Aller au contenu

Photo

Quarians POV on the Geth


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
122 réponses à ce sujet

#101
Ramirez Wolfen

Ramirez Wolfen
  • Members
  • 2 607 messages

marshalleck wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

They may be self-aware, but that doesn't mean that a creation can grant itself autonomy from its creator.


Right because the geth are totally reliant on the Quarians.

They don't even make their own decisions...oh wait.


The Quarians have rightful ownership of their creations, regardless of whether the Geth depends on the creators or not.


"rightful ownership" is meaningless when they lack the ability to enforce their will upon the geth. 


Then the Quarians will have to take their place above the Geth as rightful owners, which they are trying to do (the ones that support Admiral Daro'Xen, that is)

#102
marshalleck

marshalleck
  • Members
  • 15 645 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
Then the Quarians will have to take their place above the Geth as rightful owners, which they are trying to do (the ones that support Admiral Daro'Xen, that is)


I'd say that's incredibly unlikely, if they weren't able to do it at the height of their civilization they probably won't be able to do it 300 years after their collapse and ruin. 

I see this going exceptionally badly for the quarians should they pursue renewed open and direct hostilities with the geth. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 05 février 2011 - 08:43 .


#103
Rogue Unit

Rogue Unit
  • Members
  • 1 665 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Rogue Unit wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

They may be self-aware, but that doesn't mean that a creation can grant itself autonomy from its creator.


Right because the geth are totally reliant on the Quarians.

They don't even make their own decisions...oh wait.


The Quarians have rightful ownership of their creations, regardless of whether the Geth depends on the creators or not.


Which is fine and dandy, until their creation becomes self-aware. Then it's slavery.


It's not slavery. They were the Quarians creation. The Quarians can do with them as they wish.


Yup. I'm done talking with you. Good night.:wizard:

#104
Ramirez Wolfen

Ramirez Wolfen
  • Members
  • 2 607 messages

Rogue Unit wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Rogue Unit wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

They may be self-aware, but that doesn't mean that a creation can grant itself autonomy from its creator.


Right because the geth are totally reliant on the Quarians.

They don't even make their own decisions...oh wait.


The Quarians have rightful ownership of their creations, regardless of whether the Geth depends on the creators or not.


Which is fine and dandy, until their creation becomes self-aware. Then it's slavery.


It's not slavery. They were the Quarians creation. The Quarians can do with them as they wish.


Yup. I'm done talking with you. Good night.:wizard:


See you later! Nighty night, buddy! :)

Modifié par Ramirez Wolfen, 05 février 2011 - 08:45 .


#105
Krytheos

Krytheos
  • Members
  • 418 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

It depends on your viewpoint. The Quarians don't consider the Geth to be a race, and they are their creators. And becoming sentient through a mistake and questioning your intended purpose doesn't make you a race, especially if your a machine.




The geth are a race, in fact, a species; they fit the definition adequately, and just because they are a 'machine' does not mean they are not, in fact, a race of some form. You are not suddenly invalidated because one race thinks another is not a race; if this were the case, many political parties could reasonably be separated as 'those crazy non-species people' which, while appropiate, is stupid, nonsensical, and almost as dumb as trying to run over a tree.

Now what the quarians think of the geth is another matter altogether that I don't feel the need to touch upon, but just to clarify:

Just because you created something doesn't mean it's automatically not a race or species, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such. Council's word is practically law, and if they're filed under a race, RECOGNIZED AS A RACIAL THREAT TO THE GALAXY, and have been referred to as a race...well.

They are. A race. Now onto definition of species, just to keep this from becoming too muddled up of a 'no they're not a species.' and provide clear definition from two different sources.




Definition of Species: 

1. Biology
  • A: A fundamental taxonomical classfiction, ranking below a genus or subgenus, and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
  • B: An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial
    nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a
    capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. Logic.

A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common
attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a
genus.


3.
  • A kind, variety, or type: "No species of performing artist is as self-critical as a dancer" (Susan Sontag)
  • The human race; mankind.

And just to further clarify, I'll also add another version of the definitions from other sources.

1. Biology
  • The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the
    basic category of biological classification, composed of related
    individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among
    themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
  •   Any of the taxonomic groups into which a genus is divided,
    the members of which are capable of interbreeding: often containing
    subspecies, varieties, or races. A species is designated in italics by
    the genus name followed by the specific name, for example Felis domesticus (the domestic cat)
2. Logic.
  • A group of objects or individuals, all sharing at least one common attribute, that forms a subdivision of a genus

Now with that pesky definition montage a relatively easy google search can come up with out of the way, maaaybe this discussion can start having a bit more sensibility. Possibly.

Source 1

Source 2

Modifié par Krytheos, 05 février 2011 - 08:48 .


#106
Ramirez Wolfen

Ramirez Wolfen
  • Members
  • 2 607 messages

marshalleck wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
Then the Quarians will have to take their place above the Geth as rightful owners, which they are trying to do (the ones that support Admiral Daro'Xen, that is)


I'd say that's incredibly unlikely, if they weren't able to do it at the height of their civilization they probably won't be able to do it 300 years after their collapse and ruin. 

I see this going exceptionally badly for the quarians should they pursue renewed open and direct hostilities with the geth. 


Cerberus was trying to get the ability to control the Geth (actually that's irrelevant). War with the Geth is a bad option for the Quarians, unless they deploy some kind of ploy.

#107
DarkSeraphym

DarkSeraphym
  • Members
  • 825 messages

Krytheos wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

It depends on your viewpoint. The Quarians don't consider the Geth to be a race, and they are their creators. And becoming sentient through a mistake and questioning your intended purpose doesn't make you a race, especially if your a machine.




The geth are a race, in fact, a species; they fit the definition adequately, and just because they are a 'machine' does not mean they are not, in fact, a race of some form. You are not suddenly invalidated because one race thinks another is not a race; if this were the case, many political parties could reasonably be separated as 'those crazy non-species people' which, while appropiate, is stupid, nonsensical, and almost as dumb as trying to run over a tree.

Now what the quarians think of the geth is another matter altogether that I don't feel the need to touch upon, but just to clarify:

Just because you created something doesn't mean it's automatically not a race or species, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such. Council's word is practically law, and if they're filed under a race, RECOGNIZED AS A RACIAL THREAT TO THE GALAXY, and have been referred to as a race...well.

They are. A race. Now onto definition of species, just to keep this from becoming too muddled up of a 'no they're not a species.' and provide clear definition from two different sources.




Definition of Species: 

1. Biology
  • A: A fundamental taxonomical classfiction, ranking below a genus or subgenus, and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
  • B: An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial
    nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a
    capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. Logic.

A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common
attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a
genus.


3.
  • A kind, variety, or type: "No species of performing artist is as self-critical as a dancer" (Susan Sontag)
  • The human race; mankind.

And just to further clarify, I'll also add another version of the definitions from other sources.

1. Biology
  • The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the
    basic category of biological classification, composed of related
    individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among
    themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
  •   Any of the taxonomic groups into which a genus is divided,
    the members of which are capable of interbreeding: often containing
    subspecies, varieties, or races. A species is designated in italics by
    the genus name followed by the specific name, for example Felis domesticus (the domestic cat)
2. Logic.
  • A group of objects or individuals, all sharing at least one common attribute, that forms a subdivision of a genus

Now with that pesky definition montage a relatively easy google search can come up with out of the way, maaaybe this discussion can start having a bit more sensibility. Possibly.

Source 1

Source 2


Out of curiosity, which of these definitions are you seeking to use to argue that the Geth are species? If you are attempting to use the biology one, I think you may have made a couple of mistakes in applying it.

If you look carefully at your definition in the biological sense, one of the requirements in both of your defintions is that it has to be capable of "interbreeding" amongst one another. As far as we know, there is nothing to suggest in the Mass Effect lore that the Geth are capable of doing this at all. Likewise, your first defintion with regards to biology uses the word "organism", but the Geth aren't actually organisms as the definition of organism today was never built to accomodate artificial intelligence life forms. The Geth are not capable of asexual or sexual reproduction and probably don't "grow" in the same way that living things do as the Geth don't appear to have cells (which is normally how an organism grows through cellular divison), which are both requirements for something to be considered an organism today. If anything, something like the Geth would demand a separate field of science for study altogether as much of what they actually are, sentient programs, defies most of the very fundamental principles in biology itself.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 05 février 2011 - 09:26 .


#108
volus4life

volus4life
  • Members
  • 289 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

They may be self-aware, but that doesn't mean that a creation can grant itself autonomy from its creator.


Right because the geth are totally reliant on the Quarians.

They don't even make their own decisions...oh wait.


The Quarians have rightful ownership of their creations, regardless of whether the Geth depends on the creators or not.


not to be harsh, but you sound like a guy who would justify slavery because someone bought a slave, therefore they are their property and they can do whatever they want. for you, it's not about whether the geth are sentient or not, you just believe that the quarians own the geth.

#109
Krytheos

Krytheos
  • Members
  • 418 messages
Since I don't want to quote a huge wall of text, and more walls of text to clog up space, is it fine that I just bolded the message and replied hitherforth?



Dark Seraphym Said: 

Out of curiosity, which of these definitions are you seeking to
use to argue that the Geth are species? If you are attempting to use the
biology one, I think you may have made a couple of mistakes in applying
it.

If you look carefully at your definition in the biological
sense, one of the requirements in both of your defintions is that it has
to be capable of "interbreeding" amongst one another. As far as we
know, there is nothing to suggest in the Mass Effect lore that the Geth
are capable of doing this at all. Likewise, your first defintion with
regards to biology uses the word "organism", but the Geth aren't
actually organisms as the definition of organism today was never built
to accomodate artificial intelligence life forms. The Geth are not
capable of asexual or sexual reproduction and probably don't "grow" in
the same way that living things do as the Geth don't appear to have
cells (which is normally how an organism grows through cellular
divison), which are both requirements for something to be considered an
organism today.


The Geth are certainly a race, but I'm not convinced you could actually call them a species in the biological sense.




Reply:

Biologically speaking, one could argue that they do in fact, interbreed, though not necessarily in any tradtional sense; this is a hypothetical passage, so forgive me if it seems pretentious, or silly in anyway; this is just a possible explanation of clarifying or using the Biology definition, of which I am not. I prefer the logic definition, as it seems more fitting.


A possibility exists that the geth do in fact, interbreed, though as I said, not traditionally; they don't have intercourse, but they do reproduce in a fashion not unakin to your average everyday program; if you apply the knowedlge of how Legion says at one point that they 'evolved' from a series of complex programs, it is not unlike cellular mitosis, a process that might in fact be similar to how geth such as Legion, evolved. As Legion says, they are each individual programs that give their own inputs and calculations, to form a collective consciousness that form opinions, some dissenting, some not, in their own way, making each program an individuaised program.


Ultimately, what this means is they could have, and utilized, a form similar to cellular reproduction, which is called Mitosis. Through this method of reproduction, the programs are interacting and interbreeding with one another in a similar fashion to our own cells, which then can make up the many programs that form up the geth collective consciousness that make an individualised geth such as Legion a possible endeavor.


In short: I personally use the Logic definition, as it seems much more fitting, but it could be possible to also use the biological definition as well; it wouldn't be too far-fetched, I would think.

#110
Ramirez Wolfen

Ramirez Wolfen
  • Members
  • 2 607 messages

volus4life wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

They may be self-aware, but that doesn't mean that a creation can grant itself autonomy from its creator.


Right because the geth are totally reliant on the Quarians.

They don't even make their own decisions...oh wait.


The Quarians have rightful ownership of their creations, regardless of whether the Geth depends on the creators or not.


not to be harsh, but you sound like a guy who would justify slavery because someone bought a slave, therefore they are their property and they can do whatever they want. for you, it's not about whether the geth are sentient or not, you just believe that the quarians own the geth.


If a slave was bought, not created, it's not justifiable. If you didn't create it, you don't have the right.

#111
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 425 messages
I'm just gonna post this here: 

Zing Freelancer wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch - Geth Network


www.youtube.com/watch - Quarian Rebellion



www.youtube.com/watch - Geth Future


this vids deserve a bump.



#112
DarkSeraphym

DarkSeraphym
  • Members
  • 825 messages

Krytheos wrote...

Since I don't want to quote a huge wall of text, and more walls of text to clog up space, is it fine that I just bolded the message and replied hitherforth?

Biologically speaking, one could argue that they do in fact, interbreed, though not necessarily in any tradtional sense; this is a hypothetical passage, so forgive me if it seems pretentious, or silly in anyway; this is just a possible explanation of clarifying or using the Biology definition, of which I am not. I prefer the logic definition, as it seems more fitting.


A possibility exists that the geth do in fact, interbreed, though as I said, not traditionally; they don't have intercourse, but they do reproduce in a fashion not unakin to your average everyday program; if you apply the knowedlge of how Legion says at one point that they 'evolved' from a series of complex programs, it is not unlike cellular mitosis, a process that might in fact be similar to how geth such as Legion, evolved. As Legion says, they are each individual programs that give their own inputs and calculations, to form a collective consciousness that form opinions, some dissenting, some not, in their own way, making each program an individuaised program.


Ultimately, what this means is they could have, and utilized, a form similar to cellular reproduction, which is called Mitosis. Through this method of reproduction, the programs are interacting and interbreeding with one another in a similar fashion to our own cells, which then can make up the many programs that form up the geth collective consciousness that make an individualised geth such as Legion a possible endeavor.


In short: I personally use the Logic definition, as it seems much more fitting, but it could be possible to also use the biological definition as well; it wouldn't be too far-fetched, I would think.


That is fine. I was about to do the samething when I was originally posting that response.^_^

Mitosis is not "interbeeding" as mitosis merely creates an identical duplicate of the mother cell. This is asexual reproduction. There is no need of interaction between organisms in mitosis because it is merely the reproduction of a single parent cell that is necessary. The only thing that this form of reproduction ever creates is identical cells as a result. This would certainly make your biological definition plausible, but then this would lead me to wonder how the Geth ever achieved sentience, or even managed to split into 2 entirely different factions, if the only reproduction they go through is the same reproduction you get by copying a file off of your harddrive and then storing it to a USB (which is essentially the samething as mitosis). There has to be something else behind their reproduction, otherwise the way they evolved wouldn't make sense.

Moving on, my biggest problem with using the logic part of your defintion is that at the end, it seeks to use the word "genus", which in of itself is also a word dealing with the study of biology. No matter what, all of those defintions fly straight into the field of biology and I think attempting to apply biology as a science to the Geth just doesn't make any sense, nor is it appropriate, as a lot of the "core" theories of biology simply do not apply to the Geth. Nothing in our world today is even comparable to the Geth.

Really, one of the biggest problems for biology with the Geth is can we even call them an organism (you can't even have a genus if you have no organism)? Technically, an organism has to be able to reproduce itself, grow, sustain homeostasis, and be a "living" thing. After applying that, now we move onto what is a living thing? Well, most people would define a living thing as something that responds to stimuli and survives. Finally, we get down to what is survival? Survival is any process that an organism has to go through just to stay alive, but what happens if something doesn't stay alive? Well for biology, if something doesn't stay alive then it dies. However, can the Geth actually die? Keep in mind one of the core ideas for biology is that the self-sustaining processes of life do eventually cease to function and this process is irreversible. However if the Geth are programs, is it impossible to reverse the effects of death? Likewise if you cloned a single Geth program, is it impossible for it to be totally identical in the sameway that if I cloned you, it would be impossible for you and your clone to share the same memories or levels of intelligence at that point in time?

What I'm driving at is that the Geth are kind of an animal all of their own that seem like, along with any other machine-based life form, would require a science all of their own. They obviously do not reproduce through mitosis, as this would simply keep creating the same Geth programs over and over. However, they also don't reproduce sexually as they lack the genetic capability to achieve it. Likewise, the Geth, EDE, and the Reapers themselves all constitute a form of life that our study of life today, biology, appears to be entirely incompatible with.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 05 février 2011 - 10:44 .


#113
volus4life

volus4life
  • Members
  • 289 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

volus4life wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

They may be self-aware, but that doesn't mean that a creation can grant itself autonomy from its creator.


Right because the geth are totally reliant on the Quarians.

They don't even make their own decisions...oh wait.


The Quarians have rightful ownership of their creations, regardless of whether the Geth depends on the creators or not.


not to be harsh, but you sound like a guy who would justify slavery because someone bought a slave, therefore they are their property and they can do whatever they want. for you, it's not about whether the geth are sentient or not, you just believe that the quarians own the geth.


If a slave was bought, not created, it's not justifiable. If you didn't create it, you don't have the right.


what about miranda, who was created by miranda's "dad"? her dad has the right to destroy her as he sees fit?

Modifié par volus4life, 05 février 2011 - 11:45 .


#114
Ramirez Wolfen

Ramirez Wolfen
  • Members
  • 2 607 messages

volus4life wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

volus4life wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

They may be self-aware, but that doesn't mean that a creation can grant itself autonomy from its creator.


Right because the geth are totally reliant on the Quarians.

They don't even make their own decisions...oh wait.


The Quarians have rightful ownership of their creations, regardless of whether the Geth depends on the creators or not.


not to be harsh, but you sound like a guy who would justify slavery because someone bought a slave, therefore they are their property and they can do whatever they want. for you, it's not about whether the geth are sentient or not, you just believe that the quarians own the geth.


If a slave was bought, not created, it's not justifiable. If you didn't create it, you don't have the right.


what about miranda, who was created by miranda's "dad"? her dad has the right to destroy her as he sees fit?


She was created for a puropose, and she went against it. That's defiance. I'm going to sound like a horrible monster, but, (I'm really going to get some flak for this) yes.

#115
Suron

Suron
  • Members
  • 2 245 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Eradyn wrote...

James2912 wrote...

I don't think its genocide by our standards just a few people here on the forums. I mean most people don't consider computers to have a right to live. I mean people don't go to jail for dropping their computers.


We are all machines; organic machines, beautifully complex, but machines nonetheless.  A mere computer, or calculator, or toaster, I would not consider alive in the first place, and hence no reason to consider any "rights" for it.  But once you cross into the realm of sapience, those gloves are off.  If my computer somehow developed sapience, then I would be dealing with a living being, albeit not an organic one, and would need to respect its own inherent rights granted by its new-found sapience.


but if you created it, don't you have the right to destroy it?


you and your "mate" can create a child.

if you created a child and both of you agree to kill (destroy) it should it be ok?

use logic if your'e going to try and argue

#116
Ramirez Wolfen

Ramirez Wolfen
  • Members
  • 2 607 messages

Suron wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Eradyn wrote...

James2912 wrote...

I don't think its genocide by our standards just a few people here on the forums. I mean most people don't consider computers to have a right to live. I mean people don't go to jail for dropping their computers.


We are all machines; organic machines, beautifully complex, but machines nonetheless.  A mere computer, or calculator, or toaster, I would not consider alive in the first place, and hence no reason to consider any "rights" for it.  But once you cross into the realm of sapience, those gloves are off.  If my computer somehow developed sapience, then I would be dealing with a living being, albeit not an organic one, and would need to respect its own inherent rights granted by its new-found sapience.


but if you created it, don't you have the right to destroy it?


you and your "mate" can create a child.

if you created a child and both of you agree to kill (destroy) it should it be ok?

use logic if your'e going to try and argue


There is such thing as abortion. This is turning into a moral issue.

#117
Aggie Punbot

Aggie Punbot
  • Members
  • 2 736 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
There is such thing as abortion. This is turning into a moral issue.

Pardon me, this is "turning" into a moral issue? It's been a moral issue all along.

#118
James2912

James2912
  • Members
  • 1 339 messages
I think basically we must all agree to disagree.

#119
Null_

Null_
  • Members
  • 411 messages
Not a 3rd thread about this on front page please

Modifié par Null_, 06 février 2011 - 02:24 .


#120
Lapis Lazuli

Lapis Lazuli
  • Members
  • 495 messages

wulf3n wrote...

But want you think in RL is ultimately irrelevant in the context of the game, as ME clearly states the geth are a species. Whether AI can truly be sentient is another matter, but it's like saying i don't believe  an "element" can lower the mass of certain things as well as give people telekinetic powers, because the game says it does, so in the context of the game it does.


We are given that Geth are sentient through exposition, but we are also given through exposition that the Reapers exist. It doesn't mean every character in the game has to believe it. It is being suggested that wiping out the Geth is wrong because exposition states the fact that they are sentient, but the question is:  can a character in the story be justified in not believing they are?

#121
Ramirez Wolfen

Ramirez Wolfen
  • Members
  • 2 607 messages

TS2Aggie wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
There is such thing as abortion. This is turning into a moral issue.

Pardon me, this is "turning" into a moral issue? It's been a moral issue all along.


Which is why this shouldn't involve morals. No one has the same morals.

#122
GuardianAngel470

GuardianAngel470
  • Members
  • 4 922 messages

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Eradyn wrote...

James2912 wrote...

I don't think its genocide by our standards just a few people here on the forums. I mean most people don't consider computers to have a right to live. I mean people don't go to jail for dropping their computers.


We are all machines; organic machines, beautifully complex, but machines nonetheless.  A mere computer, or calculator, or toaster, I would not consider alive in the first place, and hence no reason to consider any "rights" for it.  But once you cross into the realm of sapience, those gloves are off.  If my computer somehow developed sapience, then I would be dealing with a living being, albeit not an organic one, and would need to respect its own inherent rights granted by its new-found sapience.


but if you created it, don't you have the right to destroy it?


This post reminds me of Bill Cosby.

"I brought you into this world, and I can take you Out!"

#123
GuardianAngel470

GuardianAngel470
  • Members
  • 4 922 messages

James2912 wrote...

I think basically we must all agree to disagree.


Yup, pretty much this. This has literally been debated for a year now and has gone absolutely nowhere. Each side still believes what they believe and they won't change so stop wasting your breath, fingers, whatever.