Simon_Says wrote...
HellishFiend wrote...
Simon_Says wrote...
Dante, you're right. The Starbrat's reasoning could be sound. But its logic is obviously framed around a value system incompatible with our own.
I said it before and I'll say it again: "value systems" have no business in a logical analysis. Logic is a mathematical process that determines if an argument is valid or invalid. Values are opinions and do not affect whether or not logic is well formed or poorly formed. Starbrat's logic can be picked apart and destroyed regardless of the value system or objectivity of the analyst.
But this isn't strictly logical analysis. We're analyzing the Catalyst's/Reapers' reasoning and judgment calls.
Think of it more this way.
1. Organics will create synthetics.
2. Synthetics and organics will go into conflict.
3. A singularity with unchecked growth and aggression will threaten all organic life.
4. Preserving organic life is important.
5. Reaperizing a species preserves what is important about that species and provides a better form of existence.
6. The needs of the galaxy outweigh the needs of its current inhabitants.
7. The reapers know better than anyone else and have a responsibility/authority over all other life.
Therefore the reapers must implement a plan that prevents hard-takeoff singularities from forming.
And they judgement call they decided upon was to reaperize civilizations at a certain technological level. Yes, there are numerous premises that aren’t strictly factual.
#1 and #2 are verified truths
#3 is something they don’t want to risk verifying. It’s like assuming that human civilization will not endure a global nuclear exchange. You have plenty reason to believe it and not test it out.*
#4, #5, #6, and #7 are all based on the reapers’ value system.
Obviously #5, #6, and #7 clash with our own value systems. But without further information to examine them these remain fundamentally subjective premises. They could appear correct to the reapers and incorrect to us. So from our perspective the argument isn’t sound. But it is valid. (There are strict definitions of these terms.)
Validity: A property of arguments. An argument is valid if the conclusion must be true in any circumstance in which the premises are true.
Soundness: An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true.
I of course still don't buy it. But the possibility is open that the Catalyst was laying down the genuine reaper agenda and that it does make sense, from their point of view. And this doesn't contradict IT, since remember that indoctrination is all about altering the subject's values and perspective to align with those of the reapers.
* It actually got pretty close to being confirmed, if you remember Project Overlord.
Sorry Simon but a lot of that is just wrong.
- If you are to judge the values/morals of a logical conclusion, first the conclusion must be logically sound. If it were strictly an opinion, that would be another matter. But what is being put up for ethical judgement is a CONCLUSION, not an opinion.
- 1 is not a proven fact. It is a statistical probability. That can be used in the formation of assumptions, but not factual conclusions
- 2, same as above
- 3 is an assumption that is derived from statistical probabilities and historical trends.
- 4-7 is all subjective, which is fine, but it needs to be PRESENTED as being subjective. Starbrat presents it as irrefutable fact, which is flat out wrong
I think that by the time the starchild's logic gets into your head for analysis, you put it in the context of an opinion, when the Starchild is most definitely not presenting it as such. He is presenting it as fact. If it were to be reworded in the manner you guys are interpreting it, that would be fine. Loosely, it would look something like this:
Starbrat: "Based on our experience and analysis, we find it likely that the created will always rebel against their creators. We have also analyzed the development trends of purely Synthetic life, and given those trends, we've concluded if a patricidal synthetic race were to reach the point of Technological Singularity, Synthetic lifeforms would supplant Organic development indefinitely. We've concluded that the safest course of action is to prevent that irreversible scenario from ever having a chance to develop."
Wording it in that fashion changes it from a fallacious conclusion to a logical one, which is then subject to ethical debate. I believe you guys are interpreting the starbrat's drivel as if it were properly worded like above, but it is not. It is worded as a factual conclusion (Like, dogs are mammals, Brian is a dog, therefore Brian is a mammal), which is inarguably fallacious since the premises are NOT FACTS.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
