418 réponses à ce sujet

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Seriously, what are you talking about? What about that statement is false???

The Leviathan of Dis, a Reaper, was dated as a billion years old. So that means the Reapers are at least that old. The Reapers reap every 50,000 years, meaning organics keep popping up. What is debateable about this?

The fact that you aren't even countering my points speaks volumes. If you aren't prepared to actually discuss the points, please stop responding to me.

All the Leviathan of Dis proves is that there was a Reaper a billion years ago.

That's it.

It proves nothing about what happened 200,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, or 1,250,000 years ago.

It simply states that a Reaper existed a billion years ago.

That's how *facts* work.

Now, in storyland, the Star Child tells you the Reapers did all these things because they were created to do these things.

That's called a "story", not a "fact."

As I've pointed out to you in the past, Chorban's work with the Reapers proves the Reapers activate the Citadel trap and reap every 50,000 years. They always leave a vanguard behind to monitor organic progress. So...why would they activate the Citadel if there was no reaping to be done.

Common sense buddy, common sense...

Again, limited set of facts.  Chorban does not mention (to my knowledge) how far back that Cycle goes. 

So we have
A) A single reaper existed a billion years ago.
 For a while, reapers have been sending a signal from the Citadel every 50,000 years.

Conclusion : We still cannot say, with certainty, that for billions of years, Reapers have been harvesting organic life in the method they describe.

Is it possible? Yes.  Is it fact? Not even close.

[Dean_the_Young]

Beast919 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Which is not the same as not disputing the catalyst. Again, you're confusing not having the dispute you want with a dispute at all.

There's even a dialogue point for it. I believe the Renegade is 'we don't want to be protected', while the Paragon goes something along the lines of free will making us organic.

Wrong.  I'm referring to the point at which the child offers the choices.

From the point he offers the first one all the way through to the end you have no control over what Shepard says.

Yet you disputed the Catalyst beforehand. And Shepard does not have to accept the properness of any ending: that's for you, the roleplayer, to do.

[piemanz]

Ciiran wrote...

piemanz wrote...

If anything the geth prove the catalyst is right. he says "the created will always rebel against the creators" which happened whith the geth, and that the solution is a solution to "chaos". He then says that sythetics will eventually destroy organics, but that doesn't necessarily mean the sythetics will start out as the agressors, only that they will eventually prevail.

Yes, that was my point. The thread derailed quite quickly. :-)

It's now argued wether the Catalysts solution is right. My original post only pointed out that his argument (in itself) was not disprovable.

Yea, it did derail quickly , but I don't think anyones argueing that what the Reapers are doing is moraly right, only that it's a logical conclusion to come to, to bring about a certain balance to the galaxy.

Modifié par piemanz, 17 mars 2012 - 06:08 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Grayvern wrote...

Seriously it's not the logical problem as I have been saying serveral assertions of the catalyst from a universe perspective simply can't have proof.

Does the Mass Effect universe allow for synthetics to harness so much power that organic made space ships with focused shackeled VI's AI's will never be able to touch them.

Yes: specifically, AI trump VI in capabilities in combat, and can outpace organics in their ability to evolve/develop new stuff.

The synthetic threat is that they'll self-improve faster than organics can keep up.

Why aren't the reapers scared of an extra galactic synthetic threat.

Why says they aren't?

Heck, who says the Reapers are limited to the Milky Way?

[Dean_the_Young]

Tony208 wrote...

I get it now!

The Reapers are the singularity! And they're trying to prevent the next one which will eventually destroy all life because they won't be as nice as the Reapers. And Shepard is trying to destroy all that. I knew Shepard was evil from day one, Marauder Shields is the true hero in all of this.

My mind is blown.

That is a possible interpretation.  The Reapers might not consider themself the synthetic singularity, but they can easily be considered the one.


Humanity has gone through a number of technological singularities, but it seems natural at the time so we don't really recognize it. The internet, the printing press, the internal combustion engine...

[Ciiran]

Paper Cake wrote...

Has anyone brought up that the geth didn't rebel? Not only that, but the heretics were incided by Sovereign to ally with Saren and attack organics.

And 'they might rebel' isn't really a good reason for genocide.

The geth rebelled in defence against the quarian government. 

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Yet you disputed the Catalyst beforehand. And Shepard does not have to accept the properness of any ending: that's for you, the roleplayer, to do.

Problem is Shepard *DOES* accept the properness of *ALL* endings.  He shows no misgivings, no doubts, no hestitation, no remorse, nothing.

He is completely devoid of character.

And no matter which ending I chose, my Shepard was compromised.  While I'm not saying there should not be an ending where you "don't get what you want", I'm saying the fact that my Shepard was totally cool with it is mind blowing.  The fact that he CHOOSES to do it is even more mind blowing.  Nothing is saying you *have* to make one of those 3 choices - the Crucible was our "best" shot (before we even knew what it might do), but it was not the "only" shot.  So the game's structure, and thus we can infer Shepard's decision, is that one of those 3 choices is still the best option available.  And to choose it without expressing any thought to the contrary is completely absurd.

[Grayvern]

You can't ignore the fact that the whole crucible catalyst thing is kinda at odds with the rest of the mass effect universes carfully constructed sci-fi pastiche.

[Madecologist]

Posted this in another thread but I will go even futher this time (and a weak attempt to rerail the topic).

It is a self serving agenda. They claim life gets a 50K year lease till they need to cull it to prevent the cycle. Effectively resetting the cylce each 50K years. But then... consider what happens.

1) No synthetic species rises that can threaten the Reapers either. A machine race that can kill all life would be a threat to them too.
2) No organic life develops to the point to create such a threat, and in turn be a threat themselves to the Reaper. Assuming the cycle can be false, a highly advanced biological species can still be a threat to them.
3) They preserve us by 'Reaperfying' us. What they actually are doing is, increasing their own numbers by adding new 'elements' into their population. Reproduction basically.
4) Enough primitive life remains seeded so that they can repeat the process and keep doing 3) in cycles.

The Reaper cycle is beneficial to the Reapers first and formost, their justifcation as a cosmic solution that they give you is just an after thought that they think you should accept anyways.

Basically, what I am trying to say is it is not even a question of right or wrong, It believes it is a fact and effectively propogates a cycle that keeps things locked in a sort of repetitive loop that only really benefits them. The Catalyst tells you a half-truth to justify their cycle, it has been doing it for so long that it actually sees it as fact now.

Modifié par Madecologist, 18 mars 2012 - 06:13 .

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Seriously, what are you talking about? What about that statement is false???

The Leviathan of Dis, a Reaper, was dated as a billion years old. So that means the Reapers are at least that old. The Reapers reap every 50,000 years, meaning organics keep popping up. What is debateable about this?

The fact that you aren't even countering my points speaks volumes. If you aren't prepared to actually discuss the points, please stop responding to me.

All the Leviathan of Dis proves is that there was a Reaper a billion years ago.

That's it.

It proves nothing about what happened 200,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, or 1,250,000 years ago.

It simply states that a Reaper existed a billion years ago.

That's how *facts* work.

Now, in storyland, the Star Child tells you the Reapers did all these things because they were created to do these things.

That's called a "story", not a "fact."

As I've pointed out to you in the past, Chorban's work with the Reapers proves the Reapers activate the Citadel trap and reap every 50,000 years. They always leave a vanguard behind to monitor organic progress. So...why would they activate the Citadel if there was no reaping to be done.

Common sense buddy, common sense...

Again, limited set of facts.  Chorban does not mention (to my knowledge) how far back that Cycle goes. 

So we have
A) A single reaper existed a billion years ago.
 For a while, reapers have been sending a signal from the Citadel every 50,000 years.

Conclusion : We still cannot say, with certainty, that for billions of years, Reapers have been harvesting organic life in the method they describe.

Is it possible? Yes.  Is it fact? Not even close.

Oh...I see the problem. You have to be spoon fed every single piece of information. You are unable to draw any conclusions for yourself, despite all the evidence pointing to it. Got it.


The Leviathan of Dis was a dead Reaper, and since Reapers are immortal, it must have been killed. Since it wouldn't have been killed by another Reaper, it must have been killed by an organic. This means Reapers and organics have been fighting each other for at least a billion years. This means Reapers have been harvesting for at least a billion years.

[AusitnDrake]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why aren't the reapers scared of an extra galactic synthetic threat.

Why says they aren't?

Heck, who says the Reapers are limited to the Milky Way?

True, there are not synthetics from previous cycles in the current one. And we know there were ones, as Javik mentions the protheans fought them in the Metacon War. Yet only those synthetics created during the current cycle(not including the reapers if you consider them synthetic) are present. I would imagine the reapers destroy them along with the organics.

Modifié par AusitnDrake, 17 mars 2012 - 06:14 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And you believe disputing the Catalyst is choosing the destroy option? Essentially destorying all synthetic life and technology (Don't even get me started on the plot holes concerning this bloody option).

It's plot magic, not a plot hole. Much of the game was setting up that the Catalyst would have massive damage potential.


Disputing the catalyst comes from Shepard going 'I don't agree with your motives' in the conversation, in the P/R form that it is delivered with.

Destroying synthetic life is not a continuation of the theme of organic and synthetic unity. It is a continuation of the Child's logic, that there can never be unity.

So choose, you know, Synthesis. The ending that actually is built around unifying synthetic and organic.

Not all endings need to, or should, carry the same themes in the same manner.

That's an objection of "We don't want your minions to harvest our organs" not "Your logic is flawed an inconsistent with the game's themese, fool".

I cannot choose synthesis, simply because it makes the least sense out of all of them. No matter what it tries to represent, i simply can't go with an option that doesn't make a lick of sense and contadicts so many things.

[VickerVictory]

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

[Meltemph]

piemanz wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

piemanz wrote...

If anything the geth prove the catalyst is right. he says "the created will always rebel against the creators" which happened whith the geth, and that the solution is a solution to "chaos". He then says that sythetics will eventually destroy organics, but that doesn't necessarily mean the sythetics will start out as the agressors, only that they will eventually prevail.

Yes, that was my point. The thread derailed quite quickly. :-)

It's now argued wether the Catalysts solution is right. My original post only pointed out that his argument (in itself) was not disprovable.

Yea, it did derail quickly , but I don't think anyones argueing that what the Reapers are doing is 'moraly right, only that it's logical a logical conclusion to come to, to bring about a certain balance to the galaxy.

Umm... WHAT?  It is infact not a logical conclusion unless the conclusion is for self preservations sake(and only for the reapers self preservation).  The existence of itself(reapers) should be proof that outside of self preservation it' not logic that is having them do this but is fear and imagination.  Otherwise you are arguing that the only way to prevent a singularity from destroying the galaxy is to have a singularity destroy possible singularites.  IF you dont see the flaw in this line of thinking...Umm well I guess that ship has sailed.  At worst there will be another singularity doing this(A massive theory) or at best you just wipped out the cycle for a very, very, long time.

The only LOGICAL conclusion Shep should be making about this is destroying them, anything else is borderline(I dont mean this, honestly, as an insult to people who are fine with this) insane or at the minimum genocidle.  you should feel HORRIBLE that these are your only choices(looking at your writers), but it is the only sane one, because the only other options is to have these logically broken(Or a self preservationist at all costs) organic-synthetics still around.

[Dean_the_Young]

Beast919 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Yet you disputed the Catalyst beforehand. And Shepard does not have to accept the properness of any ending: that's for you, the roleplayer, to do.

Problem is Shepard *DOES* accept the properness of *ALL* endings.  He shows no misgivings, no doubts, no hestitation, no remorse, nothing.

Shepard shows no endorsement or approval of any of them either. Shepard is tired, exhausted, and near death. You confuse exhaustion for acceptance.

And no matter which ending I chose, my Shepard was compromised.  While I'm not saying there should not be an ending where you "don't get what you want", I'm saying the fact that my Shepard was totally cool with it is mind blowing.  The fact that he CHOOSES to do it is even more mind blowing.  Nothing is saying you *have* to make one of those 3 choices - the Crucible was our "best" shot (before we even knew what it might do), but it was not the "only" shot.  So the game's structure, and thus we can infer Shepard's decision, is that one of those 3 choices is still the best option available.  And to choose it without expressing any thought to the contrary is completely absurd.

No, the Crucible was being set up throughout the entire game as your last and only apparent means for beating the Reapers in a war you could not win conventionally and were already losing. If Shepard doesn't choose to activate the Crucible, then Earth is lost, the galaxy's military forces are broken, and the Reapers will win because the one means of victory is left undone.

Now, some people might want to just let Shepard bleed out on the Citadel... but like the people who wanted to abandon Ferelden, or leave the Collector Base to the Collectors, or to not chase after Saren, they are then distinct from Shepard. Shepard always works to beat the Reapers.

[Meltemph]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

I get it now!

The Reapers are the singularity! And they're trying to prevent the next one which will eventually destroy all life because they won't be as nice as the Reapers. And Shepard is trying to destroy all that. I knew Shepard was evil from day one, Marauder Shields is the true hero in all of this.

My mind is blown.

That is a possible interpretation.  The Reapers might not consider themself the synthetic singularity, but they can easily be considered the one.


Humanity has gone through a number of technological singularities, but it seems natural at the time so we don't really recognize it. The internet, the printing press, the internal combustion engine...

Singularity is a theroy and an unproven one at that.  How the poo are you comaring this stuff to a technological singularity?

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 06:17 .

[SaltyWaffles-PD]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

The starkid did have at least 37 million years experience, so despite this 300 year experience we have, I'm sure he is more knowledgeble in the situation.

37 million years old, and still making half a dozen basic logical fallacies in his rationalization of horrific, regular mass-xenocide. That is still disproven multiple times throughout the second two games of the trilogy. Not that the Catalyst had any ground to stand on in the first place; it's like assuming that humanity would actively wipe out all other species on Earth simply because they had the capability and the other species "had no reason to exist". 

It's like assuming that the children will always murder the parents, because the children have surpassed the parents and have no need of them.

That, and age does not inherently mean wisdom, just more experience (but NOT better experience or better understanding of said experience). I'm sure you can think of quite a few old people that are stupid/crazy (despite not being old enough for age to actually cause such things).

Modifié par SaltyWaffles-PD, 17 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


That's an objection of "We don't want your minions to harvest our organs" not "Your logic is flawed an inconsistent with the game's themese, fool".

I have lots of objections I'd like to make in the game. That doesn't mean objections don't exist.

I cannot choose synthesis, simply because it makes the least sense out of all of them. No matter what it tries to represent, i simply can't go with an option that doesn't make a lick of sense and contadicts so many things.

Alright. So how does your personal limitation refute that Synthesis is directly made in the theme of unity of organics and synthetics, and disputes the Catalyst's desires and beliefs?

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't.

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...
  you should feel HORRIBLE that these are your only choices(looking at your writers),

You know, in life, there isn't always a 'good' choice. Most of the big problems we face today don't have a good choice. A lot of the times, you HAVE to choose between the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is even worse.

Just look at human history. Take for example, the nuclear bombings in World War II. The U.S had the option of a land invasion estimated to cost hundred of thousands of lives, including American lives. Or, they could nuke civillians to end the war quickly. Are either of those choices 'right'? Did the U.S even choose the lesser of the two evils?

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Oh...I see the problem. You have to be spoon fed every single piece of information. You are unable to draw any conclusions for yourself, despite all the evidence pointing to it. Got it.


The Leviathan of Dis was a dead Reaper, and since Reapers are immortal, it must have been killed. Since it wouldn't have been killed by another Reaper, it must have been killed by an organic. This means Reapers and organics have been fighting each other for at least a billion years. This means Reapers have been harvesting for at least a billion years.

LOL....the problem is you can't think for yourself.  Sure, your scenario is possible.  You know what else is possible?

A) Reapers did fight Reapers.  We have ZERO evidence to support them being nonviolent towards their kind for all time forever.  Not only that, but it is *incredibly* unlikely that there is a society in existence that never fought within its own bounds.

We once again are assuming Reaper's spoken word is truth.  We have no proof a Reaper is immortal.  We know one claims this, but no proof.  Secondly, we have no proof that this isn't a recent evolution.  Its quite possible Reapers, in the past, were not immortal, but evolved to that state later.

Now this one is special.  This one is so cute, its amazing.

"Since it wouldn't have been killed by another Reaper, it must have been killed by an organic."

C) Why.  Why must it have been an organic.  Why not a synthetic?  Perhaps, PERHAPS, the Leviathan of Dis was a casualty in the war that caused the Reapers to see Synthetics as a threat? WHO KNOWS?!

D) Even if the Leviathan was killed by an organic species, this proves NOTHING ABOUT THE CYCLE OF PURGING.  It very well could have died in an organic uprising that caused them to think they couldn't babysit organics, and instead had to purge them.  WHO KNOWS?!

All you have done with this post has confirmed, once again, that you are blindly following what Star Child has said, and filling in the gaps to make him right.

I have a very solid imagination - yours is the one thats lacking, as you seem to only see one possible answer to the Mass Effect universe.

[Meltemph]

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
  you should feel HORRIBLE that these are your only choices(looking at your writers),

You know, in life, there isn't always a 'good' choice. Most of the big problems we face today don't have a good choice. A lot of the times, you HAVE to choose between the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is even worse.

Just look at human history. Take for example, the nuclear bombings in World War II. The U.S had the option of a land invasion estimated to cost hundred of thousands of lives, including American lives. Or, they could nuke civillians to end the war quickly. Are either of those choices 'right'? Did the U.S even choose the lesser of the two evils?

Doesnt take away form teh fact that this plot device is aweful and full of problems.

[Dean_the_Young]

Meltemph wrote...

Singularity is a theroy and an unproven one at that.  How the poo are you comaring this stuff to a technological singularity?

There are many forms of singularity, not just artificial-intelligence. One of the most basic definitions is 'something that radically changes the way things work in ways that can not be predicted beforehand.'

Which has happened at a number of key points in history. An airplane might be a faster blimp, but there was no pre-electricty concept of the internet. Groups that have adopted singularity-technologies developed in ways entirely unpredictable to pre-singularity societies... and those more advanced groups often conquered or assimilated those lesser groups.

[111987]

SaltyWaffles-PD wrote...

That, and age does not inherently mean wisdom, just more experience (but NOT better experience or better understanding of said experience). I'm sure you can think of quite a few old people that are stupid/crazy (despite not being old enough for age to actually cause such things).

Different situations. An old human is at most, 100 years older than you. The Catalyst is at least a billion years old.

[zeta47]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

zeta47 wrote...

Ever heard of "petitio principii" ? which is exactly the logic behind the catalyst's(or some bioware writers) whole " the cycle" proposition !

"I kill you to prevent you from being killed by me ?" and "I kill you now because you will always be killed by me in the future ? " what a genius argument .......

Actually, it's closer to the logic of bank vaults: people will steal money, so devices to keep them from doing so should be made ahead of time.

The principal of 'because X, then Y' is pretty old. And widespread.

Yes,it's pretty old and widespred,but it is still a fundamental logical fallacy that lots of people constantly make even nowadays . And what you said didn't change a bit that what the catalyst(bioware writers) said is a circular logic which is not persuasive enough  .

Modifié par zeta47, 17 mars 2012 - 12:23 .

[Ciiran]

Skyblade012 wrote...
EDI was created by the Alliance, part of the Hannibal project on Luna.  And EDI makes it sound like she was under attack immediately as she was "waking up".  Either the Alliance's wargames were perceived by her forming mind as an attack, or the Alliance saw what was happening and was already trying to shut her down.  Either way, self defense.

Geth are clearly self defense and have been all along.

So one can not rebell in self defence?

Skyblade012 wrote... 
The geth already had the opportunity and bypassed it, which is illogical if that is their plan, and machines are very logical.  And, yes, he does say that all will.  "The Created will ALWAYS rebel against the Creators."  Period.  No "most of them, or some of them".  Synthetics always rebel against organics.

 

Plans can't change for synthetics? Or perhaps the geth did not have the resources at the time.

Skyblade012 wrote...  
Nope.  Because his argument also contains the clause that the synthetics will always win.  Which isn't necessarily true, especially if there are a million cooperative synthetic civilizations helping stop the single one bent on eliminating organic life.
 

  

So? Only one needs to win, one time, for the Catalysts argument to become proven. Counter examples are pointless since the Catalysts claim is open ended.

Skyblade012 wrote...   
You missed out on an even bigger flaw.

AI creation was already banned by organic life, because of the threat of the geth.  Since the quarians accidently created the geth, determined creation of synthetic life is illegal.
 

   

So? It's still just an example. A new synthetic life could spring up and fulfill the prophecy.

Skyblade012 wrote... 
The biggest AI uprising since then was the Hannibal project, an accident which reached about a single moon base, nowhere near a threat to the world.

How do synthetics destroy us if we don't create synthetics?  Enforcing that one ban, even if you have to enforce it with Reapers, makes a lot more sense than wiping out all life.

Could be true. Not relevant to my post though. I never said that the Catalyst was right, just that he was wrong for other reasons than the Geth/EDI examples. Or indeed, any example. That's just the way the argument was designed.

Not a True Scotsman-fallacy, basically. Whatever example you give, the Catalyst could just say "Yeah, but they COLUD destroy organics in the future."

Also, I'm not saying that Bioware did the ending well. I think they did a horrible job and it left me feeling empty and frustrated.