228 réponses à ce sujet

[YNation913]

Very interesting, Ieldra. I actually always thought that synthetics would be capable of empathy without synthesis and that the main organic quality they acquire through synthesis is a lifespan. After all, intelligence is a characteristic that doesn't exist in all life forms; in my view, for something to be considered truely alive it has to have a lifespan.

Based on this, I've always thought synthesis effectively neuters the Reapers; their entire existence, even their method of reproduction was designed around the cycle of harvesting. Without that cycle, the Reapers have no purpose and lack the ability to function. When the ways in which an organism functions are not supported by the organism's environment, the organism eventually dies out.

[Catastrophy]

Artificial intelligence has always been a great theme in Science Fiction.
I was very touched by the depiction of the early Geth when they adressed their creators.

The Geth possess an unique set of mind because they know about their creation and overcame their creators. There is no belief.

Now, I also wondered how synthesis might look and we were unfortunately not given enough clues to visualise what the writers might have had in mind.
Is it the "husk"? Better datalinks to all brains? Every sentient becoming encased in a black box interconnected to all the others?
What are the good things of organic life to preserve? Altruism? Curiousness? Love? The limited analytical capabilities that lead to improvisation?
I named no physical characteristics and I think they are negligible. Geth use appropriate platforms as do organics (machines, drones). I think it's rather the set of mind that is the target of synthesis.
Note how EDI likes to develop herself once she decides to impersonate itself in an avatar. And how the crew seems to gradually accept EDI as a member.
Note how Legion develops apparently a personality - the platform refers to itself as "I" in the end.

But their evolution is mainly viewed from a human perspective: the gain of more individuality. What about the other direction and eliminating individuality? Is building a consensus bad? Wouldn't it be better to enforce consensus on everymind to improve society? Or maybe we all should have the choice between consensus and individuality and always change it to our liking?

[Ieldra]

@YNation:
Hmm...synthetics are functionally immortal if the hardware is properly maintained, so what would they have to gain in that regard?

Also I think there was never a reproductive urge in the Reapers. As the Catalyst says, Reaperizing species was to preserve something of them. The Reapers are basically living museums, but immortal. They don't need the cycle to function, the cycle needs them to function. Once the cycle is abolished, there is no reason why they shouldn't find another purpose.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 03:15 .

[Catastrophy]

Oh and about the Reapers: I suppose synthesis will most likely substitute the flawed Reaper logic of addressing Synthetic-Organic tensions with more advanced problem solving strategies. Linking them into a multi-billion-mind consensus network should severely teach them a lesson even Shepard could never achieve.

[Catastrophy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@YNation:
Hmm...synthetics are functionally immortal if the hardware is properly maintained, so what would they have to gain in that regard?

Also I think there was never a reproductive urge in the Reapers. As the Catalyst says, Reaperizing species was to preserve something of them. The Reapers are basically living museums, but immortal. They don't need the cycle to function, the cycle needs them to function. Once the cycle is abolished, there is no reason why they shouldn't find another purpose.

Indeed, what would even be a reason for a synthetic to pro-create? Is there any logic to do so, beside to have a backup?

[Ieldra]

dr_random wrote...
I think it's rather the set of mind that is the target of synthesis.

Changing mindsets by fiat would be a huge moral problem. I do not think that would be justifiable. Not for organics anyway. With synthetics it might be, based on Legion's reaction to the Heretic rewrite.

Note how EDI likes to develop herself once she decides to impersonate itself in an avatar. And how the crew seems to gradually accept EDI as a member.
Note how Legion develops apparently a personality - the platform refers to itself as "I" in the end.

Yes, but they make that choice themselves. And it's based on Reaper code/hardware.

But their evolution is mainly viewed from a human perspective: the gain of more individuality. What about the other direction and eliminating individuality? Is building a consensus bad? Wouldn't it be better to enforce consensus on everymind to improve society? Or maybe we all should have the choice between consensus and individuality and always change it to our liking?

In the end I think something like the consensus will emerge naturally from a society where people have a universal networking ability. But I wouldn't have that be forced on people. The Synthesis should only provide the mechanisms of its creation, with individuals becoming convinced by its advantages over time. I would also posit that this does not necessarily de-individualize anyone on a permanent basis. You could, so to speak, "dive" into the consensus temporarily for various purposes.

[Ieldra]

dr_random wrote...
Oh and about the Reapers: I suppose synthesis will most likely substitute the flawed Reaper logic of addressing Synthetic-Organic tensions with more advanced problem solving strategies. Linking them into a multi-billion-mind consensus network should severely teach them a lesson even Shepard could never achieve.

That's an interesting thought. I was thinking though, that it was the Catalyst's logic that dominated the Reapers as long as they were controlled by it, and that, once set free by the Synthesis, they would indeed be able to put their considerable intelligence to other uses. But being the "essence" (which I interpret as the gestalt mind of all individuals) of harvested species, I'd think they'd have some empathy towards those who just escaped their fate and wouldn't need to be "taught a lesson". That's the basis of Siduri's Synthesis scenario where Reapers help rebuilding relays.

[ArchDuck]

@Ieldra2 Fair enough. I'm working from a "most likely with out injecting additional parts into it" situation and you are working from a "best case scenerio" situation. No fault in that.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, the Catalyst uses a teleological concept of evolution, which is stupid. But the meaning is quite clear - the idea is that the merge gives you more understanding and control over your environment and yourself. Or how else would *you* understand "taking a step forward in evolution". From a metagaming viewpoint, I cannot assume that the Catalyst misleads me in this, since this would mean I have no information at all left to make a decision. I might as well just press a random button in that case. Which is why it is so important that the Extended Cut explains these things better.

I would argue that you shouldn't make logic leaps for an argument/creature that has been unable to show that it can make them on its own, ever.

I don't think that the Catalyst ever truly meant that the merge gives you more understanding and control over your environment and yourself. I really read it as being what the Catalyst believed evolution should look like. It appears to me that he simply wants to mold everything in the Reaper image whether its better for them or not.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 16 avril 2012 - 04:04 .

[YNation913]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@YNation:
Hmm...synthetics are functionally immortal if the hardware is properly maintained, so what would they have to gain in that regard?

Also I think there was never a reproductive urge in the Reapers. As the Catalyst says, Reaperizing species was to preserve something of them. The Reapers are basically living museums, but immortal. They don't need the cycle to function, the cycle needs them to function. Once the cycle is abolished, there is no reason why they shouldn't find another purpose.

To me, the defining characteristic of organic life as opposed to synthetic life is that it's bound by time. Part of our empathy as organics, our ability to love and grieve, to show compassion, fear and hatred, is developed as a result of having to deal with our own mortality. Remember when Liara questioned whether it was truely a gift that asari had such long lifespans. Now imagine being an immortal synthetic that develops the ability to have these emotions. If such an organism was capable of forming genuine attachments like this, it would lead a miserable existence of constant loss and time would cease to have meaning for it.

Our accomplishments in life carry meaning because we view them in the context of the time we are alloted. Without this context, time becomes meaningless and our purpose in life would be vastly different, so for organic qualities to remain intact after the synthesis, the new forms of life would need lifespans.

[DJBare]

Immortal: eventually you will have done everything, seen everything, experienced everything, then what?

Sounds more like a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

[Catastrophy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's an interesting thought. I was thinking though, that it was the Catalyst's logic that dominated the Reapers as long as they were controlled by it, and that, once set free by the Synthesis, they would indeed be able to put their considerable intelligence to other uses. But being the "essence" (which I interpret as the gestalt mind of all individuals) of harvested species, I'd think they'd have some empathy towards those who just escaped their fate and wouldn't need to be "taught a lesson". That's the basis of Siduri's Synthesis scenario where Reapers help rebuilding relays.

Whee, that teaches me a lesson for fabulating some ideas. I never thought much about the catalyst in my ideas and mostly set catalyst=reaper logic.
If the reapers continue their gruesome task cycle for cycle just obeying a higher authority (catalyst) they can't be highly developped.
Wouldn't advanced logics lead to self reflection? What is the point of destroying advanced civilizations over and over again? Did they at least "reap" some benefit?
Reapers seem to habe a mind but it looks as if it was enslaved to flawed logic.

[YNation913]

DJBare wrote...

Immortal: eventually you will have done everything, seen everything, experienced everything, then what?

Sounds more like a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

Yep.

[Ieldra]

YNation913 wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Immortal: eventually you will have done everything, seen everything, experienced everything, then what?

Sounds more like a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

Yep.

It's always amusing to see how successful cultural conditioning is with turning an insult of fate into a virtue.

(1) This argument presumes that the nature of life is cyclical. it doesn't account for growth, for new challenges beyond the ken of what you were yesterday etc..
(2) Being functionally immortal means you cannot die from old age. You can still kill yourself if you're tired of existence.

[YNation913]

Ieldra2 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Immortal: eventually you will have done everything, seen everything, experienced everything, then what?

Sounds more like a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

Yep.

It's always amusing to see how successful cultural conditioning is with turning an insult of fate into a virtue.

(1) This argument presumes that the nature of life is cyclical. it doesn't account for growth, for new challenges beyond the ken of what you were yesterday etc..
(2) Being functionally immortal means you cannot die from old age. You can still kill yourself if you're tired of existence.

Well regardless, given what the Stargazer says about the details being lost to time at the end, it's probable that nobody from the Normandy is around in that era.

[Ieldra]

YNation913 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@YNation:
Hmm...synthetics are functionally immortal if the hardware is properly maintained, so what would they have to gain in that regard?

Also I think there was never a reproductive urge in the Reapers. As the Catalyst says, Reaperizing species was to preserve something of them. The Reapers are basically living museums, but immortal. They don't need the cycle to function, the cycle needs them to function. Once the cycle is abolished, there is no reason why they shouldn't find another purpose.

To me, the defining characteristic of organic life as opposed to synthetic life is that it's bound by time. Part of our empathy as organics, our ability to love and grieve, to show compassion, fear and hatred, is developed as a result of having to deal with our own mortality. Remember when Liara questioned whether it was truely a gift that asari had such long lifespans. Now imagine being an immortal synthetic that develops the ability to have these emotions. If such an organism was capable of forming genuine attachments like this, it would lead a miserable existence of constant loss and time would cease to have meaning for it.

Our accomplishments in life carry meaning because we view them in the context of the time we are alloted. Without this context, time becomes meaningless and our purpose in life would be vastly different, so for organic qualities to remain intact after the synthesis, the new forms of life would need lifespans.

Your lifespan can be measured against what you can experience, and can be fulfilling regardless of its length, as long as you still have the capability to grow and overcome limitations, to experience new things. As for loss, love and grief are not eternal. They fade away over time. And why do you think loss would leave a more permanent mark on you than more positive experiences. 

Also, your "definition" of an organic is flawed, for it is perfectly possible for an organic (a naturally evolved organsim) to have functional immortality (there are certain species of worms who don't die). I concede that the mind of someone with who has lived for ten thousand years will be different from one who has lives for two hundred, but I would be curious to experience such a life. How can I ever know how I would be affected if I never give it the chance? I think the idea that "relative immortality is a curse" is a myth, one that exists to reconcile us with our mortality. I do not buy it for a second. As I said, cultural conditioning. I would attempt to rise to the challenge if I had the opportunity.

[DJBare]

Ieldra2 wrote...
(2) Being functionally immortal means you cannot die from old age. You can still kill yourself if you're tired of existence.

I can think of at least 75% of the worlds population who would have a problem with that kind of exit, not to mention those who would suffer apathy for a long time before becoming desperate enough.

[Ieldra]

DJBare wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
(2) Being functionally immortal means you cannot die from old age. You can still kill yourself if you're tired of existence.

I can think of at least 75% of the worlds population who would have a problem with that kind of exit, not to mention those who would suffer apathy for a long time before becoming desperate enough.

I think the attitude of those 75% would become obsolete rather fast if we were relatively immortal. Also yet another element of cultural conditioning is the myth that you need to be desperate. Perhaps that it's so if you have a short life, but consider Chakwas' attitude. "I've had a full life. No regrets". I'd say if you can say that, it's almost as easy to leave life on your own than to merely succumb to death, whether it is after a hundred, a thousand or a million years. 

All theory, of course, we won't know unless we get the chance. But would you reject that chance on a mere suspicion?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 05:24 .

[Silpheed58]

The biggest problem with Synthesis is it is space magic. AI is essentially software, how do you merge biological DNA with software? The argument can be made for cyborgs, but then you go into DOOM territory, lol!

[Ieldra]

Silpheed58 wrote...
The biggest problem with Synthesis is it is space magic. AI is essentially software, how do you merge biological DNA with software? The argument can be made for cyborgs, but then you go into DOOM territory, lol!

I have already discounted the notion of "synthetics with DNA". As for the rest of the space magic, that's trivial compared to FTL.

Also, an organic's mind can probably be converted to software. That creates interesting possibilities that have been explored in SF for some time now.

[Quietness]

DJBare wrote...

Immortal: eventually you will have done everything, seen everything, experienced everything, then what?

Sounds more like a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

What doesnt everyone cultural homogenization and stagnation?

Assuming reproduction is possible than overpopulation. Or are we cool with euthanasia to prevent that from happening?

Old Diseases coming back and now also being partially synthetic (enjoy your treatments/vaccinations while you had them).

Yea Synthesis sounds like a massive bucket of fun.

Modifié par Quietness, 16 avril 2012 - 05:27 .

[Silpheed58]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

[quote]Silpheed58 wrote...
As for the rest of the space magic, that's trivial compared to FTL.

Also, an organic's mind can probably be converted to software. That creates interesting possibilities that have been explored in SF for some time now.


[/quote]

So has FTL, BSG comes to mind.

[streamlock]

Who knows-But I can see this one coming....

On Mass Effect: The Next Generation

Interveiwer: So for those of us that imported a save game and picked the synthesis ending, will every tree, shrug, insect, small animal, and character have those green geometric traces on them?

Bioware dev: Uh......uhm......er......no.

Interviewer: Why not?

Bioware dev: Uh......yeah. Well....you see those green traces were actually.....stuff, and uh...

Interviewer: So, what your saying is that EA won't pony up the cash for the art department to render everything with green squares on it.

Bioware dev: We didn't say that.......It's uh, better integrated. Yeah that's it, over time the organic/synthetic blend got better, and now everyone looks human again. The green stuff is still there, just under the skin and stuff.

(Fans go nuts on forums)

Interviewer: Artistic integrity then?

Bioware dev: Yeah, that's it!

[Ieldra]

Quietness wrote...

DJBare wrote...
Immortal: eventually you will have done everything, seen everything, experienced everything, then what?

Sounds more like a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

What doesnt everyone cultural homogenization and stagnation?

Assuming reproduction is possible than overpopulation. Or are we cool with euthanasia to prevent that from happening?

Old Diseases coming back and now also being partially synthetic (enjoy your treatments/vaccinations while you had them).

Yea Synthesis sounds like a massive bucket of fun.

I have no idea where people get all these negative associations. Shepard is immune to most poisons, Miranda has a stronger immune system. Where was that EVER shown to have bad side effects? Where do you get the idea that there will be cultural stagnation? That's a baseless assumption.

I would ask all those Synthesis detractors who use other arguments than "change without consent is ethically problematic" to examine why they WANT the Synthesis to be something bad.

Besides, we were discussing relative immortality as a possible attribute of synthetics. It isn't a necessary part of my Synthesis scenario. Perhaps we should leave that topic for another thread.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 05:39 .

[Bio Addict]

I just wanted to thank the OP for posting something intelligent and thoughtful about the Synthesis ending. People seem to be targeting it out of shear rage at the conclusion of the games because Bioware seems to have elevated it to "best ending," if there is such a thing, because it was hardest to get. I'm sure once the extended cut DLC arrives we'll learn a lot more about what Synthesis really means for the ME galaxy and we can finally put this "OMG you're turning everyone into husk!!11" nonsense to rest.

[Quietness]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Quietness wrote...

DJBare wrote...
Immortal: eventually you will have done everything, seen everything, experienced everything, then what?

Sounds more like a nightmare scenario in my opinion.

What doesnt everyone cultural homogenization and stagnation?

Assuming reproduction is possible than overpopulation. Or are we cool with euthanasia to prevent that from happening?

Old Diseases coming back and now also being partially synthetic (enjoy your treatments/vaccinations while you had them).

Yea Synthesis sounds like a massive bucket of fun.

I have no idea where people get all these negative associations. Shepard is immune to most poisons, Miranda has a stronger immune system. Where was that EVER shown to have bad side effects? Where do you get the idea that there will be cultural stagnation? That's a baseless assumption.

I would ask all those Synthesis detractors who use other arguments than "change without consent is ethically problematic" to examine why they WANT the Synthesis to be something bad.

Besides, we were discussing relative immortality as a possible attribute of synthetics. It isn't a necessary part of my Synthesis scenario. Perhaps we should leave that topic for another thread.

Here is the issue with the "Stronger Immune System" and "Immune to Poison" they are all currently organic. After synthesis they are all Partially Synthetic. Vaccinations are no longer going to work, and Miranda was built genetically based upon how diseases work pre-synthetic. 

I dont want Synthesis to be a bad thing , it simply is due to the repercussions of changing ALL organic life. Ecosystems have trouble adapting to a single change from a foreign species and it takes a long time for them to recover. Now you have changed all species inside of the Ecosystems. Vaccinations against viruses work due to the organic structure, they no longer will. People talk about Immortality like its an amazing thing, but if you are able to procreate (thus continuing to expand the never dying population), at which point do you start taking away personal choice on when someone's life comes to an end as to not strain resources.


You wish to talk about the Synthesis ending only using your head cannon basically is what you have just said, and any points of view stating why its wrong beyond a simple choice of moral structure is invalid.