228 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@Sonashi:
I have always maintained that all endings are "good" endings (as far as any ending is good) and that preferences depend on interpretation and perspective. My goal with this thread was to counter the baseless assumptions that Synthesis is "horrible", "evil", "what the Reapers want", "destroying free will", "destroying diversity", "turning everyone into husks", "bad because Saren thought well of a similar thing" etc., etc.. I believe I have achieved that.

As for Destroy, I think it is in the spirit of that ending that it destroys the synthetics. As I see it, Destroy is the pro-organics choice, where Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect and if he survives, continues to live as a normal human. Control is the pro-synthetics choice, where Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect to become an AI god, and organics continue to live under his guardianship as he assumes the place of the Catalyst and becomes almost literally the "shepherd of the galaxy". Synthesis makes peace by removing the casus belli, so to speak, at the prince of an ethically problematic decision which you may or may not see as justified in the light of the projected consequences. It does require a consequentialist morality to some extent, with which I have no problem at all. I have made this thread specifically to create a scenario which is least objectionable in that regard. The forced physical change remains, but it is invisible and using the synthetic symbionts is any individual's choice.

As for your questions (2) and (3): the obvious conclusion is that Shepard's synthetic parts are not necessary for survival, either because his organic body has healed more since Lazarus, or because they were always necessary for optimal physical functionality but not survival as such. Shepard's synthetics are more extensive than those of human biotics, though, and I doubt anyone else could serve as a "model" for the Synthesis. Miranda has no synthetic enhancements other than a biotic implant. Her other enhancements are purely organic.

Your other questions are outside the scope of this thread.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 02:33 .

[Mobius-Silent]

The problem with "Synthesis" is that the terms used are _horribly_ vague which make discussion fraught with misunderstanding

Here are the literal meanings:
Organic: Carbon based chemistry (with specific exclusions)
Synthesis: The combination of two or more parts, whether by design or by natural processes. Furthermore, it may imply being prepared or made artificially, in contrast to naturally.
Synthetic: The result of Synthesis.

The problem here is that non of these literal terms are useful as the Catalyst's argument seem to be regarding "the created" and "the creator". Assuming that there is no overlap between the categories of created and creator we can assume that the created are what the ME setting calls "synthetics" and the creators are everything that is not synthetic and capable of acts of creation, which boils down to all forms of evolved life. Hence the supposed conflict could be re-described as:

"The evolved" vs "the created"

Which I think are much better terms.
The beings proposed by the "Synthesis" ending should by definition be "Synthetics" as they are created by the combination of two parts, however then we are mixing two different definitions of "Synthetic" So lets call the green ending "Hybridisation" and the result and being "Hybrids" that is "A hybrid of evolved and created life"

So what does hybridisation gain us? Well the assumption is that improvement due to creation will eventually outpace improvement due to evolution. However the counterargument is that evolution is more robust at causing viable life that solves out-of-context problems (eventually and a great cost) We can hope that a hybrid would have both the strengths of these two approaches (somehow).

Given that all evolved life we saw in the epilogue featured the green visual indicating it was also based on the new "hybrid" framework we can assume that it is very low level. EDI also featured the same visual, but the Normandy chassis did not.From this we can assume that the crucible probably changed any structure it considered "life" (All recorded natural forms and all technical systems capable of sapience) but other than the visual "green line" indicators everything seemed to retain it's current shape and function.

Hence the new framework must be deeply mutable but also common in a number of ways. What does this sound like? Well it sounds like the bio-metallic paste that the reapers break down races into. Given that it seems to retain conciousness, memory and the "genetic memory" (whatever that is, but Javik abilities seem to suggest it's a real thing in the ME universe) I'd suggest that this is simply a step-up from the same technology that reapers use to create themselves.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 30 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[Ariq]

So, let me get this straight: you argue that if we ignore everything that the Catalyst says, pretend like the end cinematic doesn't show circuit boards on Joker's hat, combine that with a tortured reading of Christian motifs, then merge it all with a poor reading of Hegel, then Synthesis makes sense. Um. Ok. Sure.

I mean, if we throw it out everything the writers showed and told us, the core concept isn't that bad. It was all in the flawed execution. That could work. It's sort of like saying that if Twilight had been written by a different author, it might have ended up being called Dracula.

Unfortunately, the description of the Synthesis by the Catalyst makes no sense.

You know, I think if you add a period there, it really sums everything up nicely.

[Ieldra]

@Mobius-Silent:
Interesting thoughts, and compatible with what I wrote in the OP. The new "framework" must retain organics' ability to evolve in response to environmental changes but also include synthetics' ability to self-improve.

But it can't be a unifying framework on the low physical level the imagery of the synthesis suggests. If we use Javik's statements and our own intuitive definitions of organic and synthetic, we get:

(1) Synthetics are aware of their purpose, organics are not.
(2) Synthetics know their creators as "flawed"
(3) Synthetics are immortal unless killed, organics are not.
(4) Synthetics are constructed, organics are grown (see developmental biology for what this is about)
(4a) As a result of (4), synthetics can self-improve. Organics cannot, since their eventual shape is coded in their DNA and any fundamental changes will affect only the next generation).
(5) Organics are carbon-based life forms, synthetics....something different.

Here's the thing: (1) and (3) are no defining differences. It's quite possible for an organic to be immortal (there exist species of worms which are). It's quite possible for an organic to be designed at the genetic level for a specific purpose, know of that purpose, and know her creator and know that they're "flawed". Just ask Miranda.

As for (5): we have already shown that differences in basic biochemistry need not lead to mutual extinction. If that was "the problem", Synthesis would be totally superfluous.

Which leaves (4) as *the* fundamental difference (which I've also used in my OP). Only this is a "digital" difference. You are either constructed or grown, there is no "in-between". Thus, there cannot be a unifying framework for them in a way that prevents either side to manifest in its pure form again. You can only have a mix of the two, individuals part-organic and part-synthetic. Never individuals "something between organic and synthetic" on the lower physical level the synthesis imagery implies. This "mix" is what I used for my scenario.