200 réponses à ce sujet

[ecarden]

ashdrake1 wrote...

hudakj wrote...

The Star Child's logic is basically that we must murder or be murdered, and if we don't, synthetics will do everything they can to drive organics to extinction.

Using that logic, the Star Child fails to even acknowledge why these lengths must be taken to preserve organic life.

All but a most extremely renegade Shephard would ask questions such as "In the name of what? To preserve what? If organic life does continue to exist, what are we? Better than what we say they are? What gives us the right to live, then? What makes us worth surviving? That we are ruthless enough to strike first and the hardest?"

The Star Child could at least try to humor Shepard with a reason why synthetics must be destroyed.  Are they considered inferior?  Without souls?  Heck, Javik made more convincing arguments in favor of the destruction of synthetics.  The Star Child just dictates it as an absolute truth, with no attempt from Shepard to get it reassessed, because the ME universe has overwhelming evidence that AIs and synthetics are capable of being not only alive, but sentient enough to considered people.

It's very clear that there is no difference between the Reapers and the synthetics that they claim would destroy all organics, only worse in that they go to the absolute extreme of murdering all organic species capable of creating synthetics.

But, as we see in the game, Shepard is silenced by the Star Child's apparently infallible wisdom and does whatever the Reaper AI tells him to "end" the Reaper invasion, offering no alternative ideas of his/her own.

This is not the starchilds logic.  His logic is we will be murdered by ourselves.  To him it's a death and taxes thing.  I don't know his motives for perserving organic life in the galaxy.  That has nothing to do with my point.  Again, I am not defending the ending just the AI vs organics bit.

And your Shepard can believe it to his heart's content. Mine would have been completely sure it was bull**** and argued except...oh, right, you're allowed to believe it and I'm not allowed not to (or at least to disagree in any meaningful way).

[CaptainZaysh]

ecarden wrote...

No, I understand. I just don't agree.

You don't.  You really don't.  You haven't understood the consequences of an AI smarter than a human that sets about making itself smarter.

[AntAras11]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

AntAras11 wrote...

I admit I'm not exactly proficient with the subject of technological singularity, but judging from the quote, it is presented as a possibility, not an inevitability.

"Superhuman intelligences may have goals inconsistent with human survival and prosperity"
"so too there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind"
"When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind"

Yeah...you must admit the consequences of those maybes are rather dire.  Now consider this: if there is a non zero possibility of something occurring, given a long enough period of time the chance of it actually happening are 100%.

Let's not walk into that area. You can justify anything using that argument, it's fatalistic and can very easily get turned against itslef.

[MrCorvin]

[CaptainZaysh]

AntAras11 wrote...

Let's not walk into that area. You can justify anything using that argument, it's fatalistic and can very easily get turned against itslef.

It's just maths.  Given (a) a galactic timescale and ( self aware AI, the inevitable result is © technological singularity.

[ecarden]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

ecarden wrote...

No, I understand. I just don't agree.

You don't.  You really don't.  You haven't understood the consequences of an AI smarter than a human that sets about making itself smarter.

No. Your point is not so complicated as to escape me, or anyone else. It's stupid, pseudo-pragmatic bull****, covered in a liberal helping of condescension and nonsense, but it's not complicated. People can in fact understand and still disagree. I assume you understood my point, but still disagreed. The fact that you're unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me is insulting and makes discussion pointless.

I'm done engaging at this point.

Have a nice day.

[mauro2222]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

AntAras11 wrote...

Let's not walk into that area. You can justify anything using that argument, it's fatalistic and can very easily get turned against itslef.

It's just maths.  Given (a) a galactic timescale and ( self aware AI, the inevitable result is © technological singularity.

Wow, assumptions are facts now? Interesting, you have a crystal ball or something?

Nice maths dude.

1+1 must be 3 because some time in the future, taking in mind the speed of light and the reducing mass of the number, 3 becomes 2, and 2 becomes 3... so 3=2 and 2=3. Kill the geth!

Modifié par mauro2222, 20 mars 2012 - 04:48 .

[AntAras11]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

AntAras11 wrote...

Let's not walk into that area. You can justify anything using that argument, it's fatalistic and can very easily get turned against itslef.

It's just maths.  Given (a) a galactic timescale and ( self aware AI, the inevitable result is © technological singularity.

All i'm saying is if that was the starchild's thought process, then:
(a) galactic timescale ( chance of the Reapers failing > 0%, © technological singularity.

All they would have achieved is  killing trillions of people, possibly reducing the number of organic creatures that would have ever existed.

And the cycle goes on and on. That's why I advise against using that argument.

[Ashilana]

Please report this thread folks.  It should be in a different section since it is full of spoilers.

[Confused-Shepard]

MrCorvin wrote...

Now that should be the underlying theme in Mass Effect. Not some cliche HURR! MACHINES WILL KILL US ALL! 
In fact part from the Geth, who were somehwat abused by the Quarians, we never had any true AI just walking around. We had exceptions like the Quasar AI but that might as well have been the scared rabbit of AI's 

[Han Shot First]

What if the motivations of the Reapers were different, and the God child instead was wiping out organics because of our inability for peaceful coexist with other organics or synthetics? What if it had mentioned the Rachni Wars, the Krogan Rebellions, the First Contact War, and the Skyllian Blitz? What if it had mentioned the countless wars humans fought against each other over land or resources, or because of political ideology, and used them as justification for our annihilation? What if the God Child had instead, argued that humanity needed to be eradicated because it was a species that created the Holocaust and used atomic weapons against cities?

Would you have just said, "Ok, fair enough. Commence to wiping us out."

The God Child's logic is flawed.

[DeeBeeP]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

AntAras11 wrote...

Let's not walk into that area. You can justify anything using that argument, it's fatalistic and can very easily get turned against itslef.

It's just maths.  Given (a) a galactic timescale and ( self aware AI, the inevitable result is © technological singularity.

Your argument is based on deterministic aristotelian logic, if you have the time I recommend asking a philosopher about why it hasn't been used in 2500 years and you might realise that "It's just maths." is by definition incorrect. If you don't believe me then feel free to google it and you'll see that algebraic(Predicate) logic is the kind your trying to claim you are using.

Term logic is a completely hypothetical method of thinking. A great example is:

The first discovery of formal logic in Ancient Greece - the so-called Sophists -were rather like traveling magicians or first-rate circus performers of our days. You paid your admission and watched the "artist" perform his tricks. He would, for instance, single out a man from the audience and address him as follows, "You admit, sir, that you have that which you have not lost? The innocent answer was, "Of course.""Then, my friend," the Sophist blandly continued, "as you never lost a tail, you must have a tail." The performer might select a woman known to be a shrew and ask her, "Madam, have you stopped beating your husband? Answer ´yes´ or ´no!´ " This proved an embarrassing alternative. Among those laughing at the befuddled woman was a man with a dog. The Sophist turned to him and inquired, "Is this your dog?""Yes." "I see it is a female dog. Has she had puppies? "The proud owner of the dog affirmed it. Diabolically the Sophist concluded, "This dog has two properties. First, it is your dog, and second it is mother. Let's add up the predicates: this dog is your mother."    

Aristotle's own example of term logic:

All men are mortals
All socrates are men
All socrates are mortals

Your argument in aristotelian form:

All synthetics kill organics
All organics create synthetics
All organics (should) kill synthetics 

The fundamental assumption behind the theory is that propositions are composed of two terms – hence the name "two-term theory" or "term logic" – and that the reasoning process is in turn built from propositions:The term is a part of speech representing something, but which is not true or false in its own right, such as "man" or "mortal".The proposition consists of two terms, in which one term (the "predicate") is "affirmed" or "denied" of the other (the "subject"), and which is capable of truthor falsity.The syllogism is an interference in which one proposition (the "conclusion") follows of necessity from two others (the "premises").

If it was not for Gottlob Frege's distinction between concept and object then we would never have algebraic logic today since Frege finally broke from the fundamentally flawed idea that every proposition must consist of two general terms joined by "is". Do not ask me to clarify on the genius of Gottlob Frege since I am a history and not a mathematics major but I tell you that without men like him then everyone in this thread, not just you, would still be arguing like 2500 year old philosophers. I do thank you for finally giving me an opportunity to divulge something I learned in my history of science class from oh-so many years ago, and to wikipedia so that I didn't have to type as much. :3

Modifié par DeeBeeP, 20 mars 2012 - 07:08 .

[DeeBeeP]

Am I late or did I just kill the whole thread? 

Modifié par DeeBeeP, 20 mars 2012 - 05:46 .

[AntAras11]

Nah, you didn't kill the thread, it's just that this forum moves too fast. I enjoyed your post, good read.
This thread has potential but I agree with Ashilana, it should be locked up because of spoilers, i was going through both the spoiler-free and spoiler forums and didn't notice..

[DeeBeeP]

As far as the "mathematics" that anything will happen given an infinite amount of time, I strongly suggest reading up on the Copenhagen interpretation and more importantly Schrödinger's cat.

A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks. 

In a nutshell, unless you directly observe whether the cat in the box is either alive or dead then the cat is neither. The same applies to the "logic" that eventually synthetics will wipe out all organics, synthetics will neither destroy nor will they not destroy all organics in the galaxy until they are observed doing one and/or the other.

Modifié par DeeBeeP, 20 mars 2012 - 07:10 .

[Faridle]

Its not even resolving an problem by harvesting civilizations and making Reapers out of them, its just pushing away that it sees as inevetable. And also by exterminating civilizations and species it takes control away from natures hand which we humans know can have rather disasterous outcomes.

Also how did it reach this assumption that syntethics will destroy organics no matter what unless it was the syntethic that did it in the first place.

Here is an theory: Before the Reapers millions of years ago an now extinct race created syntethics and this AI who later went rogue and destroyed all organics down to an certain level and made use of the biologic mass that once was organics into the fusion we know as Reapers. And made an universal rule on what itself had observed. "Our creator created us, we destroyed them, therefore all syntethics will eventually distroy all organics. Solution would be destroying and harvesting organics before syntethics destroy organics, and also let lesser developed species evolve to be harvested later"
From what I can see and understand it seems like starchild dosent grasp the concept of paradox or ethics for that matter. Its intervining in nature and fate two powers beyond any comprehension. Its making the same misstake it seems so hellbent on averting by trying to arteficially hold up an cycle of evolution. So maybe Shepard is fate and nature answer saying "This has gone on to long party is over".

Ironic that Reapers always defend themself with "its too big for your comprehension" when they themself cant comprehend nature, and dismisses it as chaos, without realising there is order in chaos too.

(edit found an better example) Jurrasic park all dinosaurs are female so that no eggs can be fertalised by males, nature intervenes and dinosaurs are born. Famous quote from 
Dr. Ian Malcolm  (Jeff Goldblum) "Nature finds an way"

Modifié par Faridle, 20 mars 2012 - 07:42 .

[DeeBeeP]

Faridle wrote...


Also how did it reach this assumption that syntethics will destroy organics no matter what unless it was the syntethic that did it in the first place.

The fact that there is any organic life at all is evidence that synthetics never erradicated all organic life which contradicts the Catalyst's logic which is based on (in ME3's case) 3500 year-old human philosophy that has been considered fundamentally flawed for thousands of years. The Catalyst's argument is a false dichotomy in and of itself, its an arbitrarily oversimplified continuum of variation into only two black and white choices.

All created rebel against their creators
All synthetics erradicate all organics

Not only is half of the Catalyst's argument based on flawed logic but both points, are flawed (see Schrödingers cat in prior post) based on thousands of years of humanity's own reasoning.

Modifié par DeeBeeP, 20 mars 2012 - 01:26 .

[jvara]

You sir are not just completely wrong on your assertion but also on your morals, this thread shouldn't even be here, you're spoiling tghe game for a lot of people in a no spoiler area, you should be banned right away.

[thelovebat]

Because even the horrible ending with the Starchild wasn't Bioware's idea in the first place.

[Anareth]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Trusting seomeone speaking about the future is being determinist, yet only a few people are determinist, so why Shepard should? So no, it's not a lie.

It's not determinism, just mathematics.

If there's a non-zero possibility of something occurring (superevolved synthetics wipe out organics) and an infinite amount of time to play out in, it eventually will happen.  Our descendants will be wiped out by superevolved synthetics, and this time there will be no Reapers to step in and reset the clock.

The geth collective does not have the military or industrial capacity to threaten
the council races. They have less military firepower than the turians, alone.
Also, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Synthetics develop new technology
faster than organics.

Modifié par Anareth, 20 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[InvincibleHero]

People take a leap of logic believing the "true geth" never killed anyone once they went behind the veil. Sovereign did not intervene 300+ years ago, but more recently so any deaths which codex states were done in all the time up till now were at the hands of true geth until sov came into the picture. Why are people so quick to absolve them of any wrongdoing and believe everything Legion says as gospel? Believing such a fanciful retcon when it suits them yet hating ona an ending they don't like.

Also legion admits the geth uses weapons of mass destruction nuclear (or city wrecking bombs of more power) and biologicals which destroyed the quarians and Rannoch. Yet they were innocent and only defending themselves. If they did it once they can do it again. Logic dictates to them if they feel threatened eliminate threat period by quickest and most efficient means.

[schweiz]

yes, peace can be brokered. the entire races of the geth and quarians are working together, some geth are even in the quarian's \\suits helping them adapt back to rannoch. and think about the VIs/AIs that have gone rogue, one was a COMBAT vi that suddenly gained intelligence in battle, what else was it going to do? and the rogue AI, Overlord, was forced to come to existence when it didn't want to. therefore yes, peace can and has been brokered

[InvincibleHero]

Anareth wrote...

The geth collective does not have the military or industrial capacity to threaten
the council races. They have less military firepower than the turians, alone.
Also, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Synthetics develop new technology
faster than organics.

They can ramp up production and replicate faster than krogan and have fewer physical needs than organics. Krogans threatened all so they were neutered so what can you do to geth either control them or kill them. It would come down to it. So what happens in your geth peace if they destroy a ship they felt was in their self-defense rights how do you sanction them? After all legion says all are geth so they act as one. There is no way peace lasts unless the geth travel millions of light years away intentionally taking themselves out of the picture.

[Anareth]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Anareth wrote...

The geth collective does not have the military or industrial capacity to threaten
the council races. They have less military firepower than the turians, alone.
Also, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Synthetics develop new technology
faster than organics.

They can ramp up production and replicate faster than krogan and have fewer physical needs than organics. Krogans threatened all so they were neutered so what can you do to geth either control them or kill them. It would come down to it. So what happens in your geth peace if they destroy a ship they felt was in their self-defense rights how do you sanction them? After all legion says all are geth so they act as one. There is no way peace lasts unless the geth travel millions of light years away intentionally taking themselves out of the picture.

Again, no empirical evedence to support this. At the high of their military buildup, when they expected an immenent invasion by the reapers they had less firepower than the Turians. I see no reason to believe they would be capible of a significantly higher sustained strenght postwar.

[Arkitekt]

OP you are fundamentally and 100% correct.