127 réponses à ce sujet

[Soahfreako]

didymos1120 wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...

 But see that wasn't possible until the games timeline. He asked why they didn't do it for the 2000 years that the Asari, Salarians, Turians etc. used it.

It probably was possible, at least in terms of tech level.  I don't think Chorban invented something radically new.  He just figured out a novel way to use existing technology to avoid the "self-destruct" problem.  Mostly what kept people from doing this earlier was the previous attempts to mess with keepers failing, which lead to laws banning interference with them.

Hence no one studying those 2000 years. Also to one of the above statements: I doubt they even know how to get to core considering that they didn't even know that the council tower had the master control terminal in it.

[Soahfreako]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...
So I'm assuming that everyone forgot that the Thanix Cannon was created by studying Sovereign? Yeah. You forgot.

No, I did not forget. Nor that EDI contains some of the stuff.

What I hope is that the Bioware writers haven't forgotten that! Given the way the Collector base decision was presented in the game, and the uniform reactions of the team, I'm not so confident of that.

That was to the OP by the way, Saying that all of Reaper tech was that way and no one was studying it and improving existing tech because of that.

[Ieldra]

Soahfreako wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...
So I'm assuming that everyone forgot that the Thanix Cannon was created by studying Sovereign? Yeah. You forgot.

No, I did not forget. Nor that EDI contains some of the stuff.

What I hope is that the Bioware writers haven't forgotten that! Given the way the Collector base decision was presented in the game, and the uniform reactions of the team, I'm not so confident of that.

That was to the OP by the way, Saying that all of Reaper tech was that way and no one was studying it and improving existing tech because of that.

That was not the point jtav was making. She said that the way Reaper technology is presented gives you a vibe of "this is something we aren't meant to know" instead of "this is something incredibly dangerous, be careful", implying that the few counterexamples like the Thanix and EDI aren't enough to counter that impression. Which I agree with - the impression is so strong that I am not confident it is not intended to be taken as truth.

So I fully support jtav in her demand (!) that the quasi-magical elements of the Reapers must be shot down and be, in the end, revealed as Magic From Technology. ME3 should include Demystifying the Reapers and invalidate any interpretation of the Reapers as Space Cthulhu once and for all.

[Merchant2006]

"Down with the techno-gods you say? You shall pay for your insolence."

Modifié par Merchant2006, 10 août 2011 - 05:33 .

[In Exile]

jtav wrote...

I'd love to see the quasi-magical aspects of the Reapers and their technology shot down once and for all. Reaper tech is presented as this mystical, incomprehensible thing. Attempts to study it tend to end with indoctrination/disaster. The game heavily slants against keeping the base, with your entire squad criticizing you. The impression I get isn't "be careful" but "there are things man is not meant to know." Which is nonsense. Reaper tech is just that: tech. It can be analyzed, countered, and improved on. It's dangerous, but so is nuclear power. I refuse to treat the Reapers like gods.

Ipods are magic to cavemen. Certainly technology can be understood (hell, nature itself can be understood, and even if it was "magic", so long as it had clear causal principles behind it, we can study it with science too). The real problem (in a practical sense) is that you can only start understanding technology when you have the right theory. 

Computers (in the modern sense) are nonsence to a 16th century level of technology because 1) the tools to create them don't exist; 2) the theories that govern them don't exist (i.e. the math required) 3) the uses for them don't exist. It's just not even possible.

Now, all existing galactic tech is based on reaper tech. So in principle, we have at last some basis in their technology and maybe we might end up understanding it... but it's something very difficult to do. 

Edit:

Speaking rationally, it's all BS. The story is what Bioware wants it to be, to tell whatever Aesop they want. 

Modifié par In Exile, 10 août 2011 - 05:41 .

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
That was not the point jtav was making. She said that the way Reaper technology is presented gives you a vibe of "this is something we aren't meant to know" instead of "this is something incredibly dangerous, be careful", implying that the few counterexamples like the Thanix and EDI aren't enough to counter that impression. Which I agree with - the impression is so strong that I am not confident it is not intended to be taken as truth.

You can essentially break Reaper tech into 2 categories, based on whether or not they cross the moral event horizon. Reapers themselves, what makes them what they are, the indoctrination technology + their method of creation, is "bad" and so it's the forbidden knowledge trope.

Whereas everything else, it's just a tool.

And then there's EDI, which is just an incomprehensible plothole. 

[Meshaber]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I fully agree with you, jtav.

Reaper technology is technology, not some kind of evil mojo we "aren't meant to know". We are not living in a fantasy universe. If things go down that road in ME3, if Reaper technology is ME's equivalent of the knowledge of the Old Ones, forever beyond our understanding, that would be one of the very few things that would ruin the complete trilogy for me beyond any hope of redemption.

So I hope it won't go that way and we'll get a chance of analyzing and understanding the stuff.

(I have to say, though, that I find your thread title misleading. The term "god" can be understood as any kind of being that has powers beyond our current understanding - "techno-gods" is an appropriate appellation for the Reapers even if they aren't inherently mysterious.)

@the first three repliers:
You have missed the point. This is not about the question of whether we should use Reaper technology or not. It is about the question whether Reaper technology should be presented as technology or as "some evil mystery we aren't meant to know".

I missed no point. The "question of whether we should use reaper technology or not" is pretty damn close to the question of whether or not we'll see it analyzed in the game. There's also, currently, the possibility that all Reaper technology is based on the sacrifice of billions of advanced lifeforms (as seen in ME2), in which case they certainly aren't easily replicable or easy to "improve upon". There's also the question of indoctrination, obviously.

I'm not saying it SHOULD be presented as an "evil mystery we aren't meant to know", just pointing out that there is a lot of room for potentially leaving their technology unexplored and eradicated due to some of the circumstances surrounding the technology in question.

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
That was not the point jtav was making. She said that the way Reaper technology is presented gives you a vibe of "this is something we aren't meant to know" instead of "this is something incredibly dangerous, be careful", implying that the few counterexamples like the Thanix and EDI aren't enough to counter that impression. Which I agree with - the impression is so strong that I am not confident it is not intended to be taken as truth.

You can essentially break Reaper tech into 2 categories, based on whether or not they cross the moral event horizon. Reapers themselves, what makes them what they are, the indoctrination technology + their method of creation, is "bad" and so it's the forbidden knowledge trope.

Whereas everything else, it's just a tool.

And then there's EDI, which is just an incomprehensible plothole. 

Well yes, that's the point we're making. To present something as "inherently bad and mysterious" just because it's used for bad things is a logic failure of the first order. It's the kind of thinking that says "It is not understandable because it ought not to be understandable". This is denying reality and an attempt to give morality physical shape, and I don't want my SF games to pander to delusions. 

For understanding something it does not matter what you can do with it, and if a story presents things that way it lies about something fundamental. You can use nuclear weapons to destroy human civilization on Earth, still we understand them. Ah, and while I'm at it: the horror factor or the ick factor of something, which is often linked to intuitive rejection, also has no link to its being understandable or not.

[Red Son Rising]

EDI has reaper tech built into some of her systems but she is capable of resisting, but maybe not fully repelling their influence. reapers should definitely be demystified in ME3 tho, i wanna know where they come from for real

Merchant2006 wrote...

"Down with the techno-gods you say? You shall pay for your insolence."

ignore the pagans your grace, they know not of what they speak

[Ieldra]

Meshaber wrote...
The "question of whether we should use reaper technology or not" is pretty damn close to the question of whether or not we'll see it analyzed in the game. There's also, currently, the possibility that all Reaper technology is based on the sacrifice of billions of advanced lifeforms (as seen in ME2), in which case they certainly aren't easily replicable or easy to "improve upon". There's also the question of indoctrination, obviously.

Again, what can be done with it has no bearing on its being understandable or not. If your Shepard decides that it's best to throw all the stuff into the stars, and he can convince others of it, that's fine with me. But here's the difference: it that is done because it's seen as "too dangerous to hand to anyone", that's OK, but if it's done because it's seen as inherently evil, then it's not OK.
I'd be fine with any scenario that leaves no doubt that Reaper technology is, in principle, open to analysis, even if it's not actually analyzed. The problem is that I can't see one without the other, so I say it should be analyzed without reservations.

I'm not saying it SHOULD be presented as an "evil mystery we aren't meant to know", just pointing out that there is a lot of room for potentially leaving their technology unexplored and eradicated due to some of the circumstances surrounding the technology in question.

Then your Shepard may tell his allies to throw all the stuff into stars, and the people in your universe can keep believing it's some evil mystery. Fine with me, as long as I have the option to have it analyzed in my timeline and destroy that belief beyond recovery.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 août 2011 - 06:36 .

[mauro2222]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...

I destroyed it so no one would get indoctrinated by it and come back to bite me in the ass. But, seeing as how Cerberus can't keep their mits off it and with the preview of the next comic, it's obvious that no one could've handled the base let alone the Alliance. Who, as we all know, deny the existence of the Reapers.

Something tells me that the Alliance knows more about the Reapers than they are letting on.

I look back at Kenson's team and Keiji's grey box.

We all know that the hanars are going to be the saviours of the galaxy. :innocent:

[Meshaber]

Analyzing it might not be practically possible. We might need other technology on their level to even be able to analyze the as of yet unknown fusion of flesh and metal, such instruments might not be available. Technology is not a straight line, but that doesn't mean you can hand a 12th century genius a hammer and an xbox 360 and expect him to make sense of it.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Well yes, that's the point we're making. To present something as "inherently bad and mysterious" just because it's used for bad things is a logic failure of the first order.  

No, it isn't. Some things can be irredeemably bad. Arguing this isn't a valid category is a logic fail.

It's the kind of thinking that says "It is not understandable because it ought not to be understandable". This is denying reality and an attempt to give morality physical shape, and I don't want my SF games to pander to delusions.

You want it to pander to your delusion, that all technology is morally neutral and useful.

For understanding something it does not matter what you can do with it, and if a story presents things that way it lies about something fundamental. You can use nuclear weapons to destroy human civilization on Earth, still we understand them. Ah, and while I'm at it: the horror factor or the ick factor of something, which is often linked to intuitive rejection, also has no link to its being understandable or not.

That doesn't mean that all technology can be understand at any point in time and any level of technological development. 

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Well yes, that's the point we're making. To present something as "inherently bad and mysterious" just because it's used for bad things is a logic failure of the first order.  

No, it isn't. Some things can be irredeemably bad. Arguing this isn't a valid category is a logic fail.

You still don't get it. The point is being irredeemably bad should have no bearing on it's being understandable. Apart from that, yes, I can and do argue that "bad" is a not valid category. Moral statements are not truth-apt. They are value judgments. Value judgments are not susceptible to a reality check. The power of a specific technology is.

It's the kind of thinking that says "It is not understandable because it ought not to be understandable". This is denying reality and an attempt to give morality physical shape, and I don't want my SF games to pander to delusions.

You want it to pander to your delusion, that all technology is morally neutral and useful.

No, I want technology to be presented as such and not as magic. There is, damn it, NO link between being understandable and being good or bad. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not a technology is useful.

For the moral question, see above. Moral attributes are never inherent in anything. It's always something you put in, because it's your values that determine what you see as good and bad. Nothing ever *is* good or bad. It's always "You see it as good or bad". Were it not so, there would never be any disagreements about what is good and what is not.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 août 2011 - 07:00 .

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You still don't get it. The point is being irredeemably bad should have no bearing on it's being understandable.

When did I say it should? What I said was that Bioware seems to have devided technology into these two groupings, as a matter of design. So your example of EDI and the Thanix cannon aren't really a proof that lore-wise, reaper technology can be neutral, because it seems that there is a distinction within reaper technology that Bioware treats as "inherently bad'. 

Apart from that, yes, I can and do argue that "bad" is a not a category of logic. Moral statements are not truth-apt. They are value judgments. Value judgments are not susceptible to a reality check. The power of a specific technology is.

You said "inherently bad and mysterious" then said "  just because it's used for bad things" and described that as a logic failure.

That's not true. If something is used for bad things, it could very well be inherently bad. I don't know where you get the idea I'm arguing that morality and use are associated.

I never mentioned reverse enginering technology, except to say that it's pretty implausible it could be done. 

No, I want technology to be presented as such and not as magic. There is, damn it, NO link between being understandable and being good or bad. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not a technology is useful. For the moral question, see above. Moral attributes are never inherent in anything. It's always something you put in, because it's your values that determine what you see as good and bad. Nothing ever *is* good or bad. It's always "You see it as good or bad". Were it not so, there would never be any disagreements about what is good and what is not.

That's not what I said. What I said was that you want reaper technology (based on previous posts) to be shown as morally neutral, e.g. for the collector base to have at least one tangible benefit, and not to simply lead to disaster, catastrophy, death, and the collapse of the galaxy. 

This is as much as value-judgement as anything, and you want the game to endorse your value judgement (that there is no technology that is inherently bad) justified in-game.

And since we are speaking about errors of logic, this: " Nothing ever *is* good or bad. It's always "You see it as good or bad". Were it not so, there would never be any disagreements about what is good and what is not." is a serious reasoning error. 

Even if it were true that some things are good or bad, it does not mean that it would be obvious to everyone that they are good or bad, and conflict could result over those things. The mere fact that something is a certain way does not mean that i is prima facie obvious to all.

To give you an example: we assume,as scientists, that reality is One Certain Way ™. But that does not mean there are no debates over what reality is like, or whether certain theories are more accurate descriptions than others. 

[Ieldra]

@In Exile:
You are arguing against a strawman.

In this thread, the point jtav and I are trying to make is that Reaper technology, whatever its "moral status" is, should not be presented as "evil mojo" but as technology, that the game should not establish a de facto link between something being bad and horrifying and something being inherently mysterious. We are saying that the Reapers, whatever the "moral status" (if there is such a thing - see below) of their technology, should be demystified. Nothing more and nothing less. To that end, we want Reaper technology to be analyzed in ME3, because only that will show that it is not inherently mysterious.

The widespread delusion we're fighting against is the idea that the horrifying and fear-inducing is automatically bad, and there are things we "aren't meant to know" because they're so irredeemably bad. And I am saying if the game panders to that delusion, the story will be ruined for me.

That is the point of *this* thread.

----------------------------------------

Now for the side issues: When I say "nothing ever *is* good or bad" I mean that "good" and "bad" are value judgments made by humans, not properties of objects. "This is bad" is not the same kind of statement as "This is hard". "This is bad" is always an assertion not susceptible to a reality check. Like all moral statements, it is an affirmation of belief. Nothing more. The moral quality of a statement lies in the one who makes it, not in the object judged. Also consider this false syllogism:

"This Reaper artifact can indoctrinate humans"
"Indoctrinating humans is bad"
"Thus, this Reaper artifact is is bad".

This is logically equivalent to

"Guns can murder a human"
"Murdering a human is bad"
"Thus, guns are bad"

I'm sure you can see the mistake in that. So no, pieces of technology are never inherently good or bad. The good and the bad always lies in the use made of it and in the mind of the one who makes the statement. Exclusively! Or would you really say "a gun is bad" - it is made for killing people and isn't useful for much else, so I'd be as justified to say that guns are bad. Whether it is wise to make guns (or indoctrination technology) widely available, that's a completely different question (and much too political, so please avoid elaborating on this example if you can).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 août 2011 - 08:05 .

[Saaziel]

Reapers are (Possibly) millions , or perhaps billions of years old.

I find it absurd that we'd even be able to scratch the surface of their tech. Much like it would be absurd that the Ancient Egyptians could reverse engineer an IPod , in a matter of months , if it were sent back in time. Incidentally i never liked how the Thanix and EDI got introduced ; That said , I'm quite fond of EDI as a character.

Whether the Reapers are transcendental horrors from beyond or a riddle to be solved ought to be left to the player.

Modifié par Saaziel, 10 août 2011 - 08:51 .

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@In Exile:
You are arguing against a strawman.

I'm not arguing against anything. I made an aside to your post (that Bioware seems to have divided a technology in two, so you can treat all reaper tech the same). You strongly objected to this, so I'm left holding the bag trying to explain myself. 

In this thread, the point jtav and I are trying to make is that Reaper technology, whatever its "moral status" is, should not be presented as "evil mojo" but as technology, that the game should not establish a de facto link between something being bad and horrifying and something being inherently mysterious. We are saying that the Reapers, whatever the "moral status" (if there is such a thing - see below) of their technology, should be demystified. Nothing more and nothing less. To that end, we want Reaper technology to be analyzed in ME3, because only that will show that it is not inherently mysterious.

Like I have said repeatedly: these are two separate issues. It is one issue that repear technology comes across as magical, and whether or not it could be decoded. It is another thing that reaper technology is de facto immoral. 

It is an either/or issue.

With respect to "demystifying" I will repeat what I said initially: science does not work the way you (or the OP) think it does. If reaper tech can be understood or analyzed, that's just Bioware plot magic, and it isn't any different than Bioware plot magic saying it can't be understood. 

The widespread delusion we're fighting against is the idea that the horrifying and fear-inducing is automatically bad, and there are things we "aren't meant to know" because they're so irredeemably bad. And I am saying if the game panders to that delusion, the story will be ruined for me.

And what I said was that someone else could very well say that if the game panders to your delusion (that all knowledge is meant to be known, and that all technology is morally neutral) it could wreck the game for them.

That you want to use inflamatory terms like "delusion" doesn't mean you're not asking for the same thing, in the same way.

Now for the side issues: When I say "nothing ever *is* good or bad" I mean that "good" and "bad" are value judgments made by humans, not properties of objects.

Yes, but that's not neccesarily true. It could be true. But it doesn't have to be. 

"This is bad" is not the same kind of statement as "This is hard". "This is bad" is always an assertion not susceptible to a reality check. Like all moral statements, it is an affirmation of belief. Nothing more. The moral quality of a statement lies in the one who makes it, not in the object judged.

No, it doesn't have to be. All that it takes is an objective moral reality. And an objective moral reality can exist without it being directly accesible in full or fully known, just like an objective material reality. 

Also consider this false syllogism: 

"This Reaper artifact can indoctrinate humans"
"Indoctrinating humans is bad"
"Thus, this Reaper artifact is is bad".

This is logically equivalent to

"Guns can murder a human"
"Murdering a human is bad"
"Thus, guns are bad"

There are several issues. One, is that it's not actually clear whether the "can" should be a "will" and some will argue that "will" is sufficient for the argument.

The other is that if it is an objective moral truth that indoctrination is bad or that mudering humans is bad, then it would follow that idoctrination is bad.

The third fallacy is that guns are a use or not use item, whereas indoctrination is a "consequence of existence." I could have a gun that does not fire (and so is morally neutral even in an objective moral reality where murder is bad) but it is not clear whether I can ever have a piece of reaper technology that could indoctrinate that doesn't indoctrinate.

The last point means that it isn't actually clear that your two syllologisms are logically equivalent, because "gun" is not neccesarily conceptually equivalent to "reaper technology that can indoctrinate." 

I'm sure you can see the mistake in that.

The only logical problems are the "can" because it introduces a set theory problem and the equivalence itself. 

So no, pieces of technology are never inherently good or bad. The good and the bad always lies in the use made of it and in the mind of the one who makes the statement.  

That's just a subjective premise. 

In fact, this is an invalid argument (at least, deductively). 

The mere fact that one piece of technology is not de facto immoral does not mean there there can never be a piece of technology that is de facto immoral. 

It's like saying "there has never been a black swan, so there can never be a black swan." 

Exclusively! Or would you really say "a gun is bad" - it is made for killing people and isn't useful for much else, so I'd be as justified to say that guns are bad. Whether it is wise to make guns (or indoctrination technology) widely available, that's a completely different (and much too political, so please avoid elaborating on this example if you can) question.

I wouldn't say that, but someone could, and it wouldn't be a logical error for them to say that.  Bad arguments can be logical arguments. 

Modifié par In Exile, 10 août 2011 - 08:15 .

[Meshaber]

I find it odd that you even are concerned about this, I haven't once felt like the reapers were presented as inherently mysterious and unknowable, just freakin' advanced. Are you seriously saying that if reapers aren't analyzed and understood, then the game will have "pandered to the delusion" that they are unknowable space Ctulhus?

I don't recall the Xel'naga of Starcraft ever being analyzed to a closer scale, they're hardly portrayed as unknowable and inherently mysterious. The Keepers of the citadel were for an incredibly long time near impossible to study for practical reasons, but they were hardly portrayed as inherently mysterious, just frikkin' difficult to gather samples from.

Also, the protheans managed to build a prototype of a mass relay, they very clearly managed to crack part of the reapers technology. The myth of the unkowable spacectulhus is already pretty weak.

Also, @exile: There is no such thing as a delusion of morally neutral technology. All technology is morally neutral, the end.

Modifié par Meshaber, 10 août 2011 - 08:17 .

[In Exile]

Meshaber wrote...

I find it odd that you even are concerned about this, I haven't once felt like the reapers were presented as inherently mysterious and unknowable, just freakin' advanced. Are you seriously saying that if reapers aren't analyzed and understood, then the game will have "pandered to the delusion" that they are unknowable space Ctulhus? .

I think the real issue is that some gamers just want certain choices validated, e.g. the Collector base. 

[Rekkampum]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

My Technomage... err Sentinel will be more than happy to pull back the curtain for the Galaxy to see the Reapers for what they really are big stupid cuttlefish.

I'll see your Technomage and raise you my lvl.6000 CyberWizard.

[In Exile]

Meshaber wrote...
Also, @exile: There is no such thing as a delusion of morally neutral technology. All technology is morally neutral, the end.

I could reply to this in lots of ways, but I'm going to go with the most fun one:

Some set of Reaper technology melts people alive, and they scraem and beg in pain for it to stop. How is this technology (just the melting them down one) morally neutral? 

[Ieldra]

This is getting ridiculous. Are you refusing to understand my point on purpose?

In Exile wrote...
Like I have said repeatedly: these are two separate issues. It is one issue that repear technology comes across as magical, and whether or not it could be decoded. It is another thing that reaper technology is de facto immoral.

Yes, they are separate issues. Yet the game appears to link them. That's exaclty what we're arguing against.

It is an either/or issue.

You've stopped making sense here.

With respect to "demystifying" I will repeat what I said initially: science does not work the way you (or the OP) think it does. If reaper tech can be understood or analyzed, that's just Bioware plot magic, and it isn't any different than Bioware plot magic saying it can't be understood.

Oh really? I'm going to ignore the more fundamental mistakes you've made here and get back to the point I am trying to make - else we'll get muddled in side-issues even more:
I agree that the timeframe is insane, and that realistically it would be very unlikely that we could understand it in so short a time. But again, THAT IS NOT THE F******** POINT!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mind if the plot was extended to a thousand years, but that's not feasible for a game. The point is, again, that the game should avoid the impression that the Reapers are some kind of Cthulhuesque evil forever and fundamentally beyond our understanding. Because that would be positing a de facto supernatural reality.

The widespread delusion we're fighting against is the idea that the horrifying and fear-inducing is automatically bad, and there are things we "aren't meant to know" because they're so irredeemably bad. And I am saying if the game panders to that delusion, the story will be ruined for me.

And what I said was that someone else could very well say that if the game panders to your delusion (that all knowledge is meant to be known, and that all technology is morally neutral) it could wreck the game for them.

Again, are you deliberately obtuse? (a) for this argument I made no claim about the moral status of Reaper tech, thrice damn it! How often must I repeat that until you stop putting words into my mouth? That is totally irrelevant. ( The point is that the expression "is meant to" has no meaning. It doesn't matter whether you say "it is meant to be known" or the opposite, the problem is thinking in such categories in the first place. We may be able to know things or not, we may indeed have fundamental limitations in our ability to know things, but as far as we can determine, that is completely accidental, there is no meaning in it. If you posit one, you also posit a supernatural reality. I do not want a de facto supernatural reality in my SF universes. So if characters in the ME universe make the claim that the Reapers are some Cthulhuesque evil we aren't meant to know, that's one thing - people are like that. But if the game presents that to me as de facto reality, without the option to make my timeline different, then I'm going to be greatly annoyed.   

Now for the side issues: When I say "nothing ever *is* good or bad" I mean that "good" and "bad" are value judgments made by humans, not properties of objects.

Yes, but that's not neccesarily true. It could be true. But it doesn't have to be.

Actually, as far as we can determine, it is true. We cannot determine any moral property of an object. I am not trying to make a deduction. As I said elsewhere, "it is not necessarily true" has zero weight as an argument if you cannot point to some evidence that it is actually false.

"This is bad" is not the same kind of statement as "This is hard". "This is bad" is always an assertion not susceptible to a reality check. Like all moral statements, it is an affirmation of belief. Nothing more. The moral quality of a statement lies in the one who makes it, not in the object judged.

No, it doesn't have to be. All that it takes is an objective moral reality. And an objective moral reality can exist without it being directly accesible in full or fully known, just like an objective material reality.

Yes. But as far as we can determine, there is no such thing. You cannot use an objective moral reality as an argument if you cannot point to some evidence that there is one. That's like giving baseless claims the same weight as claims supported by observation.

Since the same applies to the rest of your post, I won't go into it here. And now I'm done.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 août 2011 - 09:01 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
This is getting ridiculous. Are you refusing to understand my point on purpose?  [/quote]

No.

[quote]Yes, they are separate issues. Yet the game appears to link them. That's exaclty what we're arguing against. [/quote]

The game doesn't link them. The game hasn't even shown reaper tech as mysterious or otherwise incomprehensible in the long-run (hell, you have a codex entry on suspected mechanics of indoctrination). 

[quote]You've stopped making sense here.[/quote]

It's another way of saying they're independent. 

[quote]Oh really? I'm going to ignore the more fundamental mistakes you've made here and get back to the point I am trying to make - else we'll get muddled in side-issues even more:
[/quote]Your ignorance of the scientific method isn't a mistake on my part.

[quote]I agree that the timeframe is insane, and that realistically it would be very unlikely that we could understand it in so short a time. [/quote]

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not in principle it could be understood with how we think.

[quote]But again, THAT IS NOT THE F******** POINT!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mind if the plot was extended to a thousand years, but that's not feasible for a game. The point is, again, that the game should avoid the impression that the Reapers are some kind of Cthulhuesque evil forever and fundamentally beyond our understanding. Because that would be positing a de facto supernatural reality. [/quote]

The game doesn't make that point. More importantly, even if the game did make that point, asking for the opposite is just asking for a different kind of attitude to be enshrined in game.

[quote]Again, are you deliberately obtuse? (a) for this argument I made no claim about the moral status of Reaper tech, thrice damn it! How often must I repeat that until you stop putting words into my mouth?  [/quote]

You mean, you didn't say: " So no, pieces of technology are never inherently good or bad. The good and the bad always lies in the use made of it and in the mind of the one who makes the statement. Exclusively!"

Could have fooled me, what with that literally being in your previous post. 

[quote]That is totally irrelevant. ( The point is that the expression "is meant to" has no meaning. It doesn't matter whether you say "it is meant to be known" or the opposite, the problem is thinking in such categories in the first place. [/quote]

Personally, I agree with you. But, again, all I pointed out was that a game and reality are not the same thing, that it seems like the writers have an agenda, and that asking for the opposite isn't asking for some objective principle to be respect, it's just asking for your view to the enshrined in the game.

[quote]We may be able to know things or not, we may indeed have fundamental limitations in our ability to know things, but as far as we can determine, that is completely accidental, there is no meaning in it. [/quote]

Sure.

[quote]If you posit one, you also posit a supernatural reality. I do not want a de facto supernatural reality in my SF universes. [/quote]

The game doesn't posit a supernatural reality. 

[quote]So if characters in the ME universe make the claim that the Reapers are some Cthulhuesque evil we aren't meant to know, that's one thing - people are like that. [/quote]

Some characters say that, sure. But not every character does, and the game itself doesn't portray that as true.

[quote]But if the game presents that to me as de facto reality, without the option to make my timeline different, then I'm going to be greatly annoyed.[/quote]

Why do you think that this is equivalent to reverse engineering reaper technology in-game?

[quote]Actually, as far as we can determine, it is true. We cannot determine any moral property of an object. I am not trying to make a deduction. As I said elsewhere, "it is not necessarily true" has zero weight as an argument if you cannot point to some evidence that it is actually false.  [/quote]

If you are trying to argue about logic, then "not neccesarily true" is very salient, because the issue is about logical imperatives. Which, actually, the only thing I am debating with you.

More generally, there are plenty of people that argue that things like guns or nuclear weapons (or weapons in general) are de facto immoral. Whether or not you're convinced by their arguments is your business; I'm not. 

What is the case, though, is that arguing for this view in a game is not some defence of objective reality, but just enshrining your belief. 

ETA:

Here is an example, if you want one: 

Let's say we are consequentialists. We believe the consequences of an action dictate its moral value. We create a tool called the "All-Cure" which heals any kind of cellular damage, and cures any disease. 

We can ascribe a moral value to this object, without having to use the object ever used it. We could, for example, say the moral value of an object is the sum moral total of its uses. 

Here is an even easier one. Let's say we're deontologists. Then we can logically deduce the moral value of objects based on whether or not such objects, in virtue of their existence, violate the rational agency of people. 
[quote]Yes. But as far as we can determine, there is no such thing.[/quote]

If you think the issue is settled (that morality is relative, instead of absolute), I'd just like to refernece you to... well, pretty much all of moral philosphy. This isn't an issue that's settled.

[quote]You cannot use an objective moral reality as an argument if you cannot point to some evidence that there is one. That's like giving baseless claims the same weight as claims supported by observation.[/quote]

It's not my job to correct your ignorance about moral philsophy, any more than it is to correct your ignorance about science. 

You talked about "logic" and then misused logic. That was the issue that I had, and if you want to stop talking, we certainly can. 

Modifié par In Exile, 10 août 2011 - 09:28 .