3618 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

No, because that would mean ANOTHER EXTRA reaper.

So what? That extra Reaper is also the continued legacy of humanity.


Yeah, I know you'd rather die, but all you can think about is yourself. As I said, you're selfish.

Isn't he thinking about the future cycles and future species?

[Ieldra]

Luc0s wrote...
What Saphra fails to understand is that I think the reapers have no
right to play gods over the galaxy, just like we humans have no right to
play gods over our planet earth (that's why I'm vegetarian myself, I do
not approve of the meat-industry and how it treats animals are mere
products instead of sentient beings).

I would GLADLY sacrifice myself or even my entire species to STOP the reapers so life can continue NATURALLY without the reapers playing god every 50.000 years.

It is a misapprehension that the "natural" is preferrable to the "not natural".

(1) Every life form is part of nature and our (and others') technological achievements are, by extension, the products of a natural process, i.e. human life.
(2) The distinction between the natural and the unnatural people make is usually driven by disgust or some other intuition of  "wrongness". That is not a rational moral category.

It is also a misapprehension that exerting power over one's sphere of life is inherently bad. In fact, I suspect that's the only way humanity can survive on Earth.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

And moral high ground has nothing to do with it.  There is nothing to debate with someone who refuses to believe they are wrong.  I am open to other's way of thinking, and can be swayed by logical arguments, at which point I do not accept that to be "failure" on my part, but rather open myself to be more informed and prepared for the next debate.  That is the nature and reason of debate.

Otherwise it just sounds like Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny going "Yes", "No", "Yes", "No" back and forth.  It's about as much fun to participate in as it is to read, and serves no purpose other then to make the offenders look like three-year olds on the playground.

What I find funny is that EVERYONE claims this.
Everyone claims they are open to reasonable debate... except they're not really.

Shut up lotion...seriously you have long since shown you have no idea what you're talking about,you can't even fathom anybodies ideas but your own,and cry and scream when people disagreee with you,why dont you and saphra go to the corner and see who can put their fingers in there ears and scream louder.


Reasonable debate is accepting BOTH sides of the argument as plausable,but disagreeing with the other,not saying the other is wrong no matter what,so keep ignoring everyone and popping in and injecting your " Wow I am so awesum,I can throw out buzzwords and I think I am sooooo cool." you haven't said anything intelligent in quite some time.

[Longsword-83]

Sundance31us wrote...

Longsword-83 wrote...

Huh. Just realized something about myself.

I'm normally a full Paragon player, but here I am endorsing the idea of Human superiority.

Guess I'm a little Renegade after all.

Paragrade epiphany in progress.

Like I said, normally. I always take a few Renegade actions when I see it fit- when Diplomacy fails and lives are at stake, it's time to get serious (Example: Kellam's interrogation). I'm upset that ME2 forces me into either "Super nice guy" or "complete ****" most of the time- I was effectively Paragade/Renegon in ME1.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Or end the harvest altogether.

Not an option.

ALWAYS an option.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Reasonable debate is accepting BOTH sides of the argument as plausable,but disagreeing

No, it isn't. You don't have to accept an argument as plausible/reasonable if it is not plausible/reasonable.

except when the reason it isn't plausible or reasonable is because the person you are debating with is a zealot (i.e. you) and they are in and of themselves unreasonable fanactics.

[xXljoshlXx]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Isn't he thinking about the future cycles and future species?

Who cares about future cycles and future species, especialy if it is at the expense of our own?

Wait weren't you one calling people selfish you were prolly looking in a mirror or something.

[Ieldra]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
Reasonable debate is accepting BOTH sides of the argument as plausable,but disagreeing with the other,not saying the other is wrong no matter what,so keep ignoring everyone and popping in and injecting your " Wow I am so awesum,I can throw out buzzwords and I think I am sooooo cool." you haven't said anything intelligent in quite some time.

Actually, it ALWAYS comes down to saying the other side is wrong. Even if the other side has valid concerns, usually, if you've thought of it, you've given that aspect less weight. What we're doing is trying to convince each other that our side's arguments can reasonably be seen as having more weight than the other's. I, for instance, accept that "losing possible allies because of keeping the CB" is a valid concern, I just don't think it is plausible to assume that most of our possible allies, given what is at stake, would not rather go the route of fighting the greater threat with us while stealing the knowledge that would give us an advantage after the war.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Isn't he thinking about the future cycles and future species?

Who cares about future cycles and future species, especialy if it is at the expense of our own?

Selfish hypocrite is selfish.

[SalsaDMA]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
Asking a person to stop being emotional is like asking Cerberus to stop being a colossal failure. It's not going to happen soon.

Asking a person to not have emotions is futile. Asking a person to not act on their emotions without added reflection, however, is part of what we learn when we grow up. Most of us learn that in many, many everyday situations, your unadulterated emotion isn't a good guideline for action, even though we manage to follow that rule to different degrees.

In the case of decisions with non-intuitive consequences, especially if they affect many others, being able to distance yourself from your emotions is a primary requirement.

"The essence of balance is detachment[/i].
To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful,
is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted."
(From Thief: The Dark Project, a Keeper quote)

Of course this is an ideal to aspire to. We all have causes we embrace, unless we're enlightened Buddhists. But in order to get a clear picture of a situation, we must necessarily step away from our emotions as much as we can.

You realize this could be wrong, right?

I have a science magazine next to me telling of a case in 1982 of a patient to a neurologist named Antonio Damasios. The patient appearantly became known as "Elliot". Elliot had a tumor in the brain that had gotten removed, and since the removal he could not make decisions. Study of the guy turned out that he had lost the ability to feel or show emotions. The conclusion by Damasio was, that emotions play an important role when making decisions.

It's a bit longer than described above, ofc, but the end result is that emotions are the driving force for making decisions, and without emotions you can't make decisions at all because you cannot feel which choice is the right one.

[SalsaDMA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Okay, Saphra, just cut the bull****.

Nobody's buying your little act.

They aren't buying it because they're too ignorant and materialistic to see beyond their own existence.

So you think being taken over by the reapers worked well for the collectors?

Allow me to disagree.

[SalsaDMA]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Concerning the game - you never once had to act on a "gut feeling" during your tour? You always had the time to evalutate every possible outcome and come to the most logical of conclusions?

We were trained specifically not to trust 'gut feeling'. I was Navy, so I didn't see any ground warfare, but an essential part of all military training is called Operational Risk Management. ORM can be done formally through a meeting, or on the fly. The basic principals is you rationally evaluate the most severe risk that can reasonably occur and place that opposite to the desired benefit of whatever task you are doing.

For situations that we could predict were likely to happen (such as torpedo evasion), we did the ORM in advance and trained with prepared reactions that we calculated were most likely to keep us alive long enough to return fire. If one person acted based on emotion, then the entire thing fell apart and we 'died'.

Because some ORM must take place in a time-critical environment, not all of it is perfect. There are limitations to what you can consider in a situation like the CB, but emotions are something that should be set aside for the moment so that the decision most likely to be best, based on admittedly limited data, can be made.

Somewhat offtopic, but I just wanted to point out research into processes of the brain indicate that judgements done purely by using the rationale part of the brain utilizes a smaller part of the brains neurons than judgements done by using nonrationale (ie. gut instinct). When making judgements you are always in the end making use of the part of your brain that draws on emotions rather than pure logic, and if you could actually train your 'gut-instinct' to become better at arriving to the decisions you would deem favourable, that would be far more preferrable as it utilizes a bigger part of your brain and can make quicker and more complex decisions. I asume this is also what people training to enter a Zen-state when doing things are trying to acomplish.

So trying to aim for a purely logic route seems selfdefeating to me, and aiming towards the lesser ability to make the right judgements instead of the greater ability.

What research? I'd like to see those research papaers.

And one more note - more brain activity doesnt' mean you're making a better decision.

It means you have access to more resources to be able to compute the answer

My primary resource is a danish magazine that spent an entire issue on matters of the brain, so I don't think it would work very well as a 'source' in an international english speaking forum. But I am sure googling on the subjects should fling up some results.

I found this interesting bit, for example, with some googling: http://www.nobelpriz...ndex.php?id=531

[Kaiser Shepard]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Okay, Saphra, just cut the bull****.

Nobody's buying your little act.

They aren't buying it because they're too ignorant and materialistic to see beyond their own existence.

So you think being taken over by the reapers worked well for the collectors?

Allow me to disagree.

They were merely used as cheap labor, slaves. Our current prospect is to ascend into becoming a living ark ship, inevitablity incarnate, "God" if you're feeling dramatic.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 15 août 2011 - 04:37 .

[Ieldra]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
Asking a person to stop being emotional is like asking Cerberus to stop being a colossal failure. It's not going to happen soon.

Asking a person to not have emotions is futile. Asking a person to not act on their emotions without added reflection, however, is part of what we learn when we grow up. Most of us learn that in many, many everyday situations, your unadulterated emotion isn't a good guideline for action, even though we manage to follow that rule to different degrees.

In the case of decisions with non-intuitive consequences, especially if they affect many others, being able to distance yourself from your emotions is a primary requirement.

"The essence of balance is detachment[/i].
To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful,
is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted."
(From Thief: The Dark Project, a Keeper quote)

Of course this is an ideal to aspire to. We all have causes we embrace, unless we're enlightened Buddhists. But in order to get a clear picture of a situation, we must necessarily step away from our emotions as much as we can.

You realize this could be wrong, right?

I have a science magazine next to me telling of a case in 1982 of a patient to a neurologist named Antonio Damasios. The patient appearantly became known as "Elliot". Elliot had a tumor in the brain that had gotten removed, and since the removal he could not make decisions. Study of the guy turned out that he had lost the ability to feel or show emotions. The conclusion by Damasio was, that emotions play an important role when making decisions.

It's a bit longer than described above, ofc, but the end result is that emotions are the driving force for making decisions, and without emotions you can't make decisions at all because you cannot feel which choice is the right one.

That's not incompatible with what I said. What we feel gives us a baseline for further reflection. But in the end we can always decide for or against what we feel based on arguments. That feeling of rightness or wrongness says something about us, but not necessarily anything about what's *really* best in the situation. The more removed a decision is from the everyday social interactions for which our emotions have evolved, the more likely it is that your emotions will lead you to disaster. There's some research on that, too.

And you can't get much further away from everyday life that with a scenario of global extinction.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

xXljoshlXx wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Isn't he thinking about the future cycles and future species?

Who cares about future cycles and future species, especialy if it is at the expense of our own?

Wait weren't you one calling people selfish you were prolly looking in a mirror or something.

Loyalty to a non-human animals is not a virtue.

Because your ethics are based solely on genetics. I understand that, I simply choose to ignore it. This is why I'm after saving the galaxy as a whole, and if humanity must die... well, humanity must die. As could happen to any other single species.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra quick question,do you even read half of your own posts?


Or half of everyone elses for that matter?


Inb4 insult.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 04:46 .

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Because your ethics are based solely on genetics. I understand that, I simply choose to ignore it. This is why I'm after saving the galaxy as a whole, and if humanity must die... well, humanity must die. As could happen to any other single species.

You are so tragically misguided, but you have potential.

Your dedication is admirable at least.

If anything, the species I'd try to save most would be asari, because of the whole children thing. Also, I think their culture is superior and their population is definitely the highest, so that'd be the most net survivors. But I hope to never have to make that choice.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Saphra quick question,do you even read half of your own posts?

Of-course. How do you think I write them?

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Or half of everyone elses for that matter?

Depends.

Hmm...I can type without looking at the keyboard...doesn't mean I read what I wrote.

Depends on what?

[Zulu_DFA]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I have a science magazine next to me telling of a case in 1982 of a patient to a neurologist named Antonio Damasios. The patient appearantly became known as "Elliot". Elliot had a tumor in the brain that had gotten removed, and since the removal he could not make decisions. Study of the guy turned out that he had lost the ability to feel or show emotions. The conclusion by Damasio was, that emotions play an important role when making decisions.

It's a bit longer than described above, ofc, but the end result is that emotions are the driving force for making decisions, and without emotions you can't make decisions at all because you cannot feel which choice is the right one.

Um, no. The end result is different. It's not that you "can't feel which choice is right". It's that you can't "cut the crap". Purely logical decision making tends to take into account as much relevant detail as possible, but due to the "butterfly effect" there is theoretically no limit to the amount of it. And it's very hard (to impossible) to determine logically where is the line between "really" relevant details and "not really" relevant (because drawing this line is also a decision in itself, hence - infinity). That's all the problem there is with the "emotional lobotomy".

BTW, Legion's being very often stuck in building consensus fits quite nicely here. Athough he thinks very fast, he also thinks very much. Overthinks problems.

[Xilizhra]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If anything, the species I'd try to save most would be asari, because of the whole children thing. Also, I think their culture is superior and their population is definitely the highest, so that'd be the most net survivors. But I hope to never have to make that choice.

You should try to think about something more than just current numbers. Think about future lives as well.

If anything asari child-bearing is a reason to make them a non-priority. The asari can recover their numbers much more easily than any other race.

I was assuming total species extinction there. Though I can't really decide what my technique will be until after I see the game.