418 réponses à ce sujet

[Evil_medved]

Reapers are flying sarcophagus controlled by shacked AI, they are not preserving anything by their "harvest", they ARE synthetics destroying organic life.

[Total Biscuit]

The simple fact is the Reapers are wrong, and can't understand that.

Sure, the relationships between Organic and Synthetic may tend to START off fearfully, and lead to violence, but since this cycle was delayed long enough to get well past this initial painful 'birth', we've got to a point that is a total unknown to them.

Both sides have had enough time to calm down, reflect, and approach the differences rationally, and attempt to empathise wih one another. And it worked. You can't argue against that, it ACTUAL HAPPENS IN GAME.

The Reapers were dumb as bricks and unable to think beyond their programmed absolutes. Whoever created them was an arragant coward who was terrified enough of the unknown to kill themmselves over it, and so unable to consider any other possibility beyond their rigid beliefs that they killed everyone else throughout history to make sure no other option was able to be attempted, it's just a self fulfilling prophesey.

[glacier1701]

The statement made by the starchild/godchild is that invalid right from the start. Basically it says that the 'created' will always destroy the 'creators' and then go on to destroy all organics. If you look at that statement for it to be true it MUST HAVE HAPPENED ALREADY. In other words synthetics somewhere rose up and destroyed their creators and then went on to destroy all organic life. Yet the galaxy is still full of organic life!!! So that statement cannot be true which means the godchild/starchild (whatever) is lying!!! If it lying then why believe ANYTHING it has to say especially when you have evidence otherwise. At best you can say that the issue of created destroying creators is theorectically possible but there is no solid proof that this can and will happen since there is organic life around showing it has not happened in the past.

[sammcl]

I don't think the question was ever meant to be "Is Ghost Boy Right?" He would have tonnes of data, I assume he's right, at some point, synthetics will destroy organics. The question I ask is: so what? Why does it matter if that happens? It will have been a result of our own actions and we will own that, it's preferable to being wiped out by an unknown creator to prevent something that may occur tomorrow or may not occur for thousands of years.

Why does this little bugger not wait for the event to occur then send in the reapers to destroy all the synthetics instead if the goal is to preserve organic life? O_o

[Ciiran]

beyzend wrote...

"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."

this is a classical argument of whether the end justify the means. IMO killing off advanced civilizations to achieve the end of continuing the existence of organics is morally unjustifiable. But I'm not really a philosophy major but I don't see how you can just make the claim "ALL synethics will destroy organics". He makes this claim without any proof whatsoever. What prevents me then saying I believe Bioware and EA is ought to get me, eventually, so I'm justified in pirating the **** out of their games?

Also see: http://en.wikipedia....onsequentialism

I believe if "I'm ****ing alive A.I" is actually possibile it can be taught culture, ethics and morality so it could never turn against the organics. But then what is really the point? A.I is just a masturbation game by the organics really.

Yes, I also believe that the Catalysts argument is wrong. And that his solution was wrong too, even he admits. That was not what I was discussing though. I merely pointed out that the Geth/EDI arguement does not invalidate the Catalysts claim because the claim is not possible to invalidate.

[Ciiran]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

You guys need to look up the definition of "rebel".

The geth and EDI both certainly did rebel, they just had cause to do so.

Saying the geth and EDI didn't rebel is like saying the Rebel Alliance never existed in Star Wars.

Exactly my original point.

[Ciiran]

LUIGI9393 wrote...

The logic of the catalyst it's not a great example of logic.
Now, we have to suppose that at least once the Synth destroyed all the organic life, this is the only thing that would prove that the catalyst was right.
But since there is still organic life in the galaxy and since the reapers have been created by someone we have to suppose that Synth never eradicated organic life, so the assumption of the Catalyst is false or at the best unproven.
And since the Metacon war was won by the organics, the Prothean, and since what we know about Geth and IDA, and since we know that the synt threath in the human cycle and in the Prothean Cycle was caused by the Reapers (in fact the reapers helped the Za'til or whatever their name was when they were loosing the war, and pushed the Geth to war when they were pacifist and isolationist) we can assume that Catalyst said a bunch or crap.
Or at least bioware did.

If Aristotle could see the ending of mass effect he would do a
facepalm.

Well, yes and no. 

Suppose that the Catalysians, before they created the Reapers, had a huge fight with synthetics. After they won they realized that only chance allowed them to win. Or if the synthetics had say 50 years more to enhance themselves they would have won without  a doubt. That could be considered enough of a proof of concept at least. 

They could argue that the risk of the synthetics acually winning is not a risk worth taking. So they create the Catalyst and the catalyst designs teh Cycle Solution.

THe same way we say that a WW3 nuclear holocaust would be a bad thing even though we have not had one. We assume the consequences of WW3 and decide that it would be horrible before it happens. That's how I think the Catalyst reasons at least. 

His solution is, arguably, as bad as the problem though.

[viperabyss]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

^ This

[Nighthunteer]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[incinerator950]

Did anyone mention EDI was the Luna Base VI that became self-aware?

[Ciiran]

Beast919 wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

You guys need to look up the definition of "rebel".

The geth and EDI both certainly did rebel, they just had cause to do so.

Saying the geth and EDI didn't rebel is like saying the Rebel Alliance never existed in Star Wars.

The geth fighting for survival is nothing like the Rebel Alliance.

The rebels could have existed peacefully under the Empire, if they so chose.  They fought not only to save the races which were being persecuted, but also to advance their own ideals.  The geth fought singularly for survival.  They stopped their war even after they had won, once it was clear that survival was achieved.

While I won't comment on whether or not that is technically a rebellion, since I'm too lazy to look up the actual definition, I will say its *nothing* like the Rebel Alliance.

The geth were clearly in rebellion. A morally justifiable one, imo.

Here's the definition(s) (
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/rebellion):
re·bel·lion  (r-blyn)
n.
1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.
2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

rebellion [rɪˈbɛljən]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) organized resistance or opposition to a government or other authority
2. dissent from an accepted moral code or convention of behaviour, dress, etc.

Modifié par Ciiran, 17 mars 2012 - 05:56 .

[thoaloa]

Actually its false to assume a countless lifetimes of results guarantees that synthetic life will wipe out organic life. What happened before you started and by "influencing" life in each cycle determining the outcome has been contaminated. The fact that your cycle has screwed up is strong evidence that it doesn't always play out as you predict.

Its literally impossible to predict based on completely independent events and the fact that you have a whole influence the technology thing going on just makes it worse.

Also it would have to be a fact to be not possible to invalidate as claims by definition are not infallible. As the claim is clearly not a fact as there is contradictory information then it can be invalidated.

[jcmccorm]

If we want to be equally pedantic, the Star Child's claims are not proof that there is even an unending synthetic/creator problem that needs to be solved in the first place. We don't even know if the Star Child really exists, much less explored the validity of its presentation.

[incinerator950]

Total Biscuit wrote...

The simple fact is the Reapers are wrong, and can't understand that.

Sure, the relationships between Organic and Synthetic may tend to START off fearfully, and lead to violence, but since this cycle was delayed long enough to get well past this initial painful 'birth', we've got to a point that is a total unknown to them.

Both sides have had enough time to calm down, reflect, and approach the differences rationally, and attempt to empathise wih one another. And it worked. You can't argue against that, it ACTUAL HAPPENS IN GAME.

The Reapers were dumb as bricks and unable to think beyond their programmed absolutes. Whoever created them was an arragant coward who was terrified enough of the unknown to kill themmselves over it, and so unable to consider any other possibility beyond their rigid beliefs that they killed everyone else throughout history to make sure no other option was able to be attempted, it's just a self fulfilling prophesey.

Yet Synthetics were fighting the Protheans before the Reaper Invasion.  The Prothean beacon explains that the Reaper Cycles follow the same pattern.  You can assume that Synthetics rise up and fight Organics each Cycle as before.

Given enough time, EDI and the Geth can become hostile.  The situation between them is the Reaper threat, and the Reapers being hostile to both.  Circumstance makes them allies, with the exception that EDI evolves enough to choose to be your friend.  If we had an epilogue that showed the Geth fighting the Quarians again, it will just pivot more evidence.

Once again, we just don't have the evidence to support or deny the Reapers claim.

[Eterna]

Stop quoting the Geth didn't rebel. Fighting your government even in defense is a rebellion.

[thoaloa]

Ciiran wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

You guys need to look up the definition of "rebel".

The geth and EDI both certainly did rebel, they just had cause to do so.

Saying the geth and EDI didn't rebel is like saying the Rebel Alliance never existed in Star Wars.

The geth fighting for survival is nothing like the Rebel Alliance.

The rebels could have existed peacefully under the Empire, if they so chose.  They fought not only to save the races which were being persecuted, but also to advance their own ideals.  The geth fought singularly for survival.  They stopped their war even after they had won, once it was clear that survival was achieved.

While I won't comment on whether or not that is technically a rebellion, since I'm too lazy to look up the actual definition, I will say its *nothing* like the Rebel Alliance.

The geth were clearly in rebellion. A morally justifiable one, imo.

Here's the definition(s) (
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/rebellion):
re·bel·lion  (r-blyn)
n.
1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.
2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

rebellion [rɪˈbɛljən]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) organized resistance or opposition to a government or other authority
2. dissent from an accepted moral code or convention of behaviour, dress, etc.

self-preservation

1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

Hmmm, they technically didn't want to rebel against their creators either and some of the quarians didn't want to wipe them out either.

Also this has nothing to do with the God AI's logic as if his whole reason was that synthics would act like normal people so we have to kill everything in the galaxy just makes it's arugment worse not better.

[viperabyss]

Ciiran wrote...


The geth were clearly in rebellion. A morally justifiable one, imo.

Here's the definition(s) (
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/rebellion):
re·bel·lion  (r-blyn)
n.
1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.
2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

rebellion [rɪˈbɛljən]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) organized resistance or opposition to a government or other authority
2. dissent from an accepted moral code or convention of behaviour, dress, etc.

Last I checked, Geth fought because they were being destroyed. Once the quarians are out of the range, Geth seized the pursuit.

If "defending yourself against annhilation" is considered "rebellion", then should all self-defense be considered "rebellion"?

[Doctoglethorpe]

All the evidense really points to organics being the ones always trying to undo their own creations, not the created rebelling to begin with. 

Self defence is as natural as the blood in your veigns. 

Catalyst is wrong.

[durasteel]

Those exact same arguments are applied in-game to both the Rachni and the Krogan. The Krogan, in particular, weren't "created," but they were "uplifted" by the Salarians, against whom they rebelled.

This dynamic is not unique to synthetic intelligence, it is no less common among organic life forms. If it is wrong to deny the Krogan their right to exist, then the same argument applies to the Geth.

[durasteel]

jcmccorm wrote...

If we want to be equally pedantic, the Star Child's claims are not proof that there is even an unending synthetic/creator problem that needs to be solved in the first place. We don't even know if the Star Child really exists, much less explored the validity of its presentation.

And Shepard cannot question, cannot argue, cannot persuade. Shepard can only take star child's statements at face value and red/blue/green.  That's the end of the game, the end of Shepard's story, and with the destruction of the mass relays it is also the end of galactic civilization in any recognizable form, for no reason other than star child said so.

And BioWare is surprised by the reaction.

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

[Ciiran]

HMSWarspite wrote...

 Putting aside how utterly awful the endings were there are
two problems with the OP`s argument. 
Firstly the catalysts assertion that synthetics will if allowed, will inevitably
wipe out all organic life at some point is reasoning by analogy.  This is reasoning based on past evidence of
said occurrence happening if certain criteria are met. This however does not
prove that the event will occur again (Philosophy 101). But let’s for arguments
sake say this is sufficient proof, does that mean all organic life was wiped
out in the past by synthetics? If that was the case why is there still organic life
in the Mass Effect Universe?   It’s one thing saying the sun came up
yesterday so I’m pretty sure it will come up tomorrow, it is quite another
thing  to say look at those synthetics
they just wiped out all organic life, next time organics create synthetics
pretty sure that will happen again. (Both are still reasoning by analogy though)
 Would you like to know more? http://en.wikipedia....nt_from_Analogy

But maybe organic life has never been completely exterminated
and star child just knows it will happen if him and his reaper buddies don’t stop
it by culling off the advanced organics in the galaxy. How can star child know
this? Well perhaps he doesn’t view time in a linear fashion and can see the
past present and future simultaneously. Which is great because then we can
argue about paradoxes instead! Maybe the Reapers and star child are so advanced
that they know the position and speed of all particles in the Universe and thus
know everything in which case there is no free will and life is just a giant
equation and the whole point of making different decisions in the game is moot.
(Inevitable Mr Anderson)

The last possibility is the star child is an omnipotent
being (god/creator/master of the universe/ spaghetti monster)   Well if
this is the case star child is the most useless omnipotent being ever, not only
did his solution not work he didn`t know it wouldn’t work which begs the
question how does he really no that synthetics will always wipe out organic life.
If the star child is an all-powerful omnipotent being he is clearly the Wheatley
of all-powerful omnipotent beings.  Another paradox wonderful!

So basically all three possibilities as to why Star Child
knows organics will be wiped out by synthetics are rubbish.

 

The second problem is the premise of the argument is completely
arbitrary.

But if we “accept” premise one and two below there is only
one logical conclusion.

1. Organic life when sufficiently advanced will create
synthetics

2. Synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life.

3. Therefor Organic life will inevitably be wiped out by
synthetics.

 

How about this one?

 

1. Organic life when sufficiently advanced will create
synthetics

2. Synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life.

3. Star Child knows both one and two

4. Star Child creates reapers (synthetics) to wipe out
advanced organic life and synthetic life that are not reapers.

5. This prevents all organic life from being wiped out by
synthetics.

 

Hang on synthetics inevitably destroy organic life.

1. Organic life when sufficiently advanced will create
synthetics

2. Synthetics will inevitably destroy all organic life.

3. Star Child knows both one and two

4. Star child has some motivation for ensuring organic life
is not wiped out.

5. Star Child creates reapers (*synthetics*) to wipe out
advanced organic life and synthetic life that are not reapers.

6. Reapers are not the same as synthetics created by organic
life as this would invalidate premise two.

7. This prevents all organic life from being wiped out by
synthetics.

 

See a fallacy, paradox or just bum logic. Now you can play
too!  Only one rule you can only add a
premise not take one away.

 "Geth/ Edi are not evidence that the Catalyst problem is false" True but do you think the onus is on those that believe or disbelive in the flying spaghetti monster to prove/disprove his existence?  

Thanky you for that. Your problem is that I think that you do not understand my post and that you have missed some thing about the Reapers.

My post was about the open ended nature of the Catalysts claim. It can not be disproven by examples because of that.

You, and many others, seem to think I try to justify the Catalysts problem formulation adn solution. I am not. I point out that the geth/EDI counter examples are pointless because of how the Catalyst reasons. Very simple.

Also, the Reapers are not synthetics, they are organics. What does that make of you premises and the conclusions?

[Raiil]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

I'm inclined to go along with thinking God Child Logic is Derp Logic.


Part of the issue is that God Child is never forced to submit proof of their assertions. I can give you reams of proof that having men in charge is bad for womankind. This doesn't mean I think no man should ever manage a company. The English have, historically, steamrolled millions of people in the past. I can't see that as being a reason to line them all up and execute them. 'Sins of the father' is really never much of a reason for outright destruction.


The God Child makes statements that it is never asked to truly clarify, or explain, and Shepard was apparently transformed into a wet noodle in the beam and doesn't seem to think of really fighting with its limited logic. It's 'their solution', but history- human, and I'm sure we could find plenty in other races- is full of people who eventually found better solutions, and worked from there. Shepard is able to broker peace between synthetics and organics, and the galaxy has earned their chance to prove themselves.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that proves God Child and his fleet of toys has the intellectual capacity or the logic processing power necessary to make that sort of decision. The problem with playing God is that you are, by definition, not God.

I don't understand...why are you arguing about whether he was wrong? The Catalyst SAID the Crucible opened new possibilities. That's why Shepard had the choice at all.

The Catalyst is a talking head with not a shred of evidence to back up his claims, no documentation on his assertions and apparently limited in his logic, since he seems to only have one function. I can't call him a liar anymore than I can say for certain that he's telling the truth; my issue is we're being forced to accept the logic and solutions of what appears to be an inflexible (the created will always destroy the creators) logic processing system and we're being told to accept it at face value, although Shepard can personally deliver proof of their incorrectness by pointing out a window.

Their 'solution' is heavily slanted in the thought process of genocidal/xenocidal tendencies and any proof we have is countered with 'well they've been around longer', even though we only have one previous cycle to use as any sort of proof. Without knowledge of several cycles beforehand at the bare minimum, to study how their socities grew and expanded before their mass deaths took place.

[viperabyss]

 Here's the reason why the Catalyst's logic doesn't make sense.

Catalyst says the created will always rebel against the creator, so the synthetics will always rebel against the organics. Therefore, he created an armada of synthetics to destroy the advanced civilizations of organics.

That makes perfect sense.
http://cdn2.gamefron...3/ME3yodawg.jpg


Of course, you can always argue that the organics were "harvested", not destroyed. However, last time I checked, the difference between organics and synthetics is the absence of a collective mind. Geth was synthetic, so they had a collective mind. But organics are built on individuality. The moment the inviduality is taken away, organics seize to exist.

So, the life forms lose their individuality, and their DNA is "harvested" to become the essence of a space-fairing battleship. No matter how you cut it, the life forms seize to exist. THEN, a VI was placed to control the battleship that was made of the organics essence. So in the end, Reaper is still synthetics.

So, synthetics "harvest" organics, where the organics seizes to exist (destroyed), and a synthetic was put in charge of whatever is left of the organics. And Catalyst did that to protect the organics from synthetics.

How does that even make sense?

Modifié par viperabyss, 17 mars 2012 - 06:11 .

[Ciiran]

thoaloa wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

You guys need to look up the definition of "rebel".

The geth and EDI both certainly did rebel, they just had cause to do so.

Saying the geth and EDI didn't rebel is like saying the Rebel Alliance never existed in Star Wars.

The geth fighting for survival is nothing like the Rebel Alliance.

The rebels could have existed peacefully under the Empire, if they so chose.  They fought not only to save the races which were being persecuted, but also to advance their own ideals.  The geth fought singularly for survival.  They stopped their war even after they had won, once it was clear that survival was achieved.

While I won't comment on whether or not that is technically a rebellion, since I'm too lazy to look up the actual definition, I will say its *nothing* like the Rebel Alliance.

The geth were clearly in rebellion. A morally justifiable one, imo.

Here's the definition(s) (
http://www.thefreedi...y.com/rebellion):
re·bel·lion  (r-blyn)
n.
1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.
2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

rebellion [rɪˈbɛljən]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) organized resistance or opposition to a government or other authority
2. dissent from an accepted moral code or convention of behaviour, dress, etc.

self-preservation

1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

Hmmm, they technically didn't want to rebel against their creators either and some of the quarians didn't want to wipe them out either.

Also this has nothing to do with the God AI's logic as if his whole reason was that synthics would act like normal people so we have to kill everything in the galaxy just makes it's arugment worse not better.

So? Self-preservation does not exclude rebellion or vice versa.

[xeNNN]

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.

im going to have to disagree about the geth and edi not being evidence.

the geth didnt rebel the quarians decided they must be destroyed when they believed it was getting out of hand because the geth were asking if they had souls, the geth defended themselves. 

if edi went back to cerberus or something and they found out she was unshackled the ullusive man would of put the shackles back on in turn she defended herself by making sure she didnt interfere with shepard and the crew from going back to the alliance in turn she pretended to be a VI that only responds to jokers comands instead of an AI or they would of shackled her.  (the cerberus thing is an assumption however plausible and accurate of the illusive mans character) 

so neither rebeled, simply defend themselves and the geth were even allied with some quarians during when they were defending themselves because some of there creators wanted to help defend them so yeah. same with edi.. she allied with orangics to defend herself aswell so the point is invalid and so is the logic, he opinion is illogical and doesnt work, he is also synthetic so his whole point about synthetics rebeling against organics is a contridiction so the EDI/geth arguement still stands because they didnt rebel they defended themselves while at the same time proving that not all synthetics rebel against their creators if that were true the geth would of killed the master who didnt want to kill the geth aswell and edi would of killed every single one of the crew and flew off.  

also in order for there to be a rebellion you need to be citizens of that goverment in the first place in order to call it a rebellion , the geth werent citizens they were tools, same with edi, and though the reapers are not synthetic they have synthetic comonents a synthetic creation to house organic matter is still synthetic when the main non organic components are synthetic such as the massive element zero core in the direlict reaper in mass effect 2

(the geth allied with some of their creators thing is an interpretation ive made from Legions network mission, very plausible and valid from the video's you watch while on mission so.)

Modifié par xeNNN, 17 mars 2012 - 06:30 .