384 réponses à ce sujet

[Drachasor]

Silrian wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

Silrian wrote...

@Drachasor I am not ignoring the fact which you brought up, I simply do not agree with you that because something is structurally different, it dictates a different ethical treatment. I think ethics should be based on something that transcends any contingent (perhaps material) status, because if it doesn't, how can we prevent this from falling into arbitrary will-bound judgements? I simply do not see how one can appeal to any logical form of ethics when one supposes the form of materialism we have just discussed, without, eventually, falling into arbitrary judgements.

Well, if you ignore the differences we can actually see...you know the stuff that's part of the observable universe.  Then you can't even say humans have this mystical stuff in them, let alone anything else.  Heck, you couldn't even prove that a rock DIDN'T have the life-ghost-stuff in it.  How is that a useful way to go?  Seems like it is a heck of a lot more arbitrary than materialism (which is, imho, the opposite of arbitrary, since it is saying you can measure such things in principle at least).

A valid point, though I never said materialism was arbitrary. Any form of ethics within the confounds of a materialistic world view is in my opinion arbitrary. The rock-bottom 'but then we can't say anything' conclusion is I think correct, which results in the discussion we have now where one defends the position he/she finds more agreeable to some other who finds another one agreeable. This discussion can't be solved because if it could, the discussion itself would be irrelevant. I personally do not adhere to materialism, but that is a completely unscientific point of view. Ironically, the opposite is also unscientific (because neither has been proven scientifically). We can then, I hope, agree to disagree on as many occasions as possible, this being one of them. This proposed agreement however is going a bit far off the game-topic.

In regards to the current topic, I still remain of the opinion that logically materialism yields to any ethical theory being arbitrary. Therefore in my opinion the ethical dilemma at hand only arises when the Geth are assumed to be more than just machines (as was, I think, stated before by someone else). I simply assume, in light of the evidence presented thus far, that they are not, and though I completely acknowledge this to be possibly a wrong judgement, I, with that in mind, would hope for a peaceful solution, but would accept an enslaving one as well, for the sake of organic life and I think the altter holds more priority than the former, which is why I would still side with vas Normeh.

There is perhaps an arbitrariness to ethics within materialism, but a worse arbitrariness wrt ethics exists in the infinite possible non-material axioms anyone could propose, all equally valid given none could be proved (e.g. all equally invalid as well).

Though, personally, I hold with the logical contention that there's no sound reason to value another sentient more than another, and only egoism in valuing myself over another individual (which is not a sound reason).  That leads me to utilitarianism as a pretty sound ethical principle (e.g. everyone is equally entitled to happiness).

[Dean_the_Young]

Drachasor wrote...

But time you repeat it you STILL are making a decision.  You are still analyizing the situation, variables, emotions, etc, and reaching a conclusion in your mental processess.  That's the important stuff in decision-making.

Uh, that's what I said. The repeat-game effect would be the only reason to change a decision.

If you give someone that is psychotic anti-psychotics so they can function in the world, that's hardly repugnant.  If someone can't help but murder people, then getting them treatment so they DON'T murder people is hardly repugnant.  If someone can't help but steal and there's a way to treat that, then treating it is hardly repugnant.  If such people CANNOT be helped, then keeping them from harming others is not repugnant either.  There's no need for spiteful penal system here.

What would be repugnant is letting people hurt others without stopping them.

Except they are morally blameless because it's the deterministic output of their biology and circumstance. Just like your moral response to stop them is actually your deterministic output.

Your moral basis doesn't exist, since your actions and thoughts aren't freely generated but only the predictable output of chemistry and circumstance. This entire conversation was fated to occure before the invention of the internet (and at the conception of the universe).

Without Free Will there are still choices; those choices are just bound up in the fact we live in a world made of matter, governed by physical forces.  There is still coersion as well, as an individual can still force another to act in a way they would not choose to and do not want to.  Desires and feeling still exist.  In fact, I challenge you to explicitly define what is lost.

You'll find "free will" is a rather odd concept to nail down in a coherent and sensible way.

Indeed... but there would be no choice, only the illusion of choice. While the physical capability for differing actions would exist, as it always does, the decision to move or not to move, and what choice to make, would be determined by your biological impulses that are already placed in the chain of action and reaction. You might think you make a choice, but you didn't: even the thought of making a choice is in and of itself a predictable result, and a predictable outcome, according to biological determinism.

You don't get it both ways.

This is the real heart of the matter, I think.  To prove your thesis, you have to prove that people can make choices without biological determinism.  So go ahead and do that first to show people are different from machines.  If you can't do that, then you can't show that humans in mass effect are fundamentally different from the geth as far as what they are capable of goes (nor that humans in real life have any inherent advantage of any AI we create).

Sure: here's my test. Infact, I'll use you as the demonstration subject.

Prove that there is biological determinism. If you can't, you can't show that the Geth are sentient by a common definition of sentience.

Tadah: it works both ways.

[Silrian]

My quote got messed up in the last post, sorry. My post is obviously the lowest one.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

They were illogical then and now they're not.

They're still not making illogical decisions and maintaining illogical positions made from a presumed prior period of illogic?

Remember that the geth were primitive when the quarians tried to destroy them. Their intelligence hadn't fully developed yet. As time went by, they became more complex and knowlegeable.

Would you like it if people condemned you now for something you did during your babyhood?

Not at all. Then again, I don't claim that my babyhood marked the dawn of my sentience, or that my birth tremors proved it. Nor do I maintain the acts and policies of my childhood.

And I'm not saying they're innocent. They did some bad stuff, but now that's the past. We can either get people killed fighting them, or we can leave them where they are.

Or we can still get killed by them now: Heretics, anyone? Not just the current Heretics, mind you: the Heretic split proved that outside stimuli can drive drastic changes in Geth conclusions, and not conclusions that will also allow others to 'leave them alone.'

Their past actions, and their nature, are all that are needed to warrant a rather strong defense.

[Dean_the_Young]

In the sense of being a gestalt AI, but no reason has ever been provided as to why a gestalt AI would be more hostile than any other sort.

[lolwut666]

@Dean_the_Young

The heretic geth attacked and were dealt with. If they attack again, they'll be fought.

I just disagree with going after the other geth.

And "outside stimuli" can influence any species, not just the geth. The other Council races might decide to wage war on humanity or whoever else for their own reasons. Are you going to suggest that we neutralize them, as well?

And we're talking about an entire galactic community that forbade the existance of AIs way before the geth rebelled. If the geth researched the views of organics concerning synthetics on the extranet, I'm sure the majority of the opinions would argue about the AIs being a menace, and that synthetic sentience is not the same as organic sentience.

Can you really trust those people to stop at diplomacy? For all I know, they might decide to deactivate the geth or try to control them later on.

Modifié par lolwut666, 09 mai 2011 - 11:17 .

[Drachasor]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

But time you repeat it you STILL are making a decision.  You are still analyizing the situation, variables, emotions, etc, and reaching a conclusion in your mental processess.  That's the important stuff in decision-making.

Uh, that's what I said. The repeat-game effect would be the only reason to change a decision.

As opposed to some random extra-reality mechanism?  That's somehow better than the facts and feelings on the matter forming your decision?  How?

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you give someone that is psychotic anti-psychotics so they can function in the world, that's hardly repugnant.  If someone can't help but murder people, then getting them treatment so they DON'T murder people is hardly repugnant.  If someone can't help but steal and there's a way to treat that, then treating it is hardly repugnant.  If such people CANNOT be helped, then keeping them from harming others is not repugnant either.  There's no need for spiteful penal system here.

What would be repugnant is letting people hurt others without stopping them.

Except they are morally blameless because it's the deterministic output of their biology and circumstance. Just like your moral response to stop them is actually your deterministic output.

Your moral basis doesn't exist, since your actions and thoughts aren't freely generated but only the predictable output of chemistry and circumstance. This entire conversation was fated to occure before the invention of the internet (and at the conception of the universe).

In a deterministic world, when someone hurts someone else without sufficient reason (e.g. not self defense), then it is still WRONG.  The act is wrong.  Someone that does that a lot is a bad person; e.g. a person that tends to perform wrong acts.  It doesn't matter that this is a deterministic result of their programming.  Are evil gods in fantasy books not really evil because they are composed of pure evil stuff and so don't have a choice?  Are Orcs in the Lord of the Rings, not really evil because they didn't choose to do evil, but it is instead simply part of what they are?  (We'll ignore Tolkien later vaciliting on whether they had choices and stick with his earlier opinion for the purposes of this discussion).

Good and evil, right and wrong, have value regardless of wether Free Will exists, because you don't need Free Will to feel pain, joy, or any other emotion.  Free Will does NOT magically impart things with value.

Also, quantum processess and just plain old chaos theory rule out pre-determinism, which is different from what I am talking about.  Strictly, speaking, the former rules out a deterministic universe in general.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Without Free Will there are still choices; those choices are just bound up in the fact we live in a world made of matter, governed by physical forces.  There is still coersion as well, as an individual can still force another to act in a way they would not choose to and do not want to.  Desires and feeling still exist.  In fact, I challenge you to explicitly define what is lost.

You'll find "free will" is a rather odd concept to nail down in a coherent and sensible way.

Indeed... but there would be no choice, only the illusion of choice. While the physical capability for differing actions would exist, as it always does, the decision to move or not to move, and what choice to make, would be determined by your biological impulses that are already placed in the chain of action and reaction. You might think you make a choice, but you didn't: even the thought of making a choice is in and of itself a predictable result, and a predictable outcome, according to biological determinism.

You don't get it both ways.

Making a decision is making a choice (synonyms).  Just because a sufficiently advanced computer would be able to predict your choice, doesn't mean you didn't make a choice.  Choices exists and are made without Free Will.  A choice is simply picking one out of many (perhaps apparently infinite) possibilities, it doesn't imply any sort of Free Will by any means.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

This is the real heart of the matter, I think.  To prove your thesis, you have to prove that people can make choices without biological determinism.  So go ahead and do that first to show people are different from machines.  If you can't do that, then you can't show that humans in mass effect are fundamentally different from the geth as far as what they are capable of goes (nor that humans in real life have any inherent advantage of any AI we create).

Sure: here's my test. Infact, I'll use you as the demonstration subject.

Prove that there is biological determinism. If you can't, you can't show that the Geth are sentient by a common definition of sentience.

Tadah: it works both ways.

Biological determinsim?  Easy enough if you are ok with some random noise due to quantum processess (and dice rolling certainly isn't free will, yes?)

We're made of atoms.  The behavior of atoms is well understand and follows quantum mechanics, at large scales it is quite deterministic with a tiny bit of random spice (though since we suck at being random, I imagine the brain weeds most of it out).  We are composed of atoms in the form of molecules, which also obey physical law.  The interaction of molecules similarly is govened by these same laws.  It's all deterministic.

In other words, take an atom that makes you up, it's governeed by physical law in a deterministic (with a bit of randomness thrown in) way.  If you have N atoms in a system, their interactions are governed by physical law, and the same is true if you add another atom.  So by induction we are deterministic (again with some randomness).  There's absolutely no evidence of anything in the universe that doesn't work this way.

[Dean_the_Young]

Drachasor wrote...

As opposed to some random extra-reality mechanism?  That's somehow better than the facts and feelings on the matter forming your decision?  How?

Yes to the first, as a rhetorical point. The premise of free will is that you can say yes or no to a choice when it's presented: repeating the scenario without prior knowledge doesn't imply the same results. The premise of biological determinism is that you will always answer yes (or always answer no) to that choice no matter how many times it was repeated if you didn't have the repeat effect.

In a deterministic world, when someone hurts someone else without sufficient reason (e.g. not self defense), then it is still WRONG.  The act is wrong.  Someone that does that a lot is a bad person; e.g. a person that tends to perform wrong acts.  It doesn't matter that this is a deterministic result of their programming.  Are evil gods in fantasy books not really evil because they are composed of pure evil stuff and so don't have a choice?  Are Orcs in the Lord of the Rings, not really evil because they didn't choose to do evil, but it is instead simply part of what they are?  (We'll ignore Tolkien later vaciliting on whether they had choices and stick with his earlier opinion for the purposes of this discussion).

Good and evil, right and wrong, have value regardless of wether Free Will exists, because you don't need Free Will to feel pain, joy, or any other emotion.  Free Will does NOT magically impart things with value.

It rather does: your views of right and wrong only spring from your biological determinism. Right and wrong have no value other than what your biology assigns to them, and it only assigns those values to them for biological reasons. Your premise of external value in them is, itself, an espect of the biological determinism: determinism doesn't care whether you think it dictates your actions. It dictates your disbelief over it dictating your actions.

Also, quantum processess and just plain old chaos theory rule out pre-determinism, which is different from what I am talking about.  Strictly, speaking, the former rules out a deterministic universe in general.

Neither of those apply to the Geth, or even necessarily to humans. (More arguable about the humans, though.)

Geth have no quantum blue box device to fall back on.

Making a decision is making a choice (synonyms).  Just because a sufficiently advanced computer would be able to predict your choice, doesn't mean you didn't make a choice.  Choices exists and are made without Free Will.  A choice is simply picking one out of many (perhaps apparently infinite) possibilities, it doesn't imply any sort of Free Will by any means.

Making a choice implies the availability of an alternative selection. Determinism does away with that: you aren't making a choice between options, but rather will always pursue a option for deterministic reasons.

Determinism is the equivalent of a movie versus an RPG: a movie will, and can, only play out the same way every time no matter the number of 'choices' presented to the characters.

Biological determinsim?  Easy enough if you are ok with some random noise due to quantum processess (and dice rolling certainly isn't free will, yes?)

We're made of atoms.  The behavior of atoms is well understand and follows quantum mechanics, at large scales it is quite deterministic with a tiny bit of random spice (though since we suck at being random, I imagine the brain weeds most of it out).  We are composed of atoms in the form of molecules, which also obey physical law.  The interaction of molecules similarly is govened by these same laws.  It's all deterministic.

In other words, take an atom that makes you up, it's governeed by physical law in a deterministic (with a bit of randomness thrown in) way.  If you have N atoms in a system, their interactions are governed by physical law, and the same is true if you add another atom.  So by induction we are deterministic (again with some randomness).  There's absolutely no evidence of anything in the universe that doesn't work this way.

Proof not evident as excluding the ability to make choices, as countered by your own argument above. Two mutualy-exclusive arguments are not convincing proof.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 mai 2011 - 11:31 .

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

And "outside stimuli" can influence any species, not just the geth. The other Council races might decide to wage war on humanity or whoever else for their own reasons. Are you going to suggest that we neutralize them, as well?

In the sense of 'have a deterent', which is all I advocate towards the Geth... of course. You would have to be a fool not to.

And we're talking about an entire galactic community that forbade the existance of AIs way before the geth rebelled. If the geth researched the views of organics concerning synthetics on the extranet, I'm sure the majority of the opinions would argue about the AIs being a menace, and that synthetic sentience is not the same as organic sentience.

And that precludes diplomatic relations... how? You don't need to like people to establish relations with them.

Can you really trust those people to stop at diplomacy? For all I know, they might decide to deactivate the geth or try to control them later on.

That would be an incredibly illogical argument for avoiding diplomacy entirely, yes.

[Clonedzero]

oh lordy this thread exploded.

quick! someone give me cliffnotes of the last 6 pages!

[Dean_the_Young]

Biological determinism makes freedom of choice an illusion.

[-Skorpious-]

Admiral Zaal'Koris vas Qwib Qwib - "Zaal'Koris firmly opposes the idea of reclaiming the quarian homeworld, believing that the geth, being sentient, have as much right to live as the quarians, and advocates for the colonization of a new world instead."

During ME3.

Admiral Han'Gerrel vas Neema - "Han'Gerrel firmly supports the idea of reclaiming the quarian
homeworld, claiming that they have the largest fleet in the galaxy, and
they ride around doing nothing."

After ME3.

[Silrian]

@Clonedzero Probably not the only one who is gonna respond to this, but basically there has been an ongoing discussion how (and if) to treat the Geth ethically. This is vastly connected to your opinion on Geth as being(s) possibly living or 'mere machines'. The result of these inquiries eventually determines which quarian admiral to side with, being, for most I think, an outcome related to firstly wether or not you take ethics into account and secondly what, with or without ethical judgements in play, is the most efficient way to deal with the Quarian-Geth struggle in light of the impending Reaper invasion. A possible outcome I myself would aim for, is to have the Geth joining us in our battle against the Reapers, prefferably with, but if necessary without their own consent. This results, for now, in me siding with vas Moreh. Others will probably brief you more and/or state their opinions on the matter.

[jamesp81]

Aramintai wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Aramintai wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I support Admiral vas Qwib Qwib.

I mean, come on. Qwib Qwib.

This. The most sensible guy of them all, and you should give him credit for graceful bearing of a joke name like that.

Sensible?  We are talking about a guy who attempted to get an innocent person convicted of treason in order to further his own political agenda.  Sensible is not a word I would use to describe him.

All three admirals had a political agenda intertwined with this trial. Disregard the emotional part of Tali's trial and you will see that what he stands for makes more sense, than what the others two are suggesting. That is, if you want both geth and quarian fleets at your side and not warring with each other.

OK, divorce all emotion from the situation.

The entire admiralty board prosecuted false charges of treason against an innocent person.  They have proven that they are comfortable with criminality to further their aims.  Avoid trusting or working with.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Aramintai wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Aramintai wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I support Admiral vas Qwib Qwib.

I mean, come on. Qwib Qwib.

This. The most sensible guy of them all, and you should give him credit for graceful bearing of a joke name like that.

Sensible?  We are talking about a guy who attempted to get an innocent person convicted of treason in order to further his own political agenda.  Sensible is not a word I would use to describe him.

All three admirals had a political agenda intertwined with this trial. Disregard the emotional part of Tali's trial and you will see that what he stands for makes more sense, than what the others two are suggesting. That is, if you want both geth and quarian fleets at your side and not warring with each other.

OK, divorce all emotion from the situation.

The entire admiralty board prosecuted false charges of treason against an innocent person.  They have proven that they are comfortable with criminality to further their aims.  Avoid trusting or working with.

They weren't false charges. Their pursuit was politically motivated, but the basis of of the trial (Tali being irresponsible and sending back active Geth parts) is valid in light of what they know.

And, really, Shepard is in no position to get morally to good to work with anyone. The Admiralty board found a trial mixed with politics: Shepard joins forces with a terrorist organization and proceeds to recruit war criminals, regular criminals, murderers, and lethal-force vigilantees to work for him.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

mrsph wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
The geth are open to negotiations. Will the quarians be able to control their genocidal impulses and actually have a little chat with the geth?

It would help if the geth actually bother to communicate with...well...anyone not named Shepard.

It would also help if the Geth didn't have hundreds of years of history of killing anyone and everyone who would try and make contact with them to talk, and then tried to raze Council Space out of the blue.

Yeah, pretty good point.  The Geth certainly have done themselves no favors, diplomatically, since the end of the Morning War.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Biological determinism makes freedom of choice an illusion.

Your personal theory.  I happen to think it's dead-assed wrong.

If this were true, accurately predicting a human's behavior would be simple.  As we well know, it isn't.

Predicting a computer's behavior is quite easy.  That's a subject I'd know a little bit about.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Biological determinism makes freedom of choice an illusion.

Your personal theory.  I happen to think it's dead-assed wrong.

If this were true, accurately predicting a human's behavior would be simple.  As we well know, it isn't.

Predicting a computer's behavior is quite easy.  That's a subject I'd know a little bit about.

That's because the human brain has exponentially more computing power than any computer that has ever been created. It will be approximately 10 years before computers will be as powerful as the human brain.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Aramintai wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Aramintai wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I support Admiral vas Qwib Qwib.

I mean, come on. Qwib Qwib.

This. The most sensible guy of them all, and you should give him credit for graceful bearing of a joke name like that.

Sensible?  We are talking about a guy who attempted to get an innocent person convicted of treason in order to further his own political agenda.  Sensible is not a word I would use to describe him.

All three admirals had a political agenda intertwined with this trial. Disregard the emotional part of Tali's trial and you will see that what he stands for makes more sense, than what the others two are suggesting. That is, if you want both geth and quarian fleets at your side and not warring with each other.

OK, divorce all emotion from the situation.

The entire admiralty board prosecuted false charges of treason against an innocent person.  They have proven that they are comfortable with criminality to further their aims.  Avoid trusting or working with.

They weren't false charges. Their pursuit was politically motivated, but the basis of of the trial (Tali being irresponsible and sending back active Geth parts) is valid in light of what they know.

And, really, Shepard is in no position to get morally to good to work with anyone. The Admiralty board found a trial mixed with politics: Shepard joins forces with a terrorist organization and proceeds to recruit war criminals, regular criminals, murderers, and lethal-force vigilantees to work for him.

The charges were bogus, and two admirals (Daro'Xen and Han'Gerrel) ****ing well knew it from the get go.  It was nothing more than a show trial, worthy of the worst sort of banana-republic dictators throughout all of history.

As for his crew, Shepard recruited people he had to work with to get the job done.  No one made the Admiralty Board put on a show trial.  It was never necessary; that's one thing Daro'Xen was right on.

As for Shepard, he is in a position to do whatever he damned well pleases and it doesn't matter one iota what anyone else thinks of that.

[Golden Owl]

@Drachasor....am in total agreeance with you, you present a solid, well rounded argument and am very much enjoying your posts.

As for my Admiral choices...we aren't given much to work with, brokering for peace between the Geth and Quarian's is the most sensible path, though can the Quarian's be trusted?...that's questionable.

Though Qwib Qwib is a douche, at least he wants peace....I prefer Gerrel's more seemingly mature nature, but disagree with him wanting war...Xen is just a wannabe slaver, she gets no vote from me.

[jamesp81]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Biological determinism makes freedom of choice an illusion.

Your personal theory.  I happen to think it's dead-assed wrong.

If this were true, accurately predicting a human's behavior would be simple.  As we well know, it isn't.

Predicting a computer's behavior is quite easy.  That's a subject I'd know a little bit about.

That's because the human brain has exponentially more computing power than any computer that has ever been created. It will be approximately 10 years before computers will be as powerful as the human brain.

Solid state electronic computers will NEVER be as powerful as the human brain.  They might exceed the human brain's capacity for simple mathematical calculations (indeed, they have already done this) but the human brain and a computer system are fundamentally not the same thing.  There are fundamental differences at a basic level.  The elements that give the human brain it's adaptive capabilities,and it's ability to ignore it's own programming (instincts, which we can choose to ignore) are things beyond the capability of anything running on electronic computer hardware.

I'm not saying AI won't ever be created.  I'm saying that if it is, it won't be running on a computer based on silicon electronics with logic constrained to binary code.

Modifié par jamesp81, 10 mai 2011 - 01:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Biological determinism makes freedom of choice an illusion.

Your personal theory.  I happen to think it's dead-assed wrong.

...have you missed how I've largely been opposing it?

If this were true, accurately predicting a human's behavior would be simple.  As we well know, it isn't.

Predicting a computer's behavior is quite easy.  That's a subject I'd know a little bit about.

This is right and wrong at the same time.

If there is biological determinism, it doesn't necessitate that it would be simple. Determinism doesn't mean 'simple' or 'easy' to predict, just that it is.

Likewise, it's rather easy to create a computer behavior system that isn't easy to predict: that's the basis of a random number generator, after all. And as computer programs get more complex, they'll be harder to easily predict or understand.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

The charges were bogus, and two admirals (Daro'Xen and Han'Gerrel) ****ing well knew it from the get go.  It was nothing more than a show trial, worthy of the worst sort of banana-republic dictators throughout all of history.

The charge that Tali risked the fleet safely was only bogus in so much that geth from parts Tali had sent back did not just overrun a research ship.

No, the trial had no relation in scope or nature to the trials of the worst of the worst dictatorships. The verdict was neither decided before the start, nor was the punishment fatal or even physically harmful. Get some perspective.

As for his crew, Shepard recruited people he had to work with to get the job done.  No one made the Admiralty Board put on a show trial.  It was never necessary; that's one thing Daro'Xen was right on.

You can actually avoid a good four, five people of your team, and the ones you do have to aren't even necessary for the trip. In lieu of Jack, you could get away with any biotic.

Shepard does what Shepard thinks is necessary. Quarian admirals do what they think is necessary for the good of the Quarians... whether that means a dispute over their very real future spilling over elsewhere or not.

As for Shepard, he is in a position to do whatever he damned well pleases and it doesn't matter one iota what anyone else thinks of that.

Now that's an amazingly petty argument.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Biological determinism makes freedom of choice an illusion.

Your personal theory.  I happen to think it's dead-assed wrong.

...have you missed how I've largely been opposing it?

If this were true, accurately predicting a human's behavior would be simple.  As we well know, it isn't.

Predicting a computer's behavior is quite easy.  That's a subject I'd know a little bit about.

This is right and wrong at the same time.

If there is biological determinism, it doesn't necessitate that it would be simple. Determinism doesn't mean 'simple' or 'easy' to predict, just that it is.

Likewise, it's rather easy to create a computer behavior system that isn't easy to predict: that's the basis of a random number generator, after all. And as computer programs get more complex, they'll be harder to easily predict or understand.

1.  Yeah, I guess I did miss that.

2.  "Random number generators" written on computer systems are, in fact, not random at all.  Literally.  This is something that gets covered pretty extensively for freshman computer science students in college, as it's a good tool to illustrate the nature and limitations of a computer system.  There is no such thing as a computer program that generates truly random numbers.  There is a pattern to it that can be deduced with sufficient observations.

Or, as Jon Von Neumann (ever heard of Von Neumann devices?) once said, "Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin."  A humorous quote, but one that also demonstrates the issue very well.