418 réponses à ce sujet

[Ciiran]

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

First off, both did. Geth rebelled against quarians and EDI against Cerberus/TIM. That they were justified to do so is irrelevant. The point is that the power or the potential power of synthetics could be catastrophic. 

Secondly, the Catalyst never claimed that all synthetics always wipe out all organics, nor that it happens straight away. The Geth or indeed EDI, could very well end up gunning for total oranic destruction in 500 years, or 5 years, or never.

It does not matter. If you can show me 1 000 000 synthetic civilizations that act peacefully and only fight in self defence and the Catalyst can show you just one that is act as organocidal devil-machines, he wins the argument. His reasoning is that all it takes is one and he sacrifies all advanced organic civilizations every 50 000 years to prevent that. Neither the Geth, nor EDI, disproves anything.

Here is how his argument actually fails. Logically I mean. His premise might still be correct.
His argument is unfalsifiable. That's a big no no when constructing arguments. It's a clever rethorical device, but that does not make it true. Whatever example we fling at him he will respond "they might do it in the future or another synthetic will do it in the future. Eventually". Whatever we say and whenever we say it the Catalyst will never be proven wrong.

The real problem with this? It can be used to rationalize almost everything. He could exchange synthetics with "organics sprung from war like societies" and be just as right with the motivation that other civilizations will buff them. Like what was done with the Krogan. And given enough time he would be correct, and most importantly, his argument could not be disproven.

[MJF JD]

Geth didnt rebel.

[john v rambo]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[suusuuu]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[Torga_DW]

No, they are evidence that the catalyst missed the whole point. The problem with existance is conflict, which is created by free will.

Thats why synthesis was such a fail option. Geth heretics were already synthetics, and they used their free will to plot the demise of other synthetics.

[Gibb_Shepard]

This is a story. In a story we must be shown, not told.

What are we shown? That organics and machines can make peacer. That organics and machines can even fall in love.

Then we are TOLD that synthetics will always kill organics. It's poor story-telling and is a thematic inconsistency of the highest degree.

[Sam Anders]

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

[Der Estr Bune]

I agree that the Geth/EDI are not valid examples of why it's wrong, but I don't agree that it only has to happen once. If anything, I think the whole thing is probably proof that it has happened multiple times in the past. The God-Child has such a massive sample size, it's sort of naive to say, "This 300-year span invalidates the millenia of data he has!".

[Stygian1]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[Helen0rz]

Geth didn't rebel, they defended themselves when the Quarians decided to put them down without explanations. EDI "rebelled" because Joker took the shackles off.

[CronoDragoon]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

This is a story. In a story we must be shown, not told.

What are we shown? That organics and machines can make peacer. That organics and machines can even fall in love.

Then we are TOLD that synthetics will always kill organics. It's poor story-telling and is a thematic inconsistency of the highest degree.

[111987]

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

[Pikku Shinto]

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

This.
I mean, think of it this way. Why didn't Legion ever betray you ever? He was part of the Geth that wasn't controlled. He also wanted you to know the truth of their history.

[Beast919]

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

First off, both did. Geth rebelled against quarians and EDI against Cerberus/TIM. That they were justified to do so is irrelevant. The point is that the power or the potential power of synthetics could be catastrophic. 

Secondly, the Catalyst never claimed that all synthetics always wipe out all organics, nor that it happens straight away. The Geth or indeed EDI, could very well end up gunning for total oranic destruction in 500 years, or 5 years, or never.

It does not matter. If you can show me 1 000 000 synthetic civilizations that act peacefully and only fight in self defence and the Catalyst can show you just one that is act as organocidal devil-machines, he wins the argument. His reasoning is that all it takes is one and he sacrifies all advanced organic civilizations every 50 000 years to prevent that. Neither the Geth, nor EDI, disproves anything.

Here is how his argument actually fails. Logically I mean. His premise might still be correct.
His argument is unfalsifiable. That's a big no no when constructing arguments. It's a clever rethorical device, but that does not make it true. Whatever example we fling at him he will respond "they might do it in the future or another synthetic will do it in the future. Eventually". Whatever we say and whenever we say it the Catalyst will never be proven wrong.

The real problem with this? It can be used to rationalize almost everything. He could exchange synthetics with "organics sprung from war like societies" and be just as right with the motivation that other civilizations will buff them. Like what was done with the Krogan. And given enough time he would be correct, and most importantly, his argument could not be disproven.

The Geth did not rebel, they defended themselves (and even held themselves back from total extinction of the Quarians.

EDI again acted in a defensive manner as well.

The problem with the Catalyst argument is it makes no sense.

If there was ever a "organic-hunting galaxy-eating all-knowing AI threat" in the past, it obviously failed.  If it failed, there's no need to wipe out organic society.

If there wasn't one, WTF.  Did godkid suddenly wake up and be like "alright, I'm a bit worried this might happen one day, lets start killing people.

The argument is nonsense.  Absolute nonsense.

[Dean_the_Young]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

They refused to obey program commands and authority, and destroyed the sovereign authority.

[Pikku Shinto]

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

They sided when their life was in danger.

[suusuuu]

OP didn't understand the whole Geth "rebellion" thing, maybe didn't have Legion loyalty the Geth were getting exterminated by the Quarian because they started asking if they have a soul. Exterminated. Remained loyal to those who didn't attack them. When all of the Quarians who opposed the extermination were killed, Geth started to protect themselves.

[AusitnDrake]

Helen0rz wrote...

Geth didn't rebel, they defended themselves when the Quarians decided to put them down without explanations. EDI "rebelled" because Joker took the shackles off.

And even then it was out of loyalty for the crew of the Normandy, who were organics. She turned against the Illusive Man out of her own free will and chose to follow her crew instead.

Modifié par AusitnDrake, 17 mars 2012 - 04:25 .

[111987]

Der Estr Bune wrote...

I agree that the Geth/EDI are not valid examples of why it's wrong, but I don't agree that it only has to happen once. If anything, I think the whole thing is probably proof that it has happened multiple times in the past. The God-Child has such a massive sample size, it's sort of naive to say, "This 300-year span invalidates the millenia of data he has!".

This. This is why I don't believe the Starchild's logic is faulty.

[ArkkAngel007]

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

The first was a faction that was convinced by Sovereign.

The second was because, behold, the Quarian's initiated conflict.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

Anything the Geth do due to the Reapers inherantly invalidates it from being a justifiable action for the Reapers existence.

You can't claim to be protecting someone from a threat, then *CREATE* that threat, and be like "see, look, isn't it scary?"

That isn't logic, thats mafia-esque behavior.

[MPSai]

Pikku Shinto wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

This.
I mean, think of it this way. Why didn't Legion ever betray you ever? He was part of the Geth that wasn't controlled. He also wanted you to know the truth of their history.

Legion even explains it, the heretic Geth sought the Reapers to improve themselves. In turn the Reapers used them to attack organics directly. The actions of the Reapers in the first 2 games contradicts what Starkids says their motives are.

[Tony208]

EDI was created by Cerberus?
I thought she came from that Alliance moon base.

Oh and Geth didn't rebel.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


Then we are TOLD that synthetics will always kill organics.

No, you're told the Reapers' creators believed that, eventually, some synthetics would end up killing organics.'

Not that all synthetics would be hostile, or that all synthetics would kill organics.

[Gibb_Shepard]

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

But they didn't do it under the premise of "Kill all organics". They did it because Soverign was a deity to them. Killing organics is simply what he told htme to do.