanan
  172. First Of The Big Bands, Ashton & Lord
  173. Mo' Roots, Taj Mahal
  174. In Camera, Peter Hammill
  175. Perfect Angel, Minnie Ripperton
  176. Light Of Worlds, Kool & The Gang
  177. Preservation Act 2, The Kinks
  178. Bad Company, Bad Company
  179. The Hall Of The Mountain Grill, Hawkwind
  180. Too Much Too Soon, New York Dolls
  181. The Heart of Saturday Night, Tom Waits
  182. Soon Over Babaluma, Can
  183. Rambler, Gabor Szabo
  184. Symbiosis, Bill Evans
  185. Natty Dread, Bob Marley & The Wailers
  186. 461 Ocean Boulevard, Eric Clapton
  187. Waterloo, ABBA
  188. Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters, Robert Calvert
  189. The Butterfly Ball & The Grasshopper Feast, Roger Glover
  190. Goodbye, Gene Ammons
  191. Cup Full Of Dreams, Don "Sugarcane" Harris
Note:  Not all of the music on this list was recorded in 1974, and lots of music recorded in 1974 is not considered here.  This is because I'm not including albums with pre-released material or any albums released after 1974 but which happened to be recorded (either live or in the studio) in 1974.  Also, there are a number of albums from 1974 which I haven't been able to find and others which I haven't gotten around to looking for yet.

By way of contrast, I rather dislike these notable albums from 1974:
  • David Bowie - Diamond Dogs
  • Aerosmith - Get Your Wings
  • Lynyrd Skynyrd - Second Helping
  • Jackson Browne - Late for the Sky
  • Kiss - Kiss
  • Randy Newman - Good Old Boys
  • Carly Simon - Hotcakes
  • The Bee Gees - Mr. Natural
  • Billy Joel - Streetlife Serenade
  • Elton John - Caribou
  • The Eagles - On The Border
  • Damião Experiencia - Planeta Lamma
  • Dr. Feelgood - Down by the Jetty
  • Van Morrison - Veedon Fleece
  • Graham Parsons - Grievous Angel
  • Raspberries - Starting Over
  • Father Yod and the Spirit of '76 - Expansion
  • Father Yod and the Spirit of '76 - Contraction
  • Yahowa 13- Savage Sons of Yahowa 13

Monday, August 2, 2010

Inception Deception

Some friends of mine asked me to explain my negative reaction to Christopher Nolan's latest film, Inception. (SPOILER ALERT: I am writing this for people who have already seen the movie.) What I had said was that the film offers neither intrigue nor character development, and that it is neither logical nor realistic. Nolan uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of intelligence and insight. He exploits pop psychology and pop philosophy as well as a convoluted set of plot devices to keep audiences both engaged and confused.

Apparently, the film works. Many intelligent people are impressed and even willing to dish out the dough to sit through it a second time. Some are performing back-bending feats of post hoc rationalization in order to explain away Inception's many plot holes and inconsistencies.

Others are less impressed. I was happy to have a friend point out this very well-done and humorous commentary on the film's illogical complexity:

I like the film's basic premise, the idea that people can share dreams, and that people can enter other people's dreams without their knowledge in order to extract and even implant information. Much could be done with that, but what Nolan does is not worth taking seriously. His dream worlds are boring, his characters are mostly two-dimensional, and his plot has the subtlety and sophistication of a sledgehammer, as well as an over-abundance of plot holes and inconsistencies. If none of this is obvious to most viewers, it is probably because they are too busy trying to work out the logic of his dream worlds, or perhaps they are just enthralled with the idea of sharing dreams and grappling with "subconscious projections."

I was initially intrigued that Nolan makes use of the idea that ideas can be parasites. This idea most famously appeared in The Selfish Gene (1976), when Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" to argue that ideas might replicate and become dominant in populations much the way genes do. The meme idea has been toyed with for decades, but it has become a bit more well-known thanks to Dawkins' international bestseller and controversial The God Delusion (2006) and Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking The Spell (2006), both of which suggest that religions are complexes of memes which have come to dominate populations, and not necessarily for the betterment of the people who believe in them. (Dennett also influentially used the idea of memes to develop his view of consciousness in Consciousness Explained [1991].) It is not a stretch to suppose that Nolan had memes in mind when he wrote this dialogue: "What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient. Highly contagious."

Unfortunately, Nolan's handling of the meme idea is not satisfying. In some ways, it is too simplistic: Secrets turn up as memos neatly filed away in manila envelopes. In other ways, Nolan's vision is too implausible. Even if a single dream could establish a resilient connection between an idea and an emotion, it would not necessarily lead to any particular behavioral result. At best, it might make the subject think a lot about the idea. To get the idea to make people do things they would not otherwise do, the idea would have to overcome hordes of competing ideas which also had emotional support.

Nolan's premise is that a single implanted idea can lead a person to do a specific action which they have no apparent reason or motivation to do. For small, inconsequential actions, this is not so hard to swallow. However, for something monumental and complex, like the legal dissolution of a mega-corporation, this is too implausible. To make it more believable, Nolan's characters claim that they have to find the simplest form of the idea (whatever that means) and that the subject has to believe that the idea was his own. These contingencies are a lot of hot air and don't make the premise more believable.

While Fischer (Murphy) might really think that dissolving his father's business is what his father wanted him to do, and while he might also want to make his father happy, he still might decide not to dissolve the business. This could be for any number of reasons. For example, it could be because he thinks that his father would not want him to do everything his father wanted him to do. That is the whole point of the inception drama they have created, after all: Fischer believes that his father wanted him to be his own person, and that means not always doing what his father wants him to do. Fischer may decide to keep the company and develop it in his own way, still trying to be his own person, as he now believes his father wanted him to be. The inception process may have freed Fischer from the weight of his father's authority, but that just means he is now a free man to destroy or not destroy the company as he sees fit. Fischer might decide that keeping the business just makes the most sense financially, and it could be too hard for him to let that go. If the goal was to destroy the company, it does not seem like this inception was a very good way of doing it.

In sum, Nolan does not show any insight into what it means for an idea to be a parasite. A better film might have explored the ways all of our cultural behavior could be understood in terms of memes, and how difficult it can be to control and predict their behavior. Of course, only somebody interested in psychology or the philosophy of mind would make this objection, so I can't hold it against the film, even if it was a disappointment.

My low opinion of the film is primarily due to its lack of cohesion and believability. For example, the entire set up for this film is riddled with problems. In the opening sequence, Cobb (DiCaprio) is dreaming within a dream in order to extract information from Saito (Watanabe). The dream is populated by Saito's subconscious, which means that all of Saito's secrets are in a special safe which the Architect has built into the dream world. Cobb asks him about the safe, and Saito gives its location away by looking in its direction. This does not make sense. Saito is not privy to the Architect's work, so Saito should not know about the safe at all, let alone where it is. Cobb, on the other hand, is working with the Architect, so he should have known where it was from the start. He had no reason to ask.

During the same sequence, Saito catches on to Cobb's plan and there is gunfire. Cobb is running away while trying to read the secret information he extracted from the safe. Meanwhile, the entire building is collapsing, because the dream is falling apart. Why doesn't Cobb change the dream? He can. He knows it is a dream. In fact, it is his dream. He can make a small, sturdy room for himself so he can read the information in peace and quiet, but he does not. He acts as if he is at the mercy of the dream. That does not make sense.

There are more serious problems with the opening sequence. Saito's secret memo has some portions blacked out. This cinematic silliness tells us that Saito has kept some secrets out of the dream. Thus, despite what we are told later in the film, the safes in the dream worlds are not automatically filled with all of the subject's secrets. Apparently, they are only filled with those secrets the subject is willing to share, and which happen to be relevant to the Extractor. (After all, if the safe contained all of Saito's secrets, it would have filled more than a couple of pages in a small manila envelope.) This undermines the whole premise.

Worse, when faced with the fact that secrets were kept out of the safe, Cobb--who is supposed to be a master Extractor--resorts to a bluff in order to get the information: He pulls a gun on Saito. This is how a master Extractor goes about sifting secrets from the unsuspecting? Pointing a gun and yelling, "Give me the information!?" I'm not convinced. Nolan does not makes Cobb a believable Extractor, and this weakens the whole film.

Then, after Cobb botches the extraction with Saito, Saito tells him it was just a test, and Cobb failed. Yet, Saito then offers Cobb a job--the job which occupies the rest of the movie. Apparently Saito has a very peculiar notion of failure. We have no reason to believe that Saito is sincere. In fact, it would have been much more interesting if Saito was setting Cobb up with the whole "inception" plan.

Furthermore, we are never given a reason to think Fischer's father's business should be destroyed, except for when Saito (Watanabe) claims that the world would be better off. Again, we are given no reason to trust Saito. Why should we support him against Fischer's father? Saito's character and his motivation for destroying Fischer's father's business are never established.

There are moral implications here, as well, which Nolan does not address. I don't recall anybody considering whether or not it would be wrong to manipulate Fischer into destroying his father's business, or whether or not it could be damaging to Fischer himself. (Somebody--I think Ariadne--does suggest that the inception might damage Fischer's relationship with his uncle, but that's it.)

Nolan may be counting on an ambient anti-corporation sentiment in his audience. Perhaps all mega-corporations should be destroyed, but even then, destroying Fischer's father's company will apparently just make Saito more powerful, and Saito is already a man who can buy a major airline at the drop of a hat. So why should we want Fischer to destroy his father's business?

Perhaps we are not meant to approve of the job; however, I think Nolan wants us to. He never presents inception as a morally complex or challenging subject. In fact, he makes it easy to accept Fischer's psychological manipulation by writing the father as an unloving and harshly judgmental figure. On top of that, Fischer achieves a catharsis during the inception process, coming to finally feel loved by his father. We are happy that Fischer has this moment with his subconscious projection of his father, and that helps us digest the fact that he is being manipulated. In the end, Fischer is not being manipulated into destroying the business so much as he is being freed from his father's dominion. While this makes it less likely that Fischer will actually dissolve the business (thus undermining the whole point of the job, as I noted above), it makes the audience more willing to accept the manipulation. It's easy to get behind individuation, after all.

Still, what about possible psychological damage to Fischer? Nolan never suggests that something bad might have happened to Fischer. Yet, there is a potential threat to Fischer's psychological stability. Recall that Fischer is not just implanted with the idea of destroying his father's business, but also with the idea that there is a will in a secret safe which formalizes the process, and which his uncle knows about and disapproves of. Since there is no will, and since his uncle is unaware of the whole thing, the inception scenario is built on false premises. This should make it hard for the implanted idea to develop in Fischer's mind; and, if the idea really is planted so firmly that it will be hard for Fischer to let it go, it could lead to problems with Fischer's grasp of reality.

Besides the lack of moral depth, the plot and characters in this film just aren't given a believable foundation. Here's another plot hole: If Cobb just wants to see his kids again, he doesn't have to find a way to get to America; he can have them brought to France. He could at least asked his dad for a few pictures, so he can remember their faces. Really, the whole thing about not remembering his kids' faces is absurd. We are supposed to believe that the moment before he left America was his only chance to get a memorable glimpse of their faces? What father cannot remember his kids' faces? I found it impossible to feel for Cobb, because I could not take this whole situation seriously.

Aside from general plot and character failures, there are a good number of logical inconsistencies in the film. For example, the use of music in the dreams. Music is used to give cues to people in the dream worlds. Given the logic of the dream worlds, this would require that the music be played at a super fast speed, so it would sound normal in the slower dream world. If you play music in the ears of a person who is asleep, it should take them 30 minutes to hear a five-minute song. Yet, in the movie, when they play music for somebody who is sleeping, the music sounds the same in both the dream world and reality. This is inconsistent.

In Inception, sound is not the only sort of information which travels across worlds. All sorts of physical interactions do: When water splashes on a dreamer's face, water enters the dream, too. When the dormant body is violently accelerated or decelerated, the shift is felt in the dream world, too. To be consistent, Nolan would have to have his dream worlds constantly bombarded with all sorts of information from higher-level dreams and waking life. Of course, it is obvious why Nolan does not want to be consistent here: It would make his dream worlds chaotic and unpleasant, and practically unwatchable for the audience.

A bigger problem: Fischer (who, by the way, is the most interesting and engaging character in the whole film, and who should have had a lot more to do) dies in a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream while under heavy sedation, which means he goes into Limbo. This is supposed to be an unconstructed dream space, but it actually contains a whole world of constructions which Cobb and Mal (Cotillard) had constructed together. When Fischer enters Limbo, he is immediately captured by Cobb's subconscious projection of Mal. Yet, when Saito enters the same Limbo, he is not. In fact, it takes Cobb a long time--apparently decades--to find him. That is inconsistent.

More, Fischer had been trained to create aggressive subconscious projections which defend him against dream intruders. These projections appear at every dream level, but they are nowhere to be found in Limbo. Why not? We might think it is because subconscious projections do not appear in Limbo, but that is not true, because Mal is there, and Saito has plenty of his own subconscious projections down there, too. No, the real reason Fischer's subconscious projections don't appear in Limbo is because they would make it very difficult for Mal to capture him. (By the way, why were Cobb and Mal alone, without subconscious projections, when they spent decades together in their shared dream world?)

Aside frpm all of these problems, we might enjoy Inception just for giving us an interesting view of what it means to dream. Unfortunately, the film fails here as well. I cannot accept Nolan's vision as a plausible interpretation of what dreams are actually like.

First, the whole time-scale thing is too implausible. According to Nolan's dream-logic, if you die in a dream, then you wake up--unless you are under heavy sedation, in which case you go into a deeper dream state in which a few hours of sleep entail decades of conscious experience. This is unrealistic. People do not always wake up when they die in their dreams. Furthermore, people presumably die in their dreams while under sedation. Why haven't we heard of anyone having absurdly long conscious experiences while dreaming?

Here's another problem. During one dream, the players enter a dream-within-a-dream. I'll call the dream world D1 and the dream-within-a-dream world D2. In D1, they are in a van which eventually drives off the side of a bridge. This is supposed to put them into free fall, which any physicist will tell you is wrong. Free fall is not induced by driving off a bridge. Free fall is when you are falling directly towards a center of gravity without any other forces acting on you. Nolan gets the physics of free fall wrong, but that is not the point. The point is that, according to the film, if you are in free fall in D1, then there is no gravity in D2. Presumably, if astronauts in space have no gravity, then their dreams would not have gravity, either. I think we can test this hypothesis pretty easily: just ask an astronaut. The whole free fall bit is stupid, and it's only there to set up the zero-gravity action sequence between Arthur (Gordon-Levitt) and some subconscious projections.

Also, Nolan makes his dream worlds far more worldly than dreams actually are. For example, if you are shot in the chest in a dream world, you slowly die. In the real world (that is, the world outside of Nolan's film), when people are shot in dreams, anything can happen. Nolan's dream worlds just aren't realistic.

Finally, in the dream worlds, there is only one dreamer, but many players. Apparently, only one person is actually dreaming, even though all the other people are actively engaging in the dream. What is the difference between dreaming a dream and actively engaging in a dream while asleep? We are not told, and I think there is a good reason why this information is kept from the audience: It does not make sense. If two people are sharing a dream, they are both dreaming. I have no idea why Nolan would want to suggest otherwise.

Maybe that's enough about the illogical, incoherent, and unconvincing nature of the film. Now I want to discuss the way Nolan uses pop psychology and pop philosophy to entrance his audience.

Here is a good example of Nolan's lack of subtlety. At one point, Cobb enters what looks like, and what essentially is, an opium den: an underground chamber full of people living their lives in controlled slumber. The caretaker, an old Asian man (who is obviously very wise, because he is old and Asian and he smiles knowingly), suggests that the people are not sleeping to escape reality, but to find it. For them, the dream is more real than waking life, and who are we to say otherwise? (The old man addresses the question to Cobb, but it is equally addressed to the audience.)

In this and other similarly dull scenes, Inception suggests philosophical questions about the dream/reality distinction. Unfortunately, if there are any serious questions to be had here, Inception doesn't help us find them. The difference between dreams and waking life is not problematic. Sure, from time to time we might confuse dream memories with real memories, and we may sometimes wake up thinking our dreams were realistic, but we never fail to understand the difference. I see no reason to think there is a philosophical problem with the dream/reality distinction, and Nolan hasn't given me any reason to think differently. He hasn't even given me any useful tools for contemplating the issue. Nolan presents dream worlds which are so realistic that we might want to believe that the real world itself could be confused for a dream. This does not create a philosophical problem; it just makes Inception a very manipulative and unrealistic film.

The film is no stronger when it comes to psychology. I don't have a serious problem with the moral of Inception: The more you try to keep your sorrow and regret locked up inside, the stronger it will become until it breaks through your barriers and takes over your life. Don't live in the past, don't constantly relive your regrets trying to get them right, because you will end up losing control of your emotions. As far as pop psychology goes, that is relatively benign, if a bit tired. However, Inception does not give us any useful insights into these psychological issues. It just feeds us this pre-digested pop psychology without helping us understand it, and without even giving us a good reason to believe it.

And how are the psychological issues resolved? Cobb travels deep into his subconscious to tell his projection of Mal that he does not want her anymore. Voila! He is cured!

I guess we cannot blame audiences for buying such a simplistic and easy resolution, but I cannot say I'm impressed.

Inception would be much better if it had stronger, more believable characters and a more genuine plot. It would also be nice to have a third act which held me on the edge of my seat. The final act of Inception might have at least worked as an action/adventure, if I cared more about the outcome and if it were not so stifled by pointless reminders of the various dream levels. A better film would remind us of the various levels only when furthering the action. It was hard not to yawn when I should have been gasping for breath. I found the whole thing underwhelming.