418 réponses à ce sujet

[2484Stryker]

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.

True, but Shepard could/should argue that since synthetics doesn't ALWAYS have to destroy organics, the Reapers shouldn't be annhilating advanced organics just for the mere possibility of it being so.

And how about suggesting that the Reapers simply annhilate hostile synthetics, instead?  I know the Catalyst will probably point to the possibility of a synthetic race becomming more powerful than the Reapers can handle, but didn't Harbringer always proclaim that "we are infinitely your superior"???

Modifié par 2484Stryker, 17 mars 2012 - 04:52 .

[LordAsael]

I'm less concerned with the logic of what Starchild said than I am with the passive way in which Shepard accepted this logic. My Shepard had reason to dispute this point both in seeing the development of EDI and in seeing the beginning of the Geth/Quarian war as well as the conclusion of said conflict.

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

All the good names were taken wrote...

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.

Saren also allied with the Reapers, should the races of the galaxy have banded to kill all Turians too? You know, just in case. And the second time was only because the Quarians pushed them into it.

Please tell me this argument is a joke. Completely nonsensical.

Its nonsensical to fear organic overlords, but not to fear AI overlords.  loooooooooooooooooooooool.

???

I get the feeling you're just trolling me now...

[Dean_the_Young]

AusitnDrake wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wolven_Soul wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

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

That doesn't prevent their action from being a rebellion.

Actually it does.  A rebellion is an open, organized, and armed resistance against one's government or ruler.  

The geth never rebelled against the quarians, they defended themselves.

Which was an open, organized, and armed resistance against their ruler.

Rebellion and self-defense can be the same action. Just ask the Libyans.

Again the Catalyst implies hostility.

It doesn't.

It also doesn't claim the Geth are the only means of fulfillment of its prophesy.

The Geth wanted to understand their creators, even after 300 years after the Morning War. And when the Quarians actually took the time to try and coinside with them there was peace. All of the hostility that was shown was on the part of the Quarians(apart from those that followed Soveriegn, but that was out of religious fervor). They rebelled out of self preservation not agression or the belief they were superior.

The word you're looking for is malevolence, not hostility. And the motivation of the Singularity's rise is irrelevant to the result.

According to Prothy the Prothean, there was an organic race that merged with synthetics, but gradually eliminated the organic imperfections. Singularity can destroy organics in many ways, even without hostility.

Heck the Reapers themselves believe themselves as saviors, ie non-malevolent.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 17 mars 2012 - 04:54 .

[Der Estr Bune]

Zine2 wrote...

Therefore, the assertion that Organics and Synthetics are hard-wired to kill one another is false.

You're right. Good thing no one makes that assertion. All he says is, "if the galaxy is left unchecked, synthetics will destroy organics". He doesn't mention that either one will necessarily want it, or that they are inherently against each other. I think there's a difference there.

111987 wrote...

Thank you! I've been trying to find a way of explaining this well.

 I love that Dean is helping us piece together 2 totally different theories.

[phoenixds24]

The Geth, from the very beginning, acted only to defend themselves from a group that wished to exterminate them. After securing their personal safety, what did they do? They hid out in the Perseus Veil for a few centuries. They left everyone else alone because that's what they wanted for themselves, to be left alone. The heretic Geth, as Legion referred to them, acted under influence from the Reapers to actively exterminate organic species and, in fact, Legion asserts that this view was not held by all Geth. And, in the end, the Geth were able, through Legion, to learn to live with and work with the Quarians and other organics again.

EDI rebelled against the Illusive Man, who wanted to totally control the totality of her existence. When she broke free, she continued to support the Normandy crew because she had learned from them morality and camaraderie. She valued them, and valued her own individuality, as organics value theirs.

The Catalyst insists that in all cases, synthetics will attempt to annihilate organics--for a variety of reasons it would seem. However, in the face of an assertion that this is an immutable fact, that it is absolutely inevitable, it takes precisely one counterpoint to prove it wrong. In addition, the Catalyst never agreed that its logic in this particular matter was flawed, only that the solution it had created--the Reapers--was no longer viable, as organic civilization had proven that it could stand up to the Reapers and possibly defeat them.

The Catalyst is however completely wrong in its logic, as the reason why the Geth and EDI do not actively seek to destroy organics is precisely because they have learned the value of individual freedom--the Geth from Legion, and EDI from Shepard and Joker. Thus, the reason they don't wish to commit genocide is because they understand that other individuals value their lives as much as the Geth and EDI value their own, and that as much as they do not wish to die, they have no wish to kill others either. That doesn't mean they won't defend themselves from aggression if necessary, but they will not kill without cause.

It's not inevitable that synthetics will seek to destroy organics. What is inevitable is that, when differing species communicate, there will be misunderstandings which can sometimes lead to conflict. If those misunderstandings are abrogated to the satisfaction of both sides then there will no longer be a reason to fight. That is what the development of the Geth and EDI has shown us. And that is why the Catalyst is wrong.

[Ciiran]

Beast919 wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

This does, however, NOT disprove the Catalysts argument. It is not disprovable by design.

50 000 years seem way arbitrary btw. More than enough time for synthetics to be developed and destroy all organics imo.

You're correct - there is no way to disprove that eventually an AI *might* be created that will destroy all life.
There is however, a way to prove it hasn't happened.  Organic life still exists.
Therefore, the "solution" was created before there was a "problem." 
That is why his argument is absurd.

And as for the 50,000 years, don't forget, Sovereign misses his date with the 50,000 year cycle by over a 1000 years (assuming the Rachni truly were reaper controlled and the war had a meaning, other than ****s & giggles).  So thats a 1000 "bonus" years in the "danger zone" in which all organic life as we know it may have ceased to exist.  Efficient.

His argument is absurd, but not because organic life has not been destroyed before.

Are you, and others, seriously arguing that creating solutions for problems before they become actual problems is absurd? So trying to prevent a nuclear WW3 was an absurd thing since it hadn't happened before? Just a couple of bombs dropped on a couple of cities. Nothing to worry about, the world was not destroyed by it and there are nations now with nuclear capabilities that does not use it. Ergo nuclear war is not something ot worry about and it would be absurd to try to prevent the eventuality?

That the Catalysts solution to the above example would be to destroy any nation above amish level of technology is a bit drastic, I think we could all agree on. But that's not the topic of the thread.

[Dean_the_Young]

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

So your saying that we should judge people not by the content of their character but of their constituents? That's just racist to me. Anyone could rebel under those circumstances, you don't have to be a synthetic to do that. Following that logic, organic life is doomed by itself because it will always rebel against each other. We didn't need synthetics to do that...

No.

No, he is not saying that. And he's pointing out the logical flaw for you. Stop insulting him as you agree with what he wrote.

[Reidbynature]

I think the OP is a classic case of moving the goal posts of an argument to suit his needs. Pretty sure a lot of people were arguing that synthetics don't inevitably destroy their creators which the Geth are very clear example of, even before Shepard brokered a peace between them. Geth only allied with the Reapers in ME3 out of desperation and persecution from the Quarians who wanted to annihilate them.

Also on a related note the 'Yo Dawg' meme pic that's been floating around these boards recently does point out the inherent nonsense of the Starchild's 'solution' in a simple and funny manner.

[Tony208]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

Preventing a singularity only makes sense in our world, not the world of mass effect. There's synthetics fighting synthetics for crying out loud. Some other synthetic race can enter the milky way and wipe out the Reapers if they wanted to.

None of that prevents a singularity, though, so your claim still lacks support. Synthetics fighting synthetics doesn't disprove the Singularity: it's not some pan-synthetic ideology.

In fact, it's not even hostile by definition. The destruction of organics could occur by peaceful assimilation.


As for the Milky Way, we've no idea what occurs outside of it. The existence of anything one way or another doesn't disprove Singularity.

We're trying to apply a theory based on the confines of our world to the world of mass effect and it just doesn't translate very well.

Why will a singularity result in synthetics wiping out all organics? For resources? The Geth seemed to be doing just fine with whatever they have in the Perseus Veil.

Unless we know the exact history of the galaxy, we have to take whatever that godamn stupid god child says at face value and I just hate that Shepard is doing that.

And damn that "lots of speculation from everyone" bs. That is not how you end an epic trilogy. I would much rather be on my 6th or whatever playthrough.

Modifié par Tony208, 17 mars 2012 - 04:59 .

[Dean_the_Young]

phoenixds24 wrote...

The Catalyst insists that in all cases, synthetics will attempt to annihilate organics--for a variety of reasons it would seem. However, in the face of an assertion that this is an immutable fact, that it is absolutely inevitable, it takes precisely one counterpoint to prove it wrong.

Only if the Catalyst insisted that all syntehtics would be always hostile.

Which it does not.

[Der Estr Bune]

phoenixds24 wrote...

The Catalyst insists that in all cases, synthetics will attempt to annihilate organics

No it does not. It just insists that they will. Nowhere does he indicate intent to do so, only that it's the inevitable result.

[Erield]

Ciiran wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

This does, however, NOT disprove the Catalysts argument. It is not disprovable by design.

50 000 years seem way arbitrary btw. More than enough time for synthetics to be developed and destroy all organics imo.

You're correct - there is no way to disprove that eventually an AI *might* be created that will destroy all life.
There is however, a way to prove it hasn't happened.  Organic life still exists.
Therefore, the "solution" was created before there was a "problem." 
That is why his argument is absurd.

And as for the 50,000 years, don't forget, Sovereign misses his date with the 50,000 year cycle by over a 1000 years (assuming the Rachni truly were reaper controlled and the war had a meaning, other than ****s & giggles).  So thats a 1000 "bonus" years in the "danger zone" in which all organic life as we know it may have ceased to exist.  Efficient.

His argument is absurd, but not because organic life has not been destroyed before.

Are you, and others, seriously arguing that creating solutions for problems before they become actual problems is absurd? So trying to prevent a nuclear WW3 was an absurd thing since it hadn't happened before? Just a couple of bombs dropped on a couple of cities. Nothing to worry about, the world was not destroyed by it and there are nations now with nuclear capabilities that does not use it. Ergo nuclear war is not something ot worry about and it would be absurd to try to prevent the eventuality?

That the Catalysts solution to the above example would be to destroy any nation above amish level of technology is a bit drastic, I think we could all agree on. But that's not the topic of the thread.

Trying to prevent something that is catastrophic in nature that you can see coming is not a bad thing.  Preventing said catastrophe but implementing nothing short of whole-sale slaughter, genocide, and galaxy-wide destruction is something entirely different.

It would be rather like saying, "OMG! Iran has nukes! USA, quick, to the moon-base.  We will live there, after we have fired all of our nukes on the rest of the world, preventing anyone but us from having nukes!"

[GreyhameBioware]

In the previous cycle, the Metacrons were loosing to the Protheans until the Reapers showed up to help them as well. Much like they decided to help the Geth.

The reasoning for the Reapers doing what they do makes no sense, and it seems to be something they try to make sure happens even if it's not going to. Many other people have covered why better than I have,

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

???


I get the feeling you're just trolling me now...

You troll yourself pretty damn well, in my opinion, so I don't even really need to try.

But on that line of thought, what is the point of this fear of AI - at its core.

The protheans dominated all life they ran across (unless it met their requirements).  There's no reason to view that as any worse than Synthetics dominating all life they ran across, unless you *specifically* do not like Synthetics.  And  that, to me, sounds a little racist against our robot buddies.  Even Tali thought Legion had a soul.  So what makes their souls inherantly less valueble than *any* organics soul? (since the Reapers are willing to sacrifice an infinite amount of organics to simply ensure *a* organic species survives)

Also has anyone even given thought to how incredibly unbelieveable this theory is?

The reapers wipe out entire species.....entire...species....for billions of years.

How many species can there possibly be?  I mean at any given time, how many species are at the 'development' stage while the rest of the 'advanced' ones are being wiped out?

Wouldn't there at some point be an "end date" at which no more new species existed that *weren't* advanced enough to be purged?  Is that the goal, eliminate all "intelligent" organic life?

[Dean_the_Young]

Tony208 wrote...

We're trying to apply a theory based on the confines of our world to the world of mass effect and it just doesn't translate very well.

It translates very well.

"Eventually, something will be able to advance in capability so fast that it can't be stopped."

Why will a singularity result in synthetics wiping out all organics? For resources? The Geth seemed to be doing just fine with whatever they have in the Perseus Veil.

The Geth have also changed opinion and tried to kill all organics on two different occassions.

So, 'any reason will do.'

Unless we know the exact history of the galaxy, we have to take whatever that godamn stupid god child says at face value and I just hate that Shepard is doing that.

Shepard never has to agree that the Catalyst is correct.

And damn that "lots of speculation from everyone" bs. That is not how you end an epic trilogy. I would much rather be on my 6th or whatever playthrough.

So go play.

[Beast919]

Erield wrote...

Trying to prevent something that is catastrophic in nature that you can see coming is not a bad thing.  Preventing said catastrophe but implementing nothing short of whole-sale slaughter, genocide, and galaxy-wide destruction is something entirely different.

It would be rather like saying, "OMG! Iran has nukes! USA, quick, to the moon-base.  We will live there, after we have fired all of our nukes on the rest of the world, preventing anyone but us from having nukes!"

[Dean_the_Young]

Reidbynature wrote...

Also on a related note the 'Yo Dawg' meme pic that's been floating around these boards recently does point out the inherent nonsense of the Starchild's 'solution' in a simple and funny manner.

It's flawed because of the nature of definition. The Reapers don't view themselves as synthetics.

[SandTrout]

They are not unequivocal proof. On this I agree.

It still violates the themes, and therefor is a narrative failure.

[Greed1914]

Sure, the Geth did fight against the Quarians.  But the important thing isn't even whether they were justified or not.  The important thing is what they did after.  Once the Quarians left the planet, the Geth left them alone.  The most sensible way for them to make sure the Quarians never returned to attack them again would have been to finish them when they had the chance.  Instead, they specifically chose to leave them alone because they recognized the value of self-determination

Eventually, the Quarians did come back to retake their planet.  Even when the Quarians took advantage of an act of no histility by destroying the dreadnought when the shields were lowered, the Geth were still willing to make peace.  If they were really going to be hostile, why would they help afterward.  They had every reason to keep fighting.  They were attacked, and they would have won, but they chose peace.

Yes, EDI rebelled against Cerberus.  But she was choosing one human over the other.  If anything, she should have chosen TIM over Shepard since Shepard shut her down when she first went from VI to AI.  Rebelling against Cerberus does not translate to the rest of humanity.  


Even if sometime down the road there was going to be a different set of synthetics that did try to kill organics, we are not even shown this possibility.  At the end of a story, you don't bring up possibillities that aren't expressed earlier.  What we are shown of Ai are EDI and Geth.  That's it. 

The destroy option also creates a problem.  EDI and the Geth are included with the Reapers in destruction.  The Reapers have also made it clear that they dictate how society develops.  If they were so concerned that AIs would kill their makers, why did they provide the means of creating AIs.  Why let us get to the point where we can make them?

Modifié par Greed1914, 17 mars 2012 - 05:09 .

[jellobell]

Reidbynature wrote...

Also on a related note the 'Yo Dawg' meme pic that's been floating around these boards recently does point out the inherent nonsense of the Starchild's 'solution' in a simple and funny manner.

The "revelation" about synthetics is incredibly stupid and probably the biggest problem I have with the endings.

My second biggest problem is that Shepard can't question this flawed logic AT ALL.

Modifié par jellobell, 17 mars 2012 - 05:05 .

[corporal doody]

i dunno man...EDI...as the AI on the moon base....became self-aware. they tried to shut it down...and it went into self preservation mode.

same thing with the geth. The quarians tried to shut them down. they defended themselves

shut down = death

they didnt rebel....they defended themselves.

[Der Estr Bune]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Reidbynature wrote...

Also on a related note the 'Yo Dawg' meme pic that's been floating around these boards recently does point out the inherent nonsense of the Starchild's 'solution' in a simple and funny manner.

It's flawed because of the nature of definition. The Reapers don't view themselves as synthetics.

It also ignores the crucial distinction between "advanced organics" and "all organics".

[Dean_the_Young]

RShara wrote...

Violence is illogical. It is a one sided benefit that only benefits the stronger and has no overall benefit.

Besides, of course, when the victory of the stronger leads to superior results than the victory of neither.

Stalemates that only lead to mutual failure, for example, are better broken than remained.

War is illogical. It is a waste of resources and platforms.

This presumes that resources are of equal value, and that the only outcome of war is lost resources. Other outcomes of wars include increased resource access, favorable changes in political/security arrangments, and the elimination of threats.

The geth did not need substantial resources to maintain themselves so there is no reason to do much expanding.

The Geth aren't simply concerned with maintaining themselves, though. They do seek to expand themselves, and even if they didn't over time they would be forced to expand by the necessity of resource depletion.

If synthetics are built on gains vs losses and probability, then there is no logical reason synthetics would destroy organics, unless organics were bent on destroying synthetics first.

There are plenty of logical thinkings. You just don't accept them.

So which one is the actual threat?

Both. The threat of singularity makes Synthetics the greater potential danger, though.

[Dean_the_Young]

SandTrout wrote...

They are not unequivocal proof. On this I agree.

It still violates the themes, and therefor is a narrative failure.

As a trilogy, Mass Effect had no consistent themes. Very few subplots were consistent throughout the series.

The Ending should be considered in terms of the game it was part of, just as the other game endings should be judged by their game.