Aller au contenu

Photo

For those confused about the Catalyst's logic


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
374 réponses à ce sujet

#1
terdferguson123

terdferguson123
  • Members
  • 520 messages
I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves it's own since so many are confused about this.

This post is going to explain why the Catalyst used the Reapers as a solution to prevent galactic extinction.
Before I continue, I want to make one thing very clear: in order to understand the logic of the Catalyst you need to think similarly to how a computer/AI would. With that said, if a computer is tasked with preventing Galactic extinction, it is going to do what is most MATHEMATICALLY probable to prevent it from happening, regardless of morals.

So, without further ado, here we go:


1.) The Catalyst explains to Shepard that it was tasked with preserving Galactic life, in order to do this it needs to destroy advanced civilizations via the Reapers before said advanced civilizations develop the means to destroy themselves and potentially destroy ALL of galactic life.

  A few points regarding number 1:

- Is it so hard to believe that organics, left to their own devices, may eventually create something that is       incredibly harmful to the galaxy? Look no further than what we as Humans have created in such a short span of time. Humans have existed on Earth for roughly 100 thousand years, we have been scientifically active for aroune 4000-5000 years, with scientific advancement speeding up rapidly in modern times. During this short span of time, we have developed the means to easily destroy ourselves (nuclear warfare), imagine what would happen if organics all over the galaxy were given the entire galactic life span to scientifically create things that may potentially harm and most definately eventually destroy all life.

- The Catalyst can easily see this self destructive behavior present in Organics (saying because Shepard united the Geth/Quarians is proof that the Catalyst is wrong is an incredibly silly argument, this is one example in a small time frame of galactic life, the galaxy has been around for close to 13 billions years)

2.) The Catalyst is a computer/AI, it only understands mathematics. The mathematics behind the probobility of organics destroying themselves eventaully is astounding, in turn, the Catalyst must do what is most mathematically efficient to prevent this from happening.

Points on number 2:

-The Catalyst sees that the most efficient way to reach it's goal is to never let advanced civilizations go long enough to allow this to happen. To do this, it uses the Reapers as a way to stop galactic extinction from happening, by destroying and harvesting advanced civilizations, this in turn gives the under-evolved life a chance to grow, until they themselves become powerful enough to create that which can destroy themselves.

3.) The catalsyst, Does. Not. Understand. Organic. Moral. Behavior. It cannot get any simpler than this. It does not believe that destroying advanced civilizations is wrong/right/moral/etc, becuase it lacks the ability to "believe" anything. It can only do what it is tasked to do, and that is prevent galactic extinction in the most mathematically efficient way that it can.

In conclusion, the Catalyst makes perfect sense with it's logic when given the perspective that it is only an AI/Computer/ or even a tool with a single purpose.

4.) Why does the Catalyst destroy the Mass Relays no matter what I choose?

     - Think of it this way: The Crucible is a backup plan in case the Reaper solution ever needs to be stopped. However, the Catalyst still must meet it's obligation to stop advanced organics from destroying all galactic life. The best way it can see to do this without the Reapers is to cut off all galactic ties via the destruction of the Mass Relays.

This thread was created specifically in reference to all those "Yo dawg we heard you don't want to be killed by synthetics" posters I see everywhere, who seem to think that the Catalyst's logic is flawed. That argument is stupid because it  ignores 2 very cruicial peices of information:

1.) The Catalyst does not think like an organic in any way
2.) The Catalyst is only destroying advanced organics as a means to prevent them from destroying themselves and ALL other galactic life.


EDIT:
This thread was not originally intent on explaining anythin but the Catalyst's ORIGINAL logic. After lots of posts stating "but why did it wake shepard up" etc. I want to make very clear, is that it is VERY possible (and what everyone should be reflecting on) that the Catalyst, upon seeing Shepard there who had united the Galaxy against the Reapers, had a moment of reflection about it's original premise possibly not being the best way. To look at it from a mathematical perspective, the variables had changed.

EDI shows us throughout the game that it is possible for an AI to change it's stance, although I don't think its very common (even Legion has one purpose, and will do anything to make it happen) This may have happened, and I think this is where the REAL speculation should be coming from.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 24 mars 2012 - 07:52 .


#2
Jamanticarius

Jamanticarius
  • Members
  • 51 messages
Well-put, OP!

#3
Kawamura

Kawamura
  • Members
  • 1 960 messages

terdferguson123 wrote...

Before I continue, I want to make one thing very clear: in order to understand the logic of the Catalyst you need to think similarly to how a computer/AI would. With that said, if a computer is tasked with preventing Galactic extinction, it is going to do what is most MATHEMATICALLY probable to prevent it from happening, regardless of morals.




Haven't finished the post, but this is problem number one to me. 

This works when a computer is not an AI, like the sort we see in ME. In ME, the AI's we come across are sentient beings. That doesn't mean that they have to be consumed with the mathematical probability of their goal without regard to morals, in the same way that a human being doesn't have to be. 

EDI is a major example of this, and I would argue that every sentien AI develops morals and makes choices regarding them in the ME universe. That might be to ignore them in favor of the goal (Renegades do the same)

Modifié par Kawamura, 24 mars 2012 - 07:06 .


#4
Sunnyhat1

Sunnyhat1
  • Members
  • 168 messages
There is just one problem...

You are assuming that the starchild is correct in that organics will always create synthetics and destroy themselfs. But this circumstance wasn't part of the original story the ME1/2 writer came up with. The reapers where supposed to find a solution for the dark energy buildup.

The starchild logic is something they seemingly came up with (or decided to go with) late in development. Of course you can argue in its defense on the premise that the initial logic is correct. That doesn't change that it wasn't part of the universe to begin with..

It is slapped on and just feels out of place.

Modifié par Sunnyhat1, 24 mars 2012 - 07:10 .


#5
Icophesis

Icophesis
  • Members
  • 458 messages
Except the machines we create have the potential to grow a conscience and not kill everything else in the galaxy, just look at the Geth. They keep to themselves and have only acted defensively.

#6
Sunnyhat1

Sunnyhat1
  • Members
  • 168 messages
*whoops wrong button*

Modifié par Sunnyhat1, 24 mars 2012 - 07:08 .


#7
demin8891

demin8891
  • Members
  • 293 messages
So, in other words, **** doesn't make sense?

Thought so. Stop defending the indefensible.

#8
cavs25

cavs25
  • Members
  • 521 messages
Ummm so why not just wipe out the evil synthetics the organics create?

#9
Jason Farkas

Jason Farkas
  • Members
  • 24 messages
Well the Catalyst didn't build itself, some type of organic life built the catalyst(or else a synthetic that really had a sense of humor). So while I can see your point that this might, MIGHT, make sense to an AI, I can't see it making any sense to the organic lifeform that would construct the reapers and the catalyst.

I can imagine the creators thoughts:
"So, some synthetics rebelled and mostly killed us. I know, I'll build synthetic flying squids to kill organic life before those organics can create synthetics that will kill them instead... wait what did I just say?"

#10
rma2110

rma2110
  • Members
  • 795 messages
But the catalyst never says that technology will destroy us. It says synthetic life will destroy its creator. Death by killer robots rather than nuclear warhead. So technology is fine as long as it's not sentient. So, why have the Geth not turned on their creators?

#11
Cosmar

Cosmar
  • Members
  • 593 messages
That's still too much speculation and not enough series-backed facts for me to swallow.

#12
Xelar1979

Xelar1979
  • Members
  • 47 messages

cavs25 wrote...

Ummm so why not just wipe out the evil synthetics the organics create?


Ding ding ding, we have a winner~

#13
terdferguson123

terdferguson123
  • Members
  • 520 messages

Icophesis wrote...

Except the machines we create have the potential to grow a conscience and not kill everything else in the galaxy, just look at the Geth. They keep to themselves and have only acted defensively.


This does not change the fact that to the Catalyst, the most mathematically proboble ending to the galaxy is through some means of organic creation. Believe me, I am not agreeing with it in anyway, it's clear that the Catalyst is the result of some kind of warped mind. But, from the perspective of just a computer with one task, it's logic makes sense. It is only doing what is the most mathematically efficient.

#14
terdferguson123

terdferguson123
  • Members
  • 520 messages

rma2110 wrote...

But the catalyst never says that technology will destroy us. It says synthetic life will destroy its creator. Death by killer robots rather than nuclear warhead. So technology is fine as long as it's not sentient. So, why have the Geth not turned on their creators?


The nuclear warfare comment I made was simply to show that technology can create horrible things with the intent of doing good. Just becuase said synthetics have not been created yet, does not mean they never will. To the catalyst, it's mathematically proboble that they will eventually create those synthetics that will destroy galactic life.

#15
Geirahod

Geirahod
  • Members
  • 531 messages
well, not even "explained" this crap makes sense...harvesting organics but leaving synthetics alive....

is just...wow, stupid.

#16
Fdmatt

Fdmatt
  • Members
  • 118 messages
And our Sheps should've had the right to refute his logic and fight the impossible, then win.Not like we've ever done that before right?

Oh wait.

#17
terdferguson123

terdferguson123
  • Members
  • 520 messages

cavs25 wrote...

Ummm so why not just wipe out the evil synthetics the organics create?


Because, given enough time, they could potentially create Synthetics more powerful than the Reapers. The best course of action that the Catalyst as a computer with no feelings for organics whatsoever, is to destroy the root of the problem before it can happen.

#18
cavs25

cavs25
  • Members
  • 521 messages

terdferguson123 wrote...

rma2110 wrote...

But the catalyst never says that technology will destroy us. It says synthetic life will destroy its creator. Death by killer robots rather than nuclear warhead. So technology is fine as long as it's not sentient. So, why have the Geth not turned on their creators?


The nuclear warfare comment I made was simply to show that technology can create horrible things with the intent of doing good. Just becuase said synthetics have not been created yet, does not mean they never will. To the catalyst, it's mathematically proboble that they will eventually create those synthetics that will destroy galactic life.


What types of mathematics is this God kid using? lol

#19
Jamanticarius

Jamanticarius
  • Members
  • 51 messages
Aww, ninja'd by the OP, lol.

Modifié par Jamanticarius, 24 mars 2012 - 07:15 .


#20
RedMike512

RedMike512
  • Members
  • 107 messages
First part of the threat is good.

You lose me in part 4. It could have just killed Shepard and let the reapers harvest as usual.

#21
Atmospeer

Atmospeer
  • Members
  • 106 messages

cavs25 wrote...

Ummm so why not just wipe out the evil synthetics the organics create?


Because organics will progress and in time can make synthetics more advanced than Reapers, how can they wipe them out then?

#22
aznsoisauce

aznsoisauce
  • Members
  • 1 402 messages

cavs25 wrote...

Ummm so why not just wipe out the evil synthetics the organics create?

This is why `Destroy' is the only option that makes sense to me...and makes me wonder why this isn't what the Reapers do every cycle instead of harvesting the advanced organics...

#23
parasite23

parasite23
  • Members
  • 12 messages
Good thoughts, but the starchild doesn't say organics will inevitably destroy themselves, it says organics will inevitably create synthetics and the created will always turn against the creators.

And his conclusion is to destroy the creators as soon as they are capable to create the created who could possible destroy them.

Why doesn't it choose the obvious solution. Destroy synthetics before they can destroy their creators?

Modifié par parasite23, 24 mars 2012 - 07:16 .


#24
daguest

daguest
  • Members
  • 670 messages
And what about the part "the creator always rebel against created" ? Following this logic, Reapers should rebel against starchild....
Anyway, they are supposed to "store" the past civilizations in reapers form. If you find a reapers looking like the past harvested civilization, the Prothean, plz call me.
Also, the Reapers shape all the civilizations evolution (Sovereign talks). So, what's the point to makes sure we follow this pattern, to harvest us latter because this path is wrong ? And as you mentioned, a true AI doesn't know what's wrong or bad, so why do he care at all ?
You can put it in any way you want, there is no logic AT ALL in the message. And coming from an AI (a 100% logical being) it sounds even more wrong.

#25
Welsh Inferno

Welsh Inferno
  • Members
  • 3 295 messages
Its pointless to destroy the relays. Life advanced enough to do it once, life WILL advance to a point where we can travel the stars the same way again one day.